4a. Ten Impossibilities of Evolution
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Ten examples are:
- Sexual Reproduction and Mitosis
- Flight
- Birds and Eggs and Bird Nests
- Eyes and Hearts
- Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
- The Kreb’s Citric Acid Cycle
- Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
- Hemoglobin
- Insects, spiders, and their webs
- Bird teeth and boney jaws evolving then dis-evolving, forming beaks
(1) Sexual reproduction is an all or none event. Would an evolutionist say that one multi-cellular animal grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a species? What microsteps to sexual reproduction could possibly have occurred? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The mutations and NS of one gender would have to “know” what mutations and NS were taking place for the other gender. And since there is no intelligence involved, according to evolutionists, this scenario is not possible.
On March 13, 2008, I attended a lecture on Darwin and the TOE at the Ayn Rand Institute in Costa Mesa, California. The lecturer discussed how Darwin was concerned that it may have been impossible for two separate vertebrate sexual beings to evolve since one set of mutations would have to know what the other was forming, which would require intelligence. In the ensuing years, a great deal of study was done on barnacles. It was found that the male barnacle was flea-sized and attached itself to the large female, and somehow that explained the M and NS of vertebrate sexuality. I don’t get it, but that was the explanation. More evo-illusion.
The same is true with cell mitosis (cell splitting for reproduction). Mitosis is an all or none event. Cells cannot split .00001, then .00002…….Mitosis cannot evolve in small steps. Period. It’s a split or no split deal. The other major problem is the fact that for evolution to occur, cells must go through mitosis so that traits and mutations can be passed on the future generations and be improved upon. In other words, mitosis can’t evolve unless there is mitosis!
The fertilization of the female egg by a sperm is also all-or-none. So is copulation.
Below is a video that I made on the subject of sexual reproduction. To watch, press the lower left arrow so you won’t leave the page.
(2) Birds and Flight: Evo-illusionists explain flight by saying that insects were the first to fly. Somehow because insects are small, evolutionists think that they will provide an acceptable explanation for the beginnings of flight evolution. However big or small a species might be, evolution cannot in any way explain flight.
Did a bird grow appendages over the millennia that eventually flapped up and down, causing the bird, to fly? Just think what a heckuva surprise that must have been for the first individual that flew! There simply is no possible scenario that would explain the origins of bird flight that would include mutations and natural selection. Of course, there are absolutely no fossils that help evolution along here, as usual. The beginnings of insect flight also remain obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. And there is no known imaginable and reasonable path to flight that could be developed by random mutations and natural selection.
A Nova program on this fascinating species “The Four-Winged Dinosaur” (Feb. 6, 2008, PBS) was dedicated to the remarkable discovery of A. Microraptor, pictured at left, a newly found dinosaur flier. A large portion of the program was devoted to the evolution of flight. This was certainly another in the amazing list of evolution science programs which try to make the absolutely impossible seem like it could be possible. The part on the evolution of bird flight was nothing short of unbelievable. According to the program, “The origin of flight in birds is a puzzle that seems to defy solution. The fossil record provides few clues as to how it happened. The aerial skills of modern fliers evolved in small steps over millions of years.” (How do they know, since there is absolutely zero fossil evidence showing how it happened?) They then went on to describe the three most accepted theories of how it did happen, all equally impossible but believed by many in the world of evolution:
(A) Flight started from the “ground up”. The running leaps of dinosaurs evolved into the powered flight of birds. Nova explains that this theory “works” against gravity, and therefore is the most difficult of the three theories and very unlikely. A video cartoon of a running raptor was shown. With every few steps, the raptor would leap forward. The raptor gradually got smaller and smaller, and it began sprouting wings! (Why would it get smaller? So it can be more easily digested by its predators?) And, bingo, it evolved into a bird and flew off! (I wonder if the offspring of an animal today, who ran from predators and leaped, would sprout wings and fly. Oh, I forgot, that only happened “a long long time ago” when nobody could view the process.)
(B) The “arboreal origin of flight”. Supposedly the dinosaur would climb a tree and fall/fly out, creating the birth of flight. The only problem with this scenario says Nova is that dinosaurs could not climb trees.
(C) A new theory was presented by Ken Dial, a well-known dinosaur biologist. He says, “Birds tell us how they did it.” He used baby birds of a variety he called “chuckers” to show his thinking. When he put the baby chuckers on a very steep inclined plane, the birds would try to run up and flap their not yet fully grown wings to help them get to the top. They would then power fly down, using their wings the whole way, with no gliding. Dial says this is the evidence of how bird evolution took place. (Only an evolution scientist would take a birdie exercise board and turn it into the solution for one of the most amazing puzzles in nature: the origin of flight! Most people would think the way the baby bird struggled up that board was just cute! Again, dinosaurs couldn’t climb. And, why would they have wings that were useless in the first place, which they were until they were formed enough so the dinosaur could fly? I know, I know; they mutated and were “selected.)
Another interesting feature of bird fliers is the fact that their bones are hollow, which reduces their weight. This, of course, makes them more capable fliers. Were early fliers, which haven’t been found, capable of only getting a few feet off the ground until they evolved hollow bones?
The bottom line is that there is absolutely zero evidence for how birds evolved flight. Birds showed up in the fossil record suddenly, with no reasonable precursors in earlier strata. Ev-illusionists list theropod dinosaurs as precursors, but this is beyond preposterous. Bipedal dinosaurs with ultra-tiny arms, immense boney tails, a vicious set of teeth, and scales, had to dis-evolve those tails, dis-evolve the teeth then evolve beaks, get tiny and light, evolve large aerodynamic wings, evolve feathers, and learn flight. Ev-illusionists couldn’t have picked a more illogical and preposterous precursor than theropods. Why did they? Which animal would you pick from over 150 million years ago that was a bird precursor? The pickin’s are thin. There simply aren’t any animals to choose from other than dinosaurs. Remember, fish begat amphibians begat dinosaurs, which begat mammals. Where would birds fit in? Evo-illusionists HAD to select a dinosaur species as a bird precursor. That’s all there was, so they are stuck. They couldn’t pick fish, or frogs, or worms, or insects… Archeopteryx was supposedly the first true bird, but it also had a large boney tail, sharp teeth (no beak), and we don’t even know if it was capable of flight due to its anti-flight musculoskeletal characteristics.
Leave it to evo-illusionists to make up three impossible scenarios for how flight “might” have evolved. The best scenario would be that flight could not and was not caused by naturally selected mutations, and we actually have no idea what did cause it.
Above are two of the earliest insects: the dragonfly, and palaeoptera
The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, estimated at 396-407 million years old. This species possessed dicondylic mandibles, a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings were already present at this time. Ev-illusionists think the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period. Of course, there is no fossil evidence showing that fact, so they have to make it up to allow enough time for the thousands of microsteps to evolve insect flight.
The origin of insect flight remains obscure since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. So where is the evolution? Evo-illusionists think the wings themselves are highly modified tracheal gills since the tracheal gills of the mayfly nymph in many species “look like” wings, they, therefore, must have evolved into them. Evo-illusionists say that by comparing a well-developed pair of gill blades in the naiads and a reduced pair of hind wings on the adults, “it is not hard to imagine that” the mayfly gills (tergaliae) and insect wings have a common origin. Actually, it is not hard for any evo-illusionist to imagine anything as long as it fits the needs for their “proof”. And anything that looks the slightest bit like anything else must have evolved into it.
A note about Birds: Birds have completely unusual lung systems due to their high demand for oxygen during flight. They are made up of nine air sacks which fill with fresh air. The air goes into the lung from the sacks when birds exhale. These specialized lungs and their sacks need support from bird femurs, which are fixed. Bird knees are buried within the soft feather/skin covering of the bird and cannot be seen. What looks like their lower leg (tibia/fibula) is part of their foot. What looks like our knee joint is their ankle. Birds are “knee runners”. Below are the skeletons of two non-flying birds, an emu (left) and an ostrich. Even though they don’t fly, you can see how the femurs would be buried under their feather/skin.
Below are two videos that I made on the evolution of flight. Press the lower left arrow to view so you won’t leave the page.
(3) Birds, eggs, and arboreal nests cannot have possibly originated through the “wonders” of evolution. Not much explanation is required here. Do your own mental experiment and you would have to come to the same conclusion. Of course, there cannot be birds without eggs, or eggs without birds to hatch them.
In reality, the old adage about “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” has many more nuances than first meets the fully evolved eye. A chicken egg has over 10,000 pores that allow air into the egg. If there were no pores, the chick would suffocate before it could even get started. As the chick forms, it is nourished by the yolk. And, as the chick grows, it has to displace liquid that is present and forms in the egg. The pores act as miniature drains to eliminate the fluid. The chick attaches blood vessels to the thin membrane, that we are all familiar with, that forms just inside of the shell. This membrane helps to oxygenate the chick embryo. Other vessels attach to the yolk for nourishment. The small void that we see in the egg is actually an air pocket. When the chick is nearly ready to hatch, it needs an extra dose of air, and this small void gives it six hours of air so that it can begin the process of breaking out of the egg. The chick has a small tooth that forms on the outside of its beak. On the 19th day, the chick breaks a hole in the shell to allow air in. 
