Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Such is the fundie syndrome from worship at the altar of Harun Yahya.

No, right from the evolutionist propaganda book.

Your comment is not surprising considering both your revulsion for science and your lack of science training.

What science training do you have?

 

[Hollie]

No, right from the evolutionist propaganda book.

Your comment is not surprising considering both your revulsion for science and your lack of science training.

What science training do you have?

Freshwater: The big guns come out - The Panda's Thumb

The big guns are out in the Freshwater appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. A slew of briefs–including the Board of Education’s merit brief and amicus briefs from the National Center for Science Education, the Dennis family, Americans United for Separation of Church and State with the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Humanist Association with the Secular Student Alliance, along with requests for permission for attorneys to appear representing several of those organizations–were filed yesterday with the Court.
It will take me a while to read all the material, but below the fold I’ll mention a few highlights from a fast first reading.

1. The Board of Education’s merit brief argues its case to deny Freshwater’s appeal. It begins its Statement of Facts with the basic argument of the Board:
Freshwater is not a private citizen when teaching science in a public school classroom. Like it or not, Freshwater takes on the mantle of the Board, and his teaching becomes “government speech.” That speech may violate the Establishment Clause; when it does, and Freshwater refuses to stop the violation himself, the Board has every right to remove him from its classroom and cure the Constitutional violation. (p. 1)


Later, it asserts
Freshwater essentially urges the Court to analyze this case under a muddled notion of that which the First Amendment protects and proscribes. Under the First Amendment, “the Establishment Clause forbids ‘government speech’ which endorses religion, while the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect private speech endorsing religion.” (p. 11; citation omitted; italics original)


And a final quotation:
An objective observer would recognize that Freshwater’s decision to promote intelligent design and creationism in an eighth grade science class is an endorsement of religion. “The history of the ID movement and the development of the strategy to weaken education of by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theorv of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which” Freshwater chose to teach students. Kitzmiller at 716. He referred students to the Answers in Genesis website and proposed a science education policy developed by the Intelligent Design Network. (Supp. 102-103, Employee Ex. 5). Both organizations are at the forefront of religious promotion in public schools, and Freshwater supported their cause while speaking as a government official, not a private citizen

We're headed once again for a thorough humiliation of christian creationists in the court system.

I have to be concerned for the emotional welfare of fundie Christians as their avenues for denial of the scientific method are becoming more and more desperate and delusional. For example, can either of two primary Christian fundies in this thread think of a way to test Creationism / supermagicalism? Every test that scientists have presented to test creationism has been sidestepped by the Christian creationist fundies by appeals to supermagical intervention by the gods.

A simple test: the distance of stellar objects further than 10,000 light years from this planet dismantles the idea that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. Simple, really.
The fundie Creationist solution: God created the light from these distant objects without regard to natural law (yeah, I’ve heard that as an explanation). How can we prove this? Obviously, we can't. We don't need to. The gods can do whatever they want because they’re gods. They used methods which are not understandable to humans, and operated by processes which the gods no longer use within the universe.

Another biblical test: there is not enough water on the earth, either now or in the past, to inundate the globe and cover all the mountains as specified in the biblical flood.
The fundie Creationist solution: The gods can do whatever they want, without the requirement for human explanations -- if they want to instantaneously create enough water to flood the globe, then make all the excess disappear afterwards, they have the power to do so. The gods subsequently left no evidence of a global flood to test our faith.

As long as Christian creationists further this nonsense, they will continue to bear the brunt of the ridicule and derision that they deserve. That is not science, that is religious belief, absent any vaslidation. So any falsification, any test, any request for specifics-- all of these are side-stepped by irrational and outrageous appeals to supernatural gods. There is simply no way that magic, irrationality and mysticism can be part of a scientific theory.

 

[MarcATL]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some luck planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some luck planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?

 

[MarcATL]

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html

There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?

Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

 

[Gadawg73]

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html

There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?

Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.

 

[UltimateReality]

What science training do you have?

Freshwater: The big guns come out - The Panda's Thumb

Well folks, we finally have an answer from Hollie on her science background. I asked and she answered. Her training comes exclusively from hatesite Panda's Thumb. However, cutting and pasting from Panda's Thumb is not what I would consider formal science studies. Sorry, Manhands.

Now please tell us where you went to College?

 

[UltimateReality]

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html

There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?

Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.

I welcome comments from Creationists.

 

[Gadawg73]

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html

There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?

Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.

I welcome comments from Creationists.

The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion Dover v. Kitzmiller

All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.

 

[UltimateReality]

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html


Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.

I welcome comments from Creationists.

The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion Dover v. Kitzmiller

All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.

Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?

"But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas."

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But federal judges cannot settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, Might Makes Right, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.

 

[Gadawg73]

The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.

I welcome comments from Creationists.

The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion Dover v. Kitzmiller

All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.

Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?

"But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas."

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But federal judges cannot settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, Might Makes Right, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.

You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts.
Read it and get back to us.
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.

 

[Hollie]

The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion Dover v. Kitzmiller

All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.

Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?

"But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas."

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But federal judges cannot settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, Might Makes Right, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.

You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts.
Read it and get back to us.
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.

Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.

What is not surprising is that the courts have repeatedly thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.

It’s just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...

 

[UltimateReality]

The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion Dover v. Kitzmiller

All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.

Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?

"But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas."

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But federal judges cannot settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, Might Makes Right, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.

You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts.
Read it and get back to us.
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.

No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is.

You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.

 

[UltimateReality]

Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?

"But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas."

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But federal judges cannot settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, Might Makes Right, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.

You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts.
Read it and get back to us.
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.

Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.

What is not surprising is that the courts have repeatedly thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.

It’s just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...

Interesting, but please explain what Harun Yahya has to do with CHRISTIAN Creationism?? And if you think by ignoring the elephant in the room it is going away, you are sadly mistaken...

Where did you attend college?

 

[Gadawg73]

Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?

"But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas."

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But federal judges cannot settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, Might Makes Right, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.

You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts.
Read it and get back to us.
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.

No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is.

You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.

How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.

 

[Hollie]

You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts.
Read it and get back to us.
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.

Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.

What is not surprising is that the courts have repeatedly thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.

It’s just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...

Interesting, but please explain what Harun Yahya has to do with CHRISTIAN Creationism?? And if you think by ignoring the elephant in the room it is going away, you are sadly mistaken...

Where did you attend college?

Gee, what a shame that the courts are actually enforcing constitutional law and maintaining separation of church and state. As fundies would have it, we should ignore the law and force christianity into the school system.

 

[newpolitics]

This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.

 

[UltimateReality]

You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts.
Read it and get back to us.
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.

No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is.

You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.

How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.

Hollie wants to thank you for your logical fallacy:

Appeal to the People

If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what most everyone believes, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is mistaken simply because it’s not what most everyone believes, then your reasoning also uses the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom. The “too strongly” mentioned above is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.

 

[UltimateReality]

Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.

What is not surprising is that the courts have repeatedly thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.

It’s just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...

Interesting, but please explain what Harun Yahya has to do with CHRISTIAN Creationism?? And if you think by ignoring the elephant in the room it is going away, you are sadly mistaken...

Where did you attend college?

Gee, what a shame that the courts are actually enforcing constitutional law and maintaining separation of church and state. As fundies would have it, we should ignore the law and force christianity into the school system.

We've been down this road before. It is Separation of CHURCH and state, not religion and state.

Where did you attend college?

 

[UltimateReality]

This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.

Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits — or the mutations producing them — as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms — insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"You have to have some reasonable notion of “fitness” if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, “What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?” needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."

"This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain — namely, the organism’s fitness — cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing philosophical commitment."

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”

This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness