Creationists

[Hollie]

Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?

Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.

This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from “creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity” to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.

Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.

Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?

I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.

Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.

 

[Youwerecreated]

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.

This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from “creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity” to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.

Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.

Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?

I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.

Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It “absolutely break down” when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and “makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems!” (Geisler and Turek, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.


This is slowly evolving ?

 

[Hollie]

Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.

Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?

I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.

Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....


This is slowly evolving ?

Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb

 

[ima]

Creationists are self-deniers. They know that science is right, but don't want to admit that the bible is wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.

Creationism does present an intellegent reason why man exists.
Creationism does offer a very logical reason as to why we do not share this planet with equally intellegent life forms.
Creationism does explain why man is thoughtfully interested in knowing things.
There is tons of scientific evidence for creationim, but you choose to misrepresent it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Creationists are self-deniers. They know that science is right, but don't want to admit that the bible is wrong.

Evolutionists do not take into consideration all the data, and they totally leave out GOD. They do not study the Bible and so they do not know if it is right or wrong...

 

[LittleNipper]

What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.

Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!

Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.

I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.

Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument.

Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science.

Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.

I believe in God and there is historical evidence for both Israel and Jesus of Nazareth. And had Jim Jones studied his Bible, he would have found no support for what he did and his followers should have had their eyes on Christ instead of some false prophet.

 

[LittleNipper]

It's a girl.

And you're appealing to emotion in the place of logic.

I know that evolution happened.

I do not know what started the Universe itself, God, not God, whatever - so I am an agnostic.

But I do not deny solid science. Being an agnostic is admitting one does not know, and keeping an open mind.

Anyone doing the opposite is doing so out of their ego, whether pulled by emotion or tautologies written by men as a means to control people into behaving.

You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...

This is all hot air.

And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.

Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.

Well, I glad of heaven and I do wish the best for you and that little girl. However, no one is saved by believing in evolution.

 

[LittleNipper]

Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.

Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?

I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.

Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It “absolutely break down” when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and “makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems!” (Geisler and Turek, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.


This is slowly evolving ?

Please watch this video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E]Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube[/ame]

Note that this scientist has proof of nothing, but certainly offers his opinion as though it were fact. But when Creationists do likewise, foul is always the responce.... The thing this gentlemean does not offer is how an organism could survive not knowing what he was looking at -- food, tree, rock, enemy.........

 

[Hollie]

Have you had your morning coffee ?

Creationist have a habit of dodging and side-stepping those comments that address their inability to defend creationist propaganda.

You said creationist provide no arguments who is dodging here and trying to change the subject ?

It's true. Creationist provide no positive arguments for their gawds. Read through the thread. Creationist arguments consist of frantic attempts to vilify science.

Where is the evidence for magic and supernaturalism that defines your gawds?

What evidence defines your partisan gawds as "the" gawds as opposed to the Hindu gawds?

 

[daws101]

Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?


DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?


HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?


VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?


ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?


PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?


DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?


MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?


HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one

Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?

Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.

you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws.
you must be afraid that we'll find you quote mining out of context.
just like you've done here.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting "Copy and Paste" material, please use small sections and link to the content. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, Publisher, regardless of how you originally came across the material.
Link Each Copy And Paste To It's Source.

 

[daws101]

What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.

Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!

Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.

I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.

 

[daws101]

Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?

Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.

This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from “creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity” to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.

 

[daws101]

Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?

Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.

This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from “creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity” to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.

Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.

Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?

I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.

Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.

more bullshit...he is "attacked" because his science is as bad as yours Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.

Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?

I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.

Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It “absolutely break down” when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and “makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems!” (Geisler and Turek, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.


This is slowly evolving ?

link? slap dick!

 

[daws101]

bible length 1,281 pages
this thread 1002 pages
278 pages to go.

 

[emilynghiem]

bible length 1,281 pages
this thread 1002 pages
278 pages to go.

A better use of those pages
would be to read HEALING by Francis MacNutt (1999 edition or later)
which has 268 pages. I give out free copies of this book, so if anyone here wants one, I would gladly argue over that, and what it will take to prove spiritual healing scientifically!

When you understand the spirit of the process humanity is going through,
in terms of individual process multiplied collectively to equal all society,
then it is clear there is no need to nitpick over little arguments.
All that would be resolved in the same process.

There are much bigger things we can use science to study and agree on that are just as critical to resolving the same issues (of reconciling science and faith in general and not judge blame or reject any person or group), AND have practical application in real life.

Arguing over creation and evolution isn't going to solve the world's problems
that spiritual healing and generational therapy can change. Both the Buddhists and the Christians, and even more secularized methods of forgiveness and recovery therapy such as AA and the 5 stages of grief, recognize how issues carried from the past affect our mental and psychological states of mind, which affect our perceptions actions and relations.

These are based on natural laws that govern all human relations, where faith and science can agree and show there is a common process going on that we are all a part of.

Might as well work together and figure out the best way to facilitate that process as smoothly and peacefully as possible, without pressuring anyone to compromise or prove each other right or wrong for personal defense, but stick to points that prove themselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.

Creationism does present an intellegent reason why man exists.
Creationism does offer a very logical reason as to why we do not share this planet with equally intellegent life forms.
Creationism does explain why man is thoughtfully interested in knowing things.
There is tons of scientific evidence for creationim, but you choose to misrepresent it.