It breathes through this hole for two days. On day 21 it completes the job of breaking the shell, and hatching occurs. So, the “Which came first…………” adage is far more complex than we could even imagine. The idea that mutations and natural selection brought about this process is unimaginable, and simply not possible.
And what scenario could there possibly be for arboreal “branch” bird nests to evolve? Or really any birds nest? Bird nests are beyond fascinating. They are feats of engineering beyond our own ability to construct. Try it yourself. See if you can weave those tiny twigs and straw into anything that looks nest-like; with your hands. You will fail quickly. Now try it with your teeth. Remember, birds weave their incredible artistry with their beaks! They have no fingers to help them along. There is an immense number of incredible designs for bird nests. Evo-illusionists say birds first made nests in tree-holes. Then the tree-hole nesting birds gradually move out to the branches. But if you compare the two pictures above, you will quickly see the differences in engineering required for both. Try to imagine the branch nest evolving from the tree hole nest. What adventurist bird had the “guts” to try moving its nest out to those thin branches, then laying eggs on the first prototype nest? Was that first prototype a few twigs with eggs? Did the eggs splat? Did the twigs fall? Were those first courageous inventive birds observed by other birds who tried to copy the nest building of the first few birds that gave branch nest building a try? If the eggs fell, why would an intelligent bird capable of thinking and copying, if there was such a bird, try to copy the first birds? Did a bird that saw the first few failures think it could make a better branch nest? Do birds think to that degree? Maybe millions of years ago there were highly intelligent “Sir Isaac Newton” birds that were thinkers. Actually, any scenario is ridiculous.
The Megapode bird of New Guinea, north of Australia, makes a 12-foot-high pile of vegetation. The bird is about a foot tall, so this is like a six-foot-tall person building a seventy-foot-tall building. A smaller megapode nest is at left. The mallee fowl, the best known of the group of megapodes, is about two feet long and has white-spotted, light brown plumage. The male builds a mound of decaying vegetation, which may require 11 months to construct. The result is a low mound, about three feet in the ground and up to five feet across, made up of twigs and leaves soaked with rain and covered with a foot and half of sandy soil. When the heat of fermentation inside the mound reaches 91° F, the female lays the first of about 35 eggs in a central chamber. The male maintains a nest temperature amazingly close to 91° F even when there is daily and seasonal weather variation. Mallee eggs hatch in seven weeks, and the hatchlings dig u
pward through the mound and run off on their own. They can fly one or two days after hatching.
The South American ovenbird, which may take months to construct one nest from clay or mud mixed with bits of straw, hair, and fibers. The tropical sun bakes the walls and makes them hard as concrete. The American bald eagle uses sticks, some two inches thick and several feet long, to make nests strong enough to support a human adult. They may look like an unorganized mix of building materials, but the sticks are usually placed in layers, beginning with a triangle, followed by more rotated, triangular layers. Their nests are five feet in diameter.
Birds are capable of marvelous engineering feats. But they are not engineers; not in the way you might think anyway. They don’t train and study engineering or nest building. They don’t have teachers. Parents don’t teach them. They don’t even learn how to build by watching their parents or each other. Just as birds know how to fly, they know how to build a nest without the teaching and instruction from parent birds. Nest building is a matter of instinct, and not learned, according to scientists. “They are ‘hard-wired,’ Douglas Causey of Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, says, “sort of like robots.” Birds construct their nests without consciously thinking about it. How then did some species of birds develop such well-engineered, elaborate nests? Books have been written on the subject without providing a single clue, says Jeremiah Trimble, an assistant in the Harvard museum’s bird department.
Here is a tongue in cheek example of what good science should try to determine, search out, and come up with. A step by step description of how arboreal branch bird nests came about:
1, Millions of years
ago, birds placed their eggs on the ground; on dirt and grasses.
2. Eventually, some birds found that a solid base on higher elevations was safer for their clutch. They began laying the eggs in small “caves” high on cliffs. That way fewer predators could eat their eggs and young.
3. Due to the lack of room and the low number of small caves, some found holes in trees worked well. They laid their eggs on the solid “floor” of holes high up in trees. The hard surface caused the breakage of many eggs. The birds that lost their eggs had to start all over.
4. Some birds found it advantageous to add small straw and twig mats as cushions on the floor of the caves and holes. The cushions were selected for because eggs were far less likely to break. The cushions were embedded in the DNA of the birds that made the cushions. The idea spread to other birds. Their DNA was also altered to favor the cushions.
5. Some “cushion” birds began weaving the straw and twigs into more complex cushions which helped them stay together and give better cushioning.
6. The number of birds greatly exceeded the number of caves and tree holes. As a last resort, some birds had to lay eggs on the “Y” of tree branches. Many held, but many also fell and went “splat”. Birds with multiple-egg clutches lost many eggs.
7. Some bird mutations formed “super-glue” in their saliva. The glue was found to be an advantage and was selected for, and coded in their DNA. The glue was used by the glue-birds to attach their eggs to a tree branch “Y” and prevented many splats.
8. Due to a low number of “Y” tree branches that were capable of holding eggs, and due to the great number of “splats”, some birds began moving their eggs farther out on the branches. But to their dismay, more eggs fell. Few eggs held on those round branches.
9. Some birds that had learned nest weaving on solid surfaces began weaving a few twigs and straws on a branch. Placing the eggs on these few straws and twigs caused many more splats, but at least they had a place to lay their eggs. Out of pure unadulterated luck, those early nests were able to hold SOME eggs.
10. Over time some birds began adding and weaving more and more straws and twigs, making larger and larger branch cushions. The large cushions were selected for because they were advantageous.
11. Over thousands of generations, just enough “branch cushion birds” were left to improve the cushions and form them into cupped nests. The cups were selected for because they held the eggs much more efficiently.
12. Some birds began weaving the cupped cushions right onto the tree branch, which made them very stable. Other birds saw, and followed suit. Bird nests became very stable and secure, greatly reducing the number of splat
s.
13. Some bird species did go extinct due to the large number of splats, but the smarter species did survive due to the fact that they were able to invent new and better ways to weave their nests into the tree branches. The birds whose nests didn’t cause the eggs to fall were selected for. The result of this trial and error nest invention saga is the wonderful bird nests we have today.
Does this sound like an absurd series of events? It is, of course. But it’s all I could come up with in trying my level best to help evolution along and figure out how bird nests came about. So, as silly as this story is, it’s told from the perspective of how an evolutionaut might see the formation of bird nests. Whatever story they might come up with would be so ridiculous that they really don’t want to think about it. So what they will do is preemptively demean the question and try (and fail) to make the questioner look as stupid and silly as they possibly can. That’s their best strategy for sure. Because any attempt they might make at explaining bird nests would look as silly as this scenario.
As always, evolutionauts never like to think about the reality of their scenario. No plausible evolution scenario can be penciled out. The details must be ignored, as with all the details of the evolution of all bio-systems. “They started simpler, then got more complex because that’s an advantage…..” And that’s it.
If we bring up arboreal bird nests, why not beaver dams? Did a beaver place a twig in a river/stream that slowed up some edible vegetation, which allowed for the vegetation to be caught by the beaver? Then, next generation two twigs? Why wouldn’t the first twigs get swept away? Were the first twig placing beavers so adept at placing twigs that they remained in place? Did the advantages of a few twigs slowing rivers and streams then spur the formation of larger and larger dams? Then, thousands of years later, finally, fully formed dams like the one at left? ? Is this scenario imaginable? Arboreal bird nests actually bring up all kinds of other “nesting/living/hunting” entities in nature that simply could not have come about if evolution was the source of all of nature.
An interesting note on beaver dams: Beavers are most famous, and infamous, for their dam-building. They maintain their pond-habitat by reacting quickly to the sound of running water and damming it up with tree branches and mud. Early ecologists believed that this dam-building was an amazing feat of architectural planning, indicative of the beaver’s high intellect. This theory was questioned when a recording of running water was played in a field near a beaver pond. Despite the fact that it was on dry land, the beavers covered the tape player with branches and mud. The largest beaver dam is 2,790 ft (850 m) in length—more than half a mile long—and was discovered via satellite imagery in 2007.It is located on the southern edge of Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta and is twice the width of the Hoover dam which spans 1,244 ft (379 m). (Wikipedia)
Chicken Teeth are the Whoopee Cushion of Evolution:
comedian. Chicken teeth are studied and written about by respected evolution scientists. So, as absurd as they are, I will try to address chicken teeth on a serious vein. Working late in the developmental biology lab one night, Matthew Harris of the University of Wisconsin noticed that the beak of a mutant chicken embryo he was examining had fallen off. Harris closely examined the broken beak and found tiny bumps along its edge that looked like teeth. Harris thought they closely resembled alligator teeth. Upper left, encircled, are the chicken teeth that Harris discovered. Below left are alligator teeth. One wonders if Harris forgot his glasses that night. Do Harris’s “chicken teeth” look like alligator teeth? The skeptic in me wonders why alligators were the comparison in the first place when there are millions of toothed animal species on the planet. Anyway, Harris did think the “teeth” resembled alligator teeth. According to evolution science, the accidental discovery revealed that chickens retain the ability to grow teeth, even though birds lost this feature long ago.
Alligators have a unique set of teeth. Like human teeth, and unlike chicken “teeth”, alligators have teeth set in bony sockets. They are able to replace their teeth throughout their life. Wouldn’t it be nice if humans had the same talent? The ability of an alligator to replace their teeth deteriorates as they age. As young alligators grow in physical size, they can replace teeth with larger ones every thirty days or so. After reaching adult size in a few years, however, tooth replacement rates can slow to several years and even longer. Very old members of some species have been seen in an almost toothless state after teeth have been broken and replacement slowed or ceased. Alligators can go through over 3,000 teeth in their lifetime. Each tooth is hollow, and the new one is growing inside the old. When an old tooth breaks away, a new one is set to take its place. Interestingly, alligators don’t use their teeth to chew. They capture their prey with their teeth, swallow the prey whole. Alligator teeth have roots that hold them in the jawbone. They are covered by enamel much like human teeth. Their tooth body is made of dentin, just like in humans. Alligator teeth are not like chicken teeth. Or should I say chicken beak bumps?
My first question which evolutionauts never consider, is why did a predator with sharp vicious teeth get rid of those teeth, one of its main sources of predation and defense? And, of course, why did the theropod that lead to chickens get rid of its claws so it could eventually develop useless wings that would never even give it the advantage of flight? What could be more awkward and defenseless than a chicken? The notion is absurd, and not at all what evolution describes. Survival of the fittest and selected advantage is what drives evolution. Did the pre-chicken eliminate its teeth and claws so it could eventually move to the bottom of the food chain, and be completely defenseless? So it could make eggs and meat for all of mankind? Is this evolution in action? The survival of the weakest?
The mutant chickens Harris studied bear a recessive trait dubbed talpid2. This trait is lethal, meaning that such mutants are never hatched. Some incubate for as long as 18 days inside of their eggs. But they all die before hatching. Evolution celebrated another great discovery that certainly piles more evidence on top of the “mountains of evidence” they already have. The bumps on the beak of a mutant chick embryo that can’t even hatch and are labeled chicken teeth is certainly a great example of how weak their mountain really is. The celebrations are still ongoing. Ev-illusionists take this information and run with it. To evo-illusionists, there is no doubt that those tiny spikes are teeth. Everything moves on as if they are teeth. There is no doubt. No ev-illusionist questions. All discussions and research are done with complete surety that Harris found chicken teeth and another cog in the wheel of evidence that proves ancestry to theropods. According to ev-illusionists, chicken teeth are a fact!
These chicken teeth have no enamel, no dentin, no root, pulp chamber, periodontal ligament, gingiva (gum tissue) surrounding them like alligator and human teeth do. To classify these mutant bumps as teeth, and then to go on to add them to evidence that shows theropods evolved into chickens is, well, more standup comedy material, nothing more.
The first thing that comes to mind is, if mutant chick beak bumps are really teeth, why don’t ev-illusionists discuss all of the possibilities for the existence of those teeth? Is the only possibility that chickens evolved from theropod dinosaurs? Other possibilities need to be examined and proffered. Here are some other possibilities that need to be addressed as possibilities:
If evolution is truly valid, chickens may be in the process of evolving teeth. Instead of chicken teeth being a remnant of a past ancestor, it may be a beginning. They may be getting rid of their beaks and substituting a set of vicious teeth through the wonders of natural selection. After all, aren’t mutations such as these teeth the way evolution works? Chickens could be in the process of evolving into predators again! Million of years from now who knows how dangerous they could become. If they are evolving new teeth, I certainly hope they get rid of the “buck buck buck”. Just doesn’t go with vicious teeth. Can you imagine a vicious predator attacking you whilst howling “buck buck buck”? What is truly amazing is that evolution is devoid of examples of biological systems evolving themselves into existence today. Why was the idea that chickens might be evolving instead of eliminating teeth not considered? They may have a plan for survival and revenge on humans (tic) for which they are now such an amazing food supply. Why would a species that so badly needs a defense mechanism to survive get rid of its greatest weapon for survival in the first place? So they could be food for humans? Did survival of the fittest work in reverse for chickens so they could be at the bottom of the food chain? Is this selected mutations in action? Chickens didn’t evolve the ability to fly, and they got rid of their teeth. My Gawd, what on Earth was natural selection doing to the vicious theropods that supposedly caused them to become chickens? According to evolution, chickens went from a vicious predator to the weakest of prey. Methinks natural selection goofed here.
Chicken teeth may be a constant. Chickens may have come from some scientifically unknown source, appeared in some unknown way, and the mutation that supposedly forms chicken teeth may be a constant in chickens. Ev-illusionists will decry the notion that chickens first appeared on Earth as they are as a complete absurdity. Their choice for you is to believe their own version of an absurdity: that chickens came from theropod dinosaurs. Which choice is more absurd? Neither choice seems scientifically possible. But one choice follows what the fossil record shows: the sudden appearance of species at very different times. To believe evolution, you must believe what your eyes they do not see. Evolutionauts have to believe and evo-illusionists must teach that species morphed into other species. But your eyes see the fossil record which shows the sudden appearance of species, not the gradual morphing. When your eyes see design, you must believe there is no design. Your eyes see species that appeared at very different times, remained rather constant, and then either became extinct or still exist as modern species. That is what you should go with if you are truly interested in objective science. You should go with what your eyes see, not what someone tells you they should see.
(4) Eye and heart/lung systems are two excellent examples of organs that cannot have possibly evolved, as any pre-functioning steps to a fully functioning organ
would be completely useless. Evolutionists poo poo this eye/heart challenge, however, they never answer it with more than made up fables. Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors.
Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the
incredibly complex organs represented by heart/lung and eye systems? In the case of the heart: over 800 million years ago there were no pumps on the entire earth of any kind. Evolution would have to start knitting a few cells together with each generation, with the end result, hundreds of thousands of years later, being a sealed pump and valve capable of moving blood. Of course, the blood couldn’t exist until there was a heart to pump it. Add to that, there were no lungs to oxygenate the blood, and no vessels to get oxygenated blood to the needy cells. It is not even imaginable that a heart and
all systems required to run it could be produced by mutations and natural selection. Evolutionists make note that there are “simple” and “complex” heart/lung systems in different species today. They ignore that fact that even “simple” heart/lung systems are immensely complex, and that any complexity of heart would be useless until it was evolved into a fully sealed pump.
I was debating website participants from Pharyngula, a University of Minnesota connected website. They wrote a paper describing the evolution of the vertebrate eyes, which they think happened like the drawing at left. I posed the challenge of how could hundreds of thousands of mutations form a binocular vision system when there was no model on the face of the earth. How did the mutations “know” where they were going? Stanton, a commenter there, angrily said that “didn’t I know that protozoans had opsins (vision biochemicals) to use as the model?” Biochemicals in a protozoan were models for a binocular vision system? Absurd. Stanton’s other problem was that admitting to the use of a model admits to intelligence, which copying a model would require.
Evolutionists use placoderms and flatworms as examples of steps in the evolution of eyes. They think that because there are some “simpler” eyes in existence today, that proves evolution. The only problem is placoderms had binocular and possibly color vision. They also had two bony eye sockets. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/basalfish/placodermi.html Flatworms have two eyespots that help them sense light. But this means that they must have optic nerves, and a visual cortex to translate a coded nerve signal into light and some sort of image. Both systems would be immensely complex, and not the simple vision systems required to prove Darwin. http://www.mcwdn.org/Animals/Flatworm.html Out of a billion species that have inhabited the earth, these examples are pathetic anyway. If binocular vision systems evolved by M and NS, there would be overwhelming evidence. And, of course, the question arises, why didn’t “simple eyed” creatures cited by evolutionauts fully evolve complex visual systems? Why are they here as “simple” eyes when they have had 2,000 times longer than evolutionauts say it took eyes to evolve in the first place? Euglena is a single-celled species that evolutionauts cite as an example of “simple” visual systems. For one thing, euglena NEVER evolved into a multi-celled species. It’s light-sensitive spot isn’t any kind of eye. It reacts to heat or electromagnetic waves and makes no images. The spot isn’t “light sensitive”, and it never evolved into anything more than what it is. Euglena had 2,000 times longer than eyes supposedly took to evolve, but it did nothing. That is bent evidence. Euglena didn’t evolve into multi-celled, the spot didn’t, yet it is used as evidence for the evolution of visual systems. Further, since it is single-celled, it is not comparable to a visual system that is COMPOSED of individual cells. It’s EMR sensitive spot is intracellular so it couldn’t be a building block.
Other factors:
Mutation CPA’s: According to evolutionists, a huge majority of mutations are not “good”. Therefore each selected mutation would have to be accompanied by many “bad” mutations, which would mean one step forward and many steps back. The finish line would never be reached. Did a single mutation cause the same eye parts to form in the right and left eyes? If a mutation caused the formation of 100 retinal cells, did it perform the exact same feat bilaterally? If not, did a later mutation make the 100 retinal cells on one side after an earlier mutation made 100 on the other? Of course the number of cells would have to be exact on each side. What a “bookkeeping” job that must have been for natural selection!
Mutation Location: Why couldn’t a species mutate the wrong type of cells and place them where the retina should be? For example, could mutations have added cartilage cells to the iris, since mutations had no intelligence, which means anything could be possible? If mutations did that, does that mean the host would not have survived? Couldn’t retinal cells be just as easily added to the knee or stomach as to the eye? The complexities for M and NS are so astronomically enormous, logic should tell us they are beyond the world of possibility.