Dear Ima and LittleNipper:
I wonder if we all met in person, maybe we could have these differences and not be so defensive or personally against the other person for seeing it differently.

I told my boyfriend my views (that both evolution and creation depend on one's interpretation of the data, and both are faith-based). He said the exact opposite!
He says both have been proven and anyone who doesn't get that is an idiot (i.e., in denial).

It is ironic that he is less openminded that there may not be a Creator since he is nonChristian and very much Gentile! He believes there is a God but greater than anything we can define, so he is nontheistic in terms of a "personal relationship with God." He believes God stays out of man's affairs that are our free will. He does not believe life is fair, because people do unjust things to those who least deserve it, and God is not going to fix this, we have to learn to quit rewarding irresponsible behavior and that is up to us. He does not get Jesus at all, but he does agree and believe in Justice, so when I put Jesus in those terms he does agree he believes in seeking Justice. He just doesn't believe we are ever going to get there, which is where I differ as a Christian because I believe we are, and we do every time and every day we embody justice in our relations so collectively this is the process of the coming of Christ for all humanity, or salvation when we embrace and live by equal justice (ie restorative justice, not retributive which is not equal).

So it is interesting he seems more closedminded in his pro-Creation views than I am as a Christian,
when the stereotype is the other way! Isn't that funny? I believe there are more true nontheists who simply do not see God in terms of personification, but he thinks atheists are in denial and there are very few that are truly atheist. I find more of them are nontheists, so there is no reason to judge people for seeing things in this perspective.

I am secular Gentile and also a Christian believer, where I enjoy working with people who believe in EITHER a personified God or a nontheist approach to God's truth without religious deification. So regardless of my own views, I accept that people can have both views that there is or "could be" a beginning to all the universe, or being infinite, it may have no beginning and no end and "always was," and may not have a beginning. It could be that if nothing can come out of nowhere, then the universe always had to be; for where would the Creator come from who created the universe, who would create the Creator? I happen to agree with the concept that the Bible mainly talks about the beginning of man's LINEAGE of conscious knowledge and self-awareness, and that is the process we can learn and do something about, regardless of the larger truth that is infinite and beyond our ability to perceive much less prove but by faith. So all this talk of 6,000 year timeline in the Bible refers to the conscious lineage of man in terms of knowledge of the laws, which is what historically gets humanity in trouble, as contained in the Bible as well!

Both things are possible because none of us was there when it happened if it did happen, and we are interpreting what happened based on whatever knowledge or ideas we have now. so that is what I mean by it being faith-based either way.

It is interesting that I am more Christian than he is, where he is clearly secular Gentile and I am both, yet I strive to be more objective in accepting people of both views (theist and nontheist, pro or con on either evolution or creation) while he already has his mind made up!

So if anyone thinks nontheists are more objective than Christians, I would love for you to witness some of the discussions or debates I have with my boyfriend. We are both as fair as we can be, given our biases, but it is funny sometimes how the things we believe in end up being the opposite stereotype. He's more conservative and I lean more liberal, but he is more open to legalizing prostitution and I am less open about that. Stuff like that.

It is interesting and I wish some of the people here could meet each other
and see if our perceptions change on how we talk to each other as people not groups being represented each time we say something!

There is a free website for video/audio meetings online at digitalsamba dot com. It's free for 2-3 people and if you want bigger groups you pay a subscription for up to 100 people.

If you are interested in trying this, I wouldn't mind trying to have live chats online and see if we can talk more freely without getting stuck on who is blaming who for being in denial etc. Everyone has biases and beliefs and the data can be interpreted in any number of ways, so I'm not going to judge what people see or don't see.

Let me know what you think!

I also want to start websites for
consensusongod
consensusonlaw
where I am betting that it is easier to reach a consensus on god than on law.
if you think arguing about religious theories and what does science show is impossible,
look at politics where people have their laws and finances riding on one side ruling over others. that requires even more peacemaking work and real life problem solving before those deadlocked relations will open up. so in comparison I think reaching agreement on the meaning of god woudl be easier. in reality the two processes are going on simulataneoulsy, the more people see proof in real life that relations can be resolved, they are more forgiving and have more faith and hope the truth will prevail; and the more people reach agreements in truth point by point in debates or discussions, this opens up minds and relations to work together so we can have real life cooperation and solutions.

If you have your own webpage blog or favorite citation you use all the time that works to resovle issues, I can start a network of resources or links on those websites, and have people share to try to reach a consensus by eliminating false information or faulty arguments. But it has to be things that have WORKED to change people's minds, not things you think if you just kept repeating then something would change. Scott Peck wrote a whole book on what changed his mind, as a scientist using the scientific method, so I cite that and even give out free copies.

Thanks let me know if you have ideas or suggestions how to work together and organize online, and not keep going in circles claiming it's the other people being closed to truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one

Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?

Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.

you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws.
you must be afraid that we'll find you quote mining out of context.
just like you've done here.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting "Copy and Paste" material, please use small sections and link to the content. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, Publisher, regardless of how you originally came across the material.
Link Each Copy And Paste To It's Source.

A link was provided when they were first posted. I merely went back to the same link that Was provided, evidently you guys are not reading.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....


This is slowly evolving ?

Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb

You're a dishonest Ideologue.