One Species or Many: Did eye and heart systems evolve in just one species, which then spread the miracles to other species? Or, did eye and heart/lung systems evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time, kind of like a huge choir singing? The thought that they evolved in only one animal population is unimaginable since species can only procreate with their own kind. Even if the population with these organs as a trait was split by geological events numerous times over eons causing the formation of additional species, the result would be that few species today would have eye or heart/lung systems. The reason? Eye and heart/lung systems formed 3.4 billion years after the first living species and 2.9 billion years after the oldest common ancestor of all of modern life. Between 2.9 BYA and 500 MYA, millions of species had to have evolved. There would just be too many species that would not get eyes or hearts from the original single species that evolved them 500 MYA. That scenario just could not produce eye and heart/lung systems in the vast majority of all modern species that have them today. Also, the thought that vision or heart/lung systems evolved in unison in millions of animals at the same time is completely preposterous.
Evolutionauts, when discussing eye evolution, say that seeing “light and dark” confers a survival/predatory advantage on the species that other species didn’t have. Therefore, it would be “selected for”. They isolate vision as if were the only “advantage” and that it should be considered isolated from other possible advantages. When they discuss vision, notice that other characteristics are never mentioned. In reality, many “advantages” were evolving, and the food chain would have been complex beyond imagination. Olfactory systems (smell), teeth, and hearing could well have trumped “light and dark” vision. If a toothless species moved toward a “dark” object, and that object turned out to be a species with teeth, the species with the early vision would be nothing more than a tasty treat for the toothed species. Or how about the case where a two pound eyed species ran into fifty pound blind species. The eyes wouldn’t trump the size. It’s pretty hard to imagine how most multicelled species with very modest size are all equipped with all five senses. One would think that if these senses came about by evolution, the picture wouldn’t be so neat. But it is.
Cornea Retina and Iris: Eyes are capable of auto-adjusting their “f-stops”. The iris consists of pigmented fibrovascular tissue known as a stroma. The stroma connects a sphincter muscle (sphincter pupillae), which contracts the pupil, and a set of dilator muscles (dilator pupillae) which open it. If the retina is overstimulated with too much light, it sends a signal to the brain which then sends a signal back to the muscles that control the iris. The f-stops are then auto-adjusted by the iris, and the light on the retina is reduced to a comfortable level. This all takes place because of an unbelievable series of biochemical reactions that simply could not be evolved in small steps.
The retina is composed of about 120 million cells. These cells combine to connect with the optic nerve which has about 1,200,000 neurons (nerve cells). The visual cortex has 538,000,000 cells. An astounding thought is how these all connect up. The varying numbers of cells of each part must have made an incredibly tough job for evolution. Think of trying to organize 120,000,000 cells to connect to 1,200,000 cells which then must connect to 538,000,000 cells. The dumb luck connections and trial and error must have been endless for the organisms that owned the trial visual systems until natural selection got it right. There must have been thousand of generations of nearly blind species until the trial and error ended. What a thought!
The cornea is the only living tissue in the body that doesn’t have a blood supply. Think of what vision would be like if the cornea had bunches of blood vessels running through it. We would be nearly blind! Evolutionauts like to cite the fact that the optic nerve exits the retina toward the front, then makes a turn to go to the back of the eye and on to the visual cortex as horrible design. Since this design does little to affect our vision, I don’t think evolution has a case. And my bet is that there is some reason for that design that we are unaware of and cannot test. Of course, scientists cannot take human eyes and redirect the nerve fibers without blinding the test victim. What evolutionauts don’t mention is the fact that of all of the tissues in the human body, the only one without blood supply is the cornea. The cornea receives its nourishment from tears and the aqueous humor. Just imagine if the cornea did have blood vessels and a blood supply. We humans would be blind. But somehow, in its immensely intelligent way, natural selection saw to it that there was one and only one tissue in the body without blood supply. The one we humans NEED to not have a blood supply.
This video shows how Richard Dawkins visualizes the evolution of the eye. This is nothing more than an amazing sham; another pseudo-scientific cartoon with no connection to reality at all. Dawkins doesn’t mention that (1) The “light sensitive cells” have no connection to the brain so the species would not be able to react to light, only the cells may. (2) How does the visual cortex evolve to translate the chemical signal received from the “light cells”. (3) What causes the “indentation”? Why would that occur? (4) How does the chemical signal that travels to the brain form. Is this something mutations can do? I think not. It’s no use even commenting farther on this sham. It’s interesting to read the comments on YouTube. The viewers are almost universally wowed by this Dawkins video.
Evolutionists say that eyes evolved using 100,000 to 500,000 mutations (generations). Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 130 million cells? Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what its job was and what the last mutation accomplished in making retinal cells? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here also? How did the mutations “know” where the cells should be placed. Did some place their cells on the back of the neck? After all, these are mutations!
Evolution likes to claim that the optic nerve evolved from the more “simple” sensory neurons. The big problem here is the fact that the optic nerve is ensheathed in all three meningeal layers (dura, arachnoid, and pia mater) rather than the epineurium, perineurium, and endoneurium found in peripheral nerves. Which means the it could not have evolved from sensory nerves, unless an amazingly large change evolved. This is an important issue, as fiber tracks of the mammalian central nervous system (as opposed to the peripheral nervous system) are incapable of regeneration and hence optic nerve damage produces irreversible blindness. Would this fact fit in with the “survival of the fittest” model?
The really interesting thing about eye and heart evolution is the fact that it supposedly stopped when pretty good perfection was achieved. What would suddenly cause the cessation of mutations, whose frequency should be constant?
Below are three videos that I made on eye evolution. Press the lower left arrow to view so you won’t leave the page.
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9M]
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9KQecDfn_o&feature=channel_page]
Evolution: An Objective Look 
John Matrix said,
December 1, 2010 at 5:33 am
Kent:
That was simply brilliant. Page saved….and thank you. I’ll be in touch.
Thanks steveebee for starting this up.
ADParker said,
December 1, 2010 at 9:51 am
I assume by “brilliant” you mean copy&pasted gibberish from apologetics sites, right?
John Matrix said,
December 1, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Copy and Pasted? Proof please, otherwise I move to strike your comment as
deliberately prejudicial, argumentative, and without probative value.
Gibberish? To those who can’t comprehend,,,,,or refuse to.
ADParker said,
December 2, 2010 at 1:33 am
Read my responding post. I referred to websites where the content can be found verbatim.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 1, 2010 at 4:00 pm
No John he is talking about the data that is quote from the book God about God and I prefaced it as from god about god. I had sent you a copy some time ago. But to be more specific to ADParker whose own writing could use a refreshing blend of referenced work from time to time. ADParker as you read causes most of us to yawn a lot and almost mouth out the words before we even get finished reading them, they are that over used, that un original and that typical. I Re-written hash brown nosed brand of please sit on my face Mr Dawkins type of venom laced hatred and anti religious bigotry this fake and phony pseudo intellect has frothed from his puss is about as welcome in the science classes of American as religion as his is nothing but drivel and typical talking points atheist’s have been saying for years, and usually borrowed from other websites where anti creationist morons like himself congregate and simply talk shit all the time, every time.
Unlike Charlie whose patience and diplomacy has more tolerance for the ADPparker parking lot brand of swap meet science buff’s and wannabee’s what it was John liked, parker, at least in his email to me, is how someone, a Christian, finally spoke in a manner that reflects the type of ridicule and insult you “in your face stfu style atheist’s have been getting away with for the last ten years.
Christians were kept to a standard or modicum of civility, atheist’s have taken for granted and taken advantage of us by giving us this “Christian reputation to live up to” while atheists just go on talking shit while they deserve getting the shit beat out of them.
Now, I know that isn’t a very nice Christian thing to say but years and years of this has taken it’s toll and many Christians have had it up to their eye’s in trying to say this nicely, so Ill say it like it needs to be said. I think Mr. ADParker is going to be seeing very soon, a new kind of Christian emerging and the memo has been discussed in many schools and church’s, that what seems to work for the Muslims getting their way in schools and in politics, will be some of the methods of pressuring our atheist dumbed down science classes in our public schools. We are getting rid of liberal judges who over turn same sex marriage where in every state the people said NO. We are also getting rid of liberal morons like adparker and is ilk from our Science Dept. People like Neal De Grass Tyson on PBS’s Nova has an agenda to use his show to advance his atheism and has admitted it. So we have an agenda for Mr. Tyson as well. The fact of God is un-deniable and I doubt God has a religion anyone has to be afraid is going to be in violation of the ACLU’s paranoia over church and state.
They say “Ridicule works and that is why we should ridicule creationists into better behavior” – Richard Dawkins.
I sure hope Richard can take what he dish’s out, because all he and condescending stuck up shit stains like ADP Parker have done, is awaken a sleeping giant and the Giant is the “Religious Right Wing Extremist” whose methods have been given the okay by many of Americas religious leaders, to give it back to them in such a way where the word extreme, would be an understatement.
I mean “extreme” doesn’t even begin to cover it. I mean extreme getting rid of atheists pushing atheism in our schools and shoving their vitriolic shit talking asses so far back in the closet along with gays, slamming the door shut for good.
I believe in the coming months John, you will be seeing the revival of the Christian evangelist, the Fundamentalist and the not so nice Christian answer to the Christ who went ballistic over turning tables and tossing merchants and money changers out on their asses.
We’ve decided, this is OUR country, PERIOD!
We Built it, Atheist’s have destroyed it and Americas obsession with Gay sex and Atheist’s making science once again the authority for what is “Natural” hence should be accepted by LAW mind you, is no longer the direction this country is going to take.
I have to say, I took pleasure in hearing about Parker complaining about my hoping he had a heart attack. You know why?
Because he followed it with “How Christian of you”
Well GET USED TO IT shit head because you and your atheist sons of bitches are about to reap what you’ve sewn.
As for this born again baptist and six year American Veteran,,,
Truthfully,, I got to tell ya Parker, you ain’t much of a teacher if all you know how to do is insult your audience to the point where someone would ejaculate just putting their hands
around your pencil neck
How ya like me
NOW
Charlie said,
December 1, 2010 at 5:14 pm
The passion is right. I am feeling it too. I certainly applaud your insistence that atheists should realize their games will no longer be tolerated.
But I wonder if the movement that you’re calling for isn’t exactly what might be considered another earthly reaction that will only cause the true message to be misinterpreted?
If the Bible is indeed right, then ADParker and company truly have no ability to see what you and I see. The root of why they fight so vehemently against God is because God has not chosen them as his children and has instead allowed their heart to turn to stone. It is not ours to decide if and when God will turn them around. It is entirely up to God.
Our ability to see God for who He is was a gift from God! We often forget to thank Him for that HUGE gift.
I don’t know your life. But I know mine- and I am a good man. Always have been. And I’ve made my vast share of lucky mistakes. Even then, I thought I deserved heaven just as much as anyone else that hasn’t been a complete loser at life. I thought I could do it on my own.
But reading what Paul writes gives us a real taste of what it means to appreciate the gift of faith. He knew very well that he had *absolutely nothing* to do with his own salvation. He took ZERO credit for finding Jesus. Jesus found Him! God has chosen ALL of his children. We aren’t special because we did something right by God. We do special things in the name of God because we were chosen. I cannot hold that against someone that hasn’t received that gift of faith no matter how much he rails against the Truth.
I fall to my knees every morning and every night because I have been gifted this faith. No- I am not claiming perfection or righteousness- rather this is a reflection of my thankfulness that He is lifting me up out of my complete inability to have found Him on my own.
Our message to the world should always be that compassion and forgiveness. Their lostness will not be changed by our flesh-driven and earthly emotions. Only God can save them. And often the only light that they will see will shine from us- as we strive to be like Him. Not because we have to. But because we Love Him.
Likewise, I do call upon all Christians to become more knowledgeable about the facts. It does people no good to hear us blankly stare at a mound of evolution babble-speak. It does people no good to hear us stand at a loss of words when asked questions about the Bible as a truth-source. It does people no good to hear a Christian take part of the Bible and not all of the Bible as truth.
We, as yourself, must not be lazy- learn your stuff and use the Bible as the Sword of Truth that it is.
I absolutely love your passion, Kent. I just pray that you direct it wisely. And that you can see how it is pointless and counterproductive to hate upon those that simply for no fault of their own have not been given eyes to see. After all- we received our eyes from no ability or deserving of our own.
Stay the course. Remember why we do the things we do- it is not for us but for Him.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 1, 2010 at 4:54 pm
You’ll notice John, that one of the biggest complaints stevebee makes is how he is pigeon holed as a creationist a religious nut job by people like ADP Parker and his buddies at his “forum”.
I can assure you, stevebee has NEVER, no not ever expressed an interest in religion. It isn’t his path. That is fine with me, but what I think is such an injustice is that he suffers through this bullshit prejudice and discrimination usually imposed on religious people of faith because atheist, in their alleged ultra objective science minded belief and by their evidence only mantra that seems to stop when it comes to anyone different then they are, are summarily labeled creationist as if it were leprosy.
The other issue is, NOT ONCE, NOT ONE SINGLE TIME has Adpparker addressed some of stevebees videos with anything that could even come close to refuting them.
NOT ONCE
You are seeing websites discussing these little bitch boys where they are getting there asses handed back to em by their own science. Sites like Vox Day owns http://www.voxday.net/ and JP Holding, http://www.tektonics.org/ Generation Xpose http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot.com/ etc’.
Even CS Lewis is getting in on the act and giving atheists the treatment their atheist pope Dick Dawkins will regret as he learns what will be a hard learned lesson in humility, that using bad behavior as a tactic for getting anyone to behave better will only beget the same in return and what goes around comes around DICK.
I know people that swear if they ever see Christopher Hitchens at an air port, he will be nothing but the Vodka Vocal Vitriolic Vagrant and Victim of a violent act at an airport restroom who will put a lasting impression of his best selling book on his puss after he asks him to autograph the compilation of hate driven garbage.
After that, he can say what ever he wants about us, at least then, all that religious motivated violence he says we are to blame for, will finally make him, an honest man. When ever I see someone suggesting such retribution be wrought against our atheist members infecting our society.
I always remember to tell them, when they do it to whisper in their ear. they are doing it for their own good, and
in the name of God. just to
piss em off
more
John Matrix said,
December 1, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Well said Kent.
If ADParker, or any other atheist, gaytheist, or evolutionist doesn’t get that fact that they just had their intellectual arses kicked past their empty craniums….then I doubt they ever will.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 1, 2010 at 5:10 pm
John, Ill see if I can get you a copy of the newly released CS Lewis writings that had been edited out of his many books and compiled for new release as an appropriate response to atheism.
If you thought the screw tape letters were out there,,
wait till you see what a candid anger unleashed CS Lewis
says about atheism
Charlie said,
December 1, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I apologize- this is religious in content, but the relevance is in C S Lewis’ ultimate rejection of evolution on a number of philosophical grounds and sound reasoning- that is not specifically recounted here…
I absolutely love CS Lewis.
Excerpt from C.S. Lewis on Evolution (see http://ldolphin.org/cslevol.html)
“And this is to me the final test. This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams: I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner: I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world: the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions*. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”
* I would argue that the Christian worldview is able to fit in the entire human condition- including all of the religions and denials thereof.
I too believe that the Son has Risen. And count myself blessed.
Charlie said,
December 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm
A review on C.S. Lewis’ writings and the Seven Deadly Sins:
http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/7sins.html
Excerpt:
“The pettiness of wrath, the demand that all others must agree and consent to “my way,” is at the same time both comic and tragic; comic in that those on the outside can so easily see the ludicrous position of the angry person, and tragic in that those same people can do very little to assuage the violent passion that this sin evokes. That the focusing sin in The Magician’s Nephew is wrath is finally underscored in the last lines of the tale where we read Uncle Andrew’s evaluation of Jadis: “‘A devilish temper she had,’ he would say. ‘But she was a dem fine woman, sir, a dem fine woman'” (186). In these words Lewis hints at the key problem of wrath: it is of the devil. Jadis’ “devilish temper” is emphasized time and time again in the story, as she at one point even mimics Milton’s Satan in the temptation scene of Paradise Lost. Lewis would have us see that anger, uncontrolled rage, is another form of blindness. It turns us away from a right and whole vision of the truth, and instead leads us towards egoism, expressed by choler and revenge.
”
Let’s not forget that this brilliant writer was once an atheist, and as lost as all Christians were before they knew Christ, and as lost as ADParker and his company still are. This fine atheist did not find the Light in Christian Anger. He found it in the true virtues that Jesus himself represented. And went on to represent them as well as he could in his stories.
Hate upon me if you must. But recognize what it is that speaks through me and through CS. It is not of my own.
John Matrix said,
December 1, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Charlie: There is a time and season for everything under the sun.
Let’s not forget that Jesus used name calling and ridicule against the scribes, pharisees and hypocrites of his day and they never thought He was all that nice to them either. Jesus was only kind and gentle to those who accepted His message while to those who scoffed at Him got a sharp rebuke.
Charlie said,
December 1, 2010 at 8:18 pm
All too true. There were those that knew the Truth and rejected it (and perhaps that they had been rejected) for unknown reasons- and they deserved every bit of that.
The trouble will be to know the difference. Jesus could do that. He could know what we cannot.
We all must walk the path that He allows us to walk.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 1, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Charlie, bless your heart, It wouldn’t be the first time a fellow Christian has given me such delicately delivered advice and council. I hope you understand that my “passion”, at least in this thread and in regard to one ADParker and that I certainly don’t believe it is appropriate behavior for everyone to give in response to everyone.
John, is a colleague of mine who knows me better than most and knows where I am coming from and who I am as a Christian who absolutely loves the lord. I think the time has come however to stop our spiritual adversaries from bitch slapping us in the face while they take advantage of our willingness to turn the other cheek as if it is a revolving door.
You mention they are lost to their delusion and if you read that, notice it says God “gives them up to their delusions” I don’t concentrate on converting atheist evolutionist’s and in the many years I have debated them and watched others debate them I can count two times have I ever seen anyone convert. Their are others and famous examples such as Anthony Flew but by and large, you got to know what you’re dealing with here and we are not to sugar coat anything. That doesn’t mean I am suggesting to speak to them like I do,, I’m just a bit jaded from listening to the same garbage and what I REALLY get ticked off about is they have actually convinced people, (some anyway) that this idea, is a SCIENCE!
I have heard them bitch when anyone brings up the Bible or religion so we capitulate to their whining and stick with materialist dialogue. But the moment you start backing them into a corner, what happens ? It is THEY, who all of a sudden insist on bringing up religion in a counter attack where just before that, they insist religion and science are apples and oranges comparisons.
Then if you respond, they summarily bash you for talking about religion again. Hey ya know what Charlie,, I have to tell ya this and maybe we can both take something from each others advice.
You won’t EVER see me make apologies for bringing up a religious context in any conversation and I wince whenever I see you do that seeking this asshole parkers approval.
If we have to tolerate listening to his religion of evolution philosophy, than I guess he is going to have to tolerate mine.
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/junesoft/atheistsalwayslooklikethis.jpg?t=1291243557
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/junesoft/bestgesture.gif?t=1291243843
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/junesoft/Richards_Evolution.gif?t=1291244222
Charlie said,
December 2, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I hear you, Kent. Many years of this would probably drive me up the wall, too.
As for my apologies for bringing religion into the fray, they were more to Steve than to ADParker, since I know that this site is not about religion and instead about ToE.
Very interesting conversations here. I thought that rational people would begin to see through this myth of evolution, but it turns out that there isn’t all that much rationality left to spare once one refuses to use it. Some are truly entrenched. It really is sad.
Charlie said,
December 3, 2010 at 4:43 am
I think you’ll all enjoy reading this- very relevant toward documenting the mood of Darwinist dogma that pervades the current culture:
Signature of Controversy (a collection of reviews of Steven Meyer’s Signature in the Cell)
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=6871
Excerpt:
”
That said, [referring to Meyer’s extensively substantiated claim about the power of,
and the need for, intelligence in producing functional information- at least when starting from physical and chemical (non-living) antecedents.] even if Meyer’s book were about biological evolution, Falk’s argument would fall short. Falk is confusing sociology with biology.
That most biologists assume that universal common ancestry is a fact isn’t
evidence for said fact. It’s a fact about prominent beliefs within a community.
And even if universal common ancestry is a fact, it’s not evidence that
all the organisms that evolved from said ancestor did so purely by a process
of chance and (merely physical) necessity without the contributions of intelligence.
(Oddly, Falk wants to have it both ways, since he says: “I want to be
quick to add that, as a Christian, I believe that it happened at God’s command
and as the result of God’s presence.”)
In any case, that many biologists believe that selection and random mutation
can generate large amounts of new biological information is a sociological,
not a biological, fact. And frankly, it’s not even a sociological fact. There
are many biologists who doubt it, and get on quite well nonetheless.
”
Looks like the book would be a good read.
John Matrix said,
December 1, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Charlie:
Knowing what you saw we cannot know is exactly what a believer should know
instinctively by the power of the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ in him.
John Matrix said,
December 1, 2010 at 11:34 pm
***Sorry Charlie the word “saw” above should be “say”
ADParker said,
December 2, 2010 at 4:41 am
Charlie said:
“So why all the fuss about taking that initial assumption of intelligent design as a plausible (possible) given”
Plausible and possible is not the same thing at all.
I fully accept that some form of intelligent design is ‘possible’, in the same way that Gus the purple universe farting hippo is possible. Neither is plausible however, that would require some rational/evidential support.
Charlie said:
“and letting that be a legitimate line of research without all of the puffed up falsely imposed ridicule and condescending judgment?”
It could be a legitimate line of research. The ID from the ID movement (ala The Discovery Institute etc.) IS NOT legitimate research, it is apologetics in a cheap lab coat. And time and time again this duplicity has been revealed.
My favourite was when Michael Behe openly admitted in court that ID would be real science, if only we redefined what “science” means!
This leads to two things:
1. The admission that “science” has to be redefined, is an (unwitting?) admission that ID is NOT science as it is currently defined.
2. His redefinition would mean that Astrology would then count as “science” as well! (He stated this on his own prior to the court case as well – he was NOT tricked into admitting it.)
A “ legitimate line of research” doesn’t imply that the hypothesis/claim (that this intelligent designer ever existed/ is real) UNTIL that research actually bears fruit.
Charlie said:
“I wouldn’t mind hearing what those might be. I won’t deny that my faith requires me to bridge across some legitimate barriers. I just don’t believe that neo-Darwinian ToE presents one. What does Victor have to say that brings legitimate scientific objections?”
They are all in his book “God: The Failed Hypothesis” In which he challenges different definitions of “God”, such as the 3O (three-oh) god (Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent.) Check out the book if you are interested. There is also a website, but it is not as good in my opinion, and a portion of the book in Christopher Hitchens’ “The portable atheist”, which is interesting; not his work, but snippets from atheists throughout history.
This is supposed to be a blog on evolution though, not gods.
Charlie said:
“our response was very difficult to read and understand. It was not absolutely clear to me. You seem to claim that your argument is different than that of Intelligent Design proponents such as Behe. And that one is an argument from ignorance (IDs) and one is not (yours). The explanation for why was not clear to me.”
One (ID) is claiming that something is true because it have not been proved that it is false. That is the fallacy to a tee. I have none nothing even remotely like that.
Charlie said:
“You state that Behe’s examples of IC are a good example, since it is ‘proven’ that his examples are not actually irreducibly complex. But in fact, it was not proven- merely asserted and then waved off.”
You are kidding right?
Charlie said:
“ There is no proof, for example, that the flagellum is merely a progression of the TTSS needle.”
Ah; doesn’t have to. Behe didn’t claim that the flagellum DID not evolve from a precursor. He claimed that it COULD not have. It may seem subtle, but the distinction is significant.
If I claim that you could not have brought a hat; you proving that you have brought one is not necessary, all you have to do is show that I have failed to prove that you could not. For example by showing that you have the means to do so, whether you do buy one or not.
Behe’s crap is all back to front anyway. So what if it won’t work if you take one gene/part away? The theory of evolution is about how they came together, NOT what happens if you pull them apart again. It’s also impossible to un-stir a cup of coffee and milk. Does that mean that it COULD not have been stirred together in the first place.
You might get something out of this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
Charlie said:
“They have some physical and protein similarities,”
They have an EXACT subset, not mere “similarities.”
Directly refuting Behe’s claim that it is impossible to take some parts away from the flagellum and still be functional.
Charlie said:
“but is there a reasonable path of DNA mutations that can be performed to ‘evolve’ the TTSS needle into the flagellum?”
Possibly.
Therefore Behe’s claim to have established that it is impossible is FALSE.
“It MIGHT be irreducibly complex” is not evidence for anything.
Charlie said:
“Are the DNA even similar at all? “
Identical up to a point. That point being the extras that the flagellum has. That is the whole point of the example.
Charlie said:
“Is the TTSS needle perhaps an even better example of IC?”
Can you establish that it COULD not have come from different precursors? If not, then no, not until you do.
Charlie said:
“Behe’s poor performance in the face of courtroom theatrics is not proof that evolution has made its case against IC or ID. It is an empty assertion that is aggrandized to ‘proof’ by brute force intimidation.”
That is just one example of his failures.
Charlie said:
“His ‘argument from ignorance’ was not established. He should have thought ahead and been ready, but frankly, who should believe that the evolution establishment is so entrenched in denying every possibility of rational discourse?”
His argument from ignorance, was not something he committed in the courtroom (well it was repeated there as well, but that is not what I am talking about,) but a prime factor of his (and the ID movement’s) entire endeavour. His “Irreducible Complexity” itself is an argument from ignorance. And one refuted by Muller (see link above) BEFORE Behe was born!
Charlie said:
“Yet that very denial is rooted in a denial that God cannot exist-”
That is some twisted double-negative you got going there!
Deny that God cannot exist?
Dunno: it might be true that God cannot exist, that would depend on how one defined “God.” If that definition breaks the laws of logic in some way then that God can not logically exist. (If one claims God is beyond even the laws of logic then all bets are off; that god could both exist and not exist at the same time, and could possibly draw a square circle, find a number higher than 3 but lower than 2, and find at what temperature the numeral 7 boils!)
Charlie said:
“So if science cannot assert that God does not exist, then we are left with the circularly self-defeating question from ADParker: “How do you go from a statement that I can’t believe something until given sufficient supporting evidence to “argument from ignorance”?”
You have stated essentially that you cannot ‘believe something’ without sufficient evidence (which is in question ONLY because you cannot believe that very something). That you cannot ‘believe something’ enough to assert that everything EXCEPT that something (IC/ID/God) must be explored as an option- no matter how far-fetched that alternate scenario might be. “
Huh?!
I can not believe in a god without sufficient evidence/reasoning to support that hypothesis (once defined properly of course; what does one mean by “God” anyway?) because I find myself both unwilling and unable to abandon reason to do so – hence the need for reasoning.
In that I am different from some people who are willing and able to abandon reason to do so. Like those who, when asked why they believe say things like “ I would hate to live in a world where there is no God/afterlife” as if that counts as a reason to believe that they do exist.
Charlie said:
“Because it seems all too incredible to you that a Creator may exist, you propose that something equally as incredible (and more so in my opinion) must be an explanation for our existence.”
How is gradual change through KNOWN phenomena (mutations ‘copying errors’, and that which we call natural selection; basically that which works at the time procreates, those that do not, fail to do so) resulting in the vast divergence of all life, count as EQUAL to some mystical being with extreme magical powers, somehow existing outside of time and space, and somehow not needing to be caused, or its vast complexity explained at all?!
How does increased complexity from the very simple (one can go back, if not if full detail, to the very ‘beginning’ of spacetime now; with relatively simple steps all the way) EQUAL the extraordinary claim of a super-intelligence always existing?!
You believe it? Fine. But don’t pretend that they are even close to equal.
By the way; no one I know of accepts the theory of evolution BECAUSE of our atheism. In fact the one has nothing to do with the other. only creationists conflate the two; as they see both as challenges tho THEIR beliefs.
There can be a weak influence the other way around though (although again this is not how it happened for most people I know): Recognising the strength of the theory of evolution can allow some people to finally let go of the unjustified attachment to theism, that one can think of no better explanation of how the diversity of life arose. Richard Dawkins said that this is what did it for him. But I would say that if that was the case then their religious attachment was incredibly tenuous already. Nothing but an unwillingness to let go of the delusional comfort of having an answer.
Charlie said:
“And you claim that the evidence that He has given you is not enough, because to you it is not evidence.”
No. I claim (now) that ‘he’ has not given me any evidence. Nor has anyone else. Although many have tried.
Charlie said:
“Don’t you see that it is not self-evident to you ONLY because you have asserted in your mind that you do not know Him?”
That makes no sense whatsoever. No I do not “see” that. It is an all-too-common empty assertion from believers.
I once believed. Then I decided to examine why I did so; found those reasons flawed (accepting the words of claimed authorities etc.) Still wanting to believe (as I was indoctrinated to do) sought out REAL reasons to do so. Not only have I found none; I have found that those claiming to have those reasons, instead giving completely fallacious arguments, not counting as real evidence or reasoning at all. All founded on some logical fallacy (fundamental error in reasoning) or other. Every single one, all non-answers.
And I think I have already said enough on how notoriously unreliable “common sense” (aka “it’s obvious” and “it’s self-evident”) truly is, already.
If you think you have an argument for the existence of (or reason to believe in) any gods, then why not head over to the Rational Skepticism forum and make your case? (Yes it is a predominantly, but not even close to exclusively, atheistic community at the moment [more theists joining is all that can change that], but a ‘hostile’ audience is the best place to rigorously have you arguments critically tested.)
Charlie said:
“Isn’t that exactly an example of an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity? You may not have uttered it, but it is at the root of what you stand on.”
No. No it is not.
Charlie said:
“You simultaneously argue that Behe is arguing from ignorance- but deny that you yourself are also doing the same.”
Correct. I was more than willing to find that I was unintentionally committing that fallacy. But it turns out that I was not.
If you still think I am; then spell it out: What am I claiming is true, what am I claiming has not been (dis)proven, and where have I claimed that this lack of (dis)proof proves my claim?
Charlie said:
“I don’t agree that you and Behe are on level ground.”
Me either: He is a fraud.
Charlie said:
“I don’t agree that Behe is arguing from ignorance.”
He is, whether you agree or not. Sorry.
Charlie said:
“His assertion of IC was not properly defeated.”
It has been, many times.
Probably why he resorts to using a mousetrap as an example, instead of a real example – and even that fails!
Charlie said:
“A1: The evolutionist claims that something is true (evolution is a better explanation of our origins than intelligent design) because it (evolution explanation) has not been proven false.”
That is a lie. One I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you have been tricked into believing (thus making the founders of the lie the liars, not you.)
The theory of evolution is claimed to be best theory (explanation) that fits all the known facts…BECAUSE it has repeatedly found to have done so. It is as ‘true’ as any theory can be (all of science deals with “best approximations of truth”not “The Truth (TM)” – we leave such dishonesty to religious zealots [which not all theists are, of course.])
Charlie said:
“Okay… well it doesn’t allow itself to be proven false, does it?”
“Fossil Rabbits in the Precambrian!” as J.B.S. Haldane famously snapped, when asked this pointed question for the umpteenth time.
In fact anything that doesn’t fit in with the theory would disprove it. What it would really do is lead to a reformulation of the theory. It would have to be the case; evolution is a fact (what some creationists call ‘microevolution’ [another stolen and twisted term] is evolution and it happens) and “the theory of evolution” whatever it might be, is the scientific explanation of those facts. So proving the current theory false would lead to the need for a new theory of evolution. Just as is the case for Atomic theory, germ theory, the theory of gravity…
Charlie said:
“It squirms out of the reach of any real science. A lot less like science and a lot more like dogma.”
You are buying into a common creationist apologetics set of lies.
The ToE is possibly the post powerfully successful scientific theory of all time; it has meet and overcome innumerable potential falsification opportunities (one of the biggest was when it was fisrt testd against genetics in the 1950s; two vastly different speheres of examination of the biological world, that could have easily has contradicted what the other claimed) as well as many many successful predictions (Tiktaalik being a prime, recent (2004), example; it was predicted in great detail, and then was found as predicted.)
Charlie said:
“A2: The creationist claims that something is true (God is a better explanation of our origins than evolution) because it (God explanation) has not been proven false.”
I can take this side as well:
Some do. Others claim there is actual evidence/reasoning to support the claim. I have yet to see any such claim succeed, but at least they try to justify their beliefs/claims.
Charlie said:
“This doesn’t allow itself to be proven false, either, does it?”
In most cases no. “God” has over time become less and less of a coherent and tangible concept; a deliberate attempt to protect it from potential falsification.
Charlie said:
“ But then again, God is untouchable by science,”
See; that is one of those ways to protect the belief from examination.
Unfortunately if it cannot be rationally (scientifically) examined, then there is no reason to believe it. Simple as that
Charlie said:
“so He fits logically into this role a bit better than science attempts to with ToE.”
So you just make an empty assertion that is is “untouchable by science” and that magically makes it make sense?!
“You should not expect to find any evidence, He is ‘beyond’ science!” is not evidence, it is a cop-out. Sorry; if there is no evidence then there is no evidence. If there is no way to ever find evidence, then there will never be ANY reason to believe in such a thing!
Charlie said:
“B1: ADParker cannot accept that something is true (God is a better explanation of our origins than evolution) without evidence. Yet the evidence that he denies is denied BECAUSE he refuses to accept that God MIGHT be a better explanation.”
Say what?!
God is not an explanation Charlie. Evolution/gravity… are not explanations either; they are objects/things. What is needed is an explanation FOR what we know. “God Did it” is just a claim/assertion, where’s the explanation?
Charlie said:
“And the evidence FOR ToE is exceedingly absent in almost every regard- so why is it that he can accept that to be true?”
Your question is irrelevant because the premise (lack of evidence for ToE) is false, mind-numbingly false. There is mountains of evidence. Those creationist apologists that are telling you that nonsense are lying, and most of them are probably wilfully ignorant.
The ToE only exists Because of that evidence! It is the evidence that drives the theory, not the other way around.
Charlie said:
“B2: Charlie cannot accept that something is true (evolution is a better explanation of our origins than intelligent design) without evidence.”
One of your problems is your framing. I will stop short of sugesting that this is deliberate.
I accept the theory of evolution, as a theory. Because it is a theory. I do not accept the God hypothesis because I have seen no reason to do so. But have seen innumerbale grossly flawed attempts – at least suggesting that those who are promoting it, don’t have any good reasons either.
The BEST reason I have ever heard is that of personal experience, and that is worthless to anyone other than the one who had the experience.
You on the other hand, it seems to me, believe in a god, for which I can imagine no good reason for doing so. And worse seem to be tying it in someway to your non-acceptence of the ToE. As if you have constructed a False Dilemma fallacy; in which you ASSUME that one of the two possibilities MUST be true, and you ONLY examine the ToE (superficailly by listening to anti-evolution rhetoric) and in not being sufficiently convinced (it appears that absolute proof is demanded by most creationists, which is anti-science and reason in itself) accept “God Did It” by default.
If I had not read up so much on evolution, and on the scientific method so as to appreciate how strongly a theory within science sould be accepted by those of us not in those fields… then I would not accept EITHER the Theory of evolution or the existence of any gods: BOTH need rational support for me to buy into them. It is not a one or the other scenario; that is an unjustified and irrational assumption.
Charlie said:
“Evidence FOR ToE relies on my willingness to accept a strange scenario of special near-miraculous events that just happen to have caused me to be cognizant of my existence and strain against the evidence that God has presented me. “
There are no “near miraculaous” events in the ToE.
To accept common creatiionist STRAW MEN of evolution, you do need to accept such things. And you shouldn’t; they are inane.
Charlie said:
“And the evidence FOR God is all around us once we accept that He just MIGHT exist. Only then can begin the earnest search for Truth.”
I accept that God, Fairies, Dragons, Unicorns, Yetis…MIGHT exist. I have just seen nothing that counts as evidence that they DO exist.
I have long been engaged in the search for truth. I just don’t ASSUME what that truth will be, before I start. That would cause Confirmation Bias.
And do you have any idea how many times that I have been TOLD that the evidence is all around us?! Empty assertions like that are worthless. I could tell you that the evidence for UFO visits, for fairies… is all around us.. Doesn’t even begin to suggest that it is true.
Charlie said:
“You kid yourself if you posit that God is on the same level as fairies. True- with God ALL things are possible. But a fairy would be a creation- not a Creator.”
And thus you avoid addressing what was actually said. Based on your emotional attachments to this god you believe in.
Fairies, celestial teapots, the Flying spaghetti monster… They all make the same point.
I am NOT (and no one ever is, if they know what they are doing) is comparing the ATTRIBUTES of the two (your god and xxx), but just the fact their evidential support etc.
Charlie said:
“I am convinced that you are indeed very impressed with empty assertions.”
Then you have no understanding of my nature at all.
Charlie said:
“Is it self-evident to you that there is NOT a Creator- and that a belief in God is as ridiculous as a belief in fairies and unicorns? Is that an example of common sense?’
What?! Where the Hel did you get that from?
But since you asked: Do you find the idea that fairies and unicorns existing ridiculous? If so; why?
Charlie said:
“I don’t blame you, ADParker. One might blame God. But we are each and every one of us justifiably doomed to an eternal existence of suffering and separation from God. He is Merciful to some and they find faith. But such is Mercy- we didn’t deserve what he gifted us with- we are simply grateful for it.”
The contortions in that bit of preaching! None of it supported by anything but even more preaching, so who cares?
Just for the record; being a Reasonist, I don’t respond (positively) to bribes and threats. The Carrot and the Stick carry no weight for me, UNTIL you have established that it is reasonable to accept that they actually exist.
To do otherwise would be to commit the Appeal to Consequences (also the closely related Appeal to Emotion) logical fallacy.
“Ooooh it would be horrible if…, would be wonderful if…” is no reason at all to think that those things are true or not.
Charlie said:
“ADParker:
>Not denying…just not naively accepting this assertion.
>“God exists” (not even counting all the other baggage) is an incredibly >extraordinary claim, and as Carl Sagan put it (possibly originally coined by >Marcello Truzzi ): Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
This in itself is very plainly an argument from personal incredulity. “
No it isn’t. You still haven’t learned what that logical fallacy is.
“You have not given enough evidence for me to accept X, so I do not accept it.” IS NOT committing the logical fallacy.
“You have not given enough evidence for me to accept X, therefore X is false.” IS committing it, but is not what I or Carl Sagan did at all.
Charlie said:
“This isn’t to say that it does not have some merit as the basis for some research.”
It would say that, if it WAS a logical fallacy. Which it is not.
Charlie said:
“Common sense is not always wrong.”
Nope. More often than not it is wrong in the sense that it is overly simplified and based on extremely limited data.
Charlie said:
“But it isn’t an evidence that seals the deal. Look further. Extraordinary evidence is indeed available. Open your eyes to see it.”
Eyes open thanks. Care to point it out. You (and so many theists) seem to be claiming that you have found and recognised it, why such staggering unwillingness to explain it to the rest of us?!
Charlie said:
“For one thing, it is indeed a miracle that one ADParker and only one ADParker was born into this world and is able to consciously examine his existence and wonder about his origin and his destiny.”
No. You are displaying a failure to understand statistical probabilities. It is improbable if one focuses on just that. It is also improbable to pick out one particular number between 1 and 1,000,000,000 (1:1,000,000,000 in fact). But you WILL pick out one number, and after the fact the probability of picking that one is 1:1.
Imagine you picked out 667,342,199; You COULD say that it is a MIRACLE that you picked that number. But only if you first assume that the number is somehow special and significant. Which is precisely what you did in your example of my existence. This is no different than one person, in a community of 1,000,000,000, winning the (randomly selected) lottery, and thinking it a miracle that it was them and not one of the other 999,999,999. Not true, as the odds was the same for everybody, and that mistaken belief is a matter of Innumeracy (which is to numbers and illiteracy is to the written word.)
(You may have thought that I would be bamboozled by this play, due to my own ego overriding my reason. Sorry; I am immune to such tactics. – Again I am willing to accept that you are a victim yourself, and innocently passing on the poorly reasoned nonsense.)
Charlie said:
“It is not an accident that you are here, buddy.”
How could you possibly KNOW that?
Answer; you don’t, do you?
Charlie said:
“You just may become the brightest light in the room if you simply look for the switch. It is a wonderful gift indeed to shine on behalf of the Lord.”
It is such a shame that you ended this with empty preaching.
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you with the gentle caress of his noodley appendage. (see how worthless that is?)
Charlie said,
December 2, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Amazing.
You have deluded yourself sufficiently to be hopelessly lost in that logic of yours. You have sufficiently convinced me that somehow all of that which you just posted made sense to you.
This is the one thing that I can agree on with you, ADParker- wholeheartedly:
“If it were true, then your inability to stomach it would not change that fact in the slightest. Your personal preferences, likes and dislikes have no bearing on what is, or is not, true.”
That is absolutely a solid truth.
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster caress you gently… LOL!
ADParker said,
December 3, 2010 at 5:38 am
Damn. I kind of hoped that you at least might remain worth having an actual mature discussion, Kent is clearly a lost cause on that score.
Oh well.
stevebee92653 said,
December 3, 2010 at 6:50 am
Hey ADParker, is it true that not one single evolutionaut in the world has a sense of humor? Or just you guys at RS. Absolutely impossible to believe your answers to the ostrich question. And the birds with teats? I mean impossible. I mean astounding. What’s wrong with you people?? If I were you I would disavow evolution just to get my sense of humor back. It would be worth it. Really!
ADParker said,
December 2, 2010 at 5:25 am
Charlie said:
“ADParker, I have to wonder…
Do you not ever stop to wonder what the implications are if you and other evolutionists are indeed right? (No- I am not conceding that you have evidence that is compelling- just entertaining the scenario.)”
Of course. What would the point be otherwise?
But I am not an idiot; I realise that whatever the implications/consequences might be; that doesn’t change its truth-value.
Charlie said:
“If you are right, then you are indeed simply the happenstance effect of material laws that they in turn were simply haphazard and unintentional.”
Close enough I guess. (In my case I was not of a “planned pregnancy” either, so I wasn’t even “intended” at that level. By brother however was; my parents wanted to give me a little sister!)
And what of it? If it is in fact true, then it is something we have to deal with. It is not like your distaste for a fact can make it no longer a fact, can it?
Or do you think it is a good idea to believe something that isn’t true, if you prefer the lie to the truth, the fantasy to the reality?
Charlie said:
“If all there is at the beginning of our existence is a majestic roll of the dice (time, matter, chance and consciousness self-appearing from nothing)- and perhaps an evolution-directed alien race that spread their seed here- or perhaps even an absent-minded watchmaker that just threw something at the ‘wall’ to see what might stick… If all of that is true- then you and your entire existence just doesn’t matter. Not one lick.”
True. And?
Have you read Stephen Hawking’s “The Grand Design” yet? That offers an enticing possibility as well.
Charlie said:
“In fact, if everything is material, then you don’t even have the choice of whether or not to do and think as you do.”
That does not at all necessarily follow.
It is a common anti-materialist straw man though. Most of us materialists (but not all) see intelligence and the ability to achieve “free will” (or what sure feels like it, it is an open question) etc. are emergent properties of matter and energy (many call this just “matter”, I prefer “energy” myself.)
Charlie said:
“Materially speaking, chaos and chance do not really exist.”
No. In Strict Determinism this is the case; that is a different philosophical position entirely. Are you not familiar at all with quantum physics (the science is decades old you know, 85 years or so)? That includes chance and probability at its very core. Ad evolution includes random mutations; chance. There is plenty of chance to be found within materialism. You have been misinformed.
Charlie said:
“They are an illusion of our human inability to understand the complexity of how everything inter-relates.”
As I said; you are referring to the Strict Deterministic philosophy, not materialism.
Charlie said:
“Knowledge of all the initial conditions and the ability to control them all would yield us with the power to repeat everything precisely over and over again.”
Materialistic quantum physics says not so.
Charlie said:
“The fact that all of the electrons in your computer can be purposed to follow exactly the same patterns over and over again reliably like clockwork is a testament to our ability to depend on this materialism once we have understood how to control nearly all of the variables.”
Computer science relies on quantum indeterminacy actually. What you are referring to is a product of some understanding of how to get deterministic results out of this indeterminacy; basically probabilities collapse into a set result.
Charlie said:
“Our inability to understand the variables gives us the illusion of chaos and chance- but they do not exist. Materially.”
Strict deterministically, not merely materially.
Charlie said:
“If you are right about evolution and the absence of God,”
Evolution and the absence of any reason to believe in any gods.
Charlie said:
“then your position in time and space within our universe is a direct and unchangeable effect of how the dice were rolled at the beginning of time.”
I am a materialist, but not a strict determinist. So you are mistaken.
Charlie said:
“You have no ability to think on your own- it is all the product of how things were set in motion at the beginning of time.”
I see my ability to reason as an emergent property of my primate brain. No mystical gods required, as far as I can tell.
Charlie said:
“Sorry- that is not something that I can stomach.”
And I don’t believe. Nor do many (most I expect) materialists.
But regardless of that error of yours;
If it were true, then your inability to stomach it would not change that fact in the slightest. Your personal preferences, likes and dislikes have no bearingon what is, or is not, true.
And I care more about what is true than what feels comfortable for me to believe.
My favourite example is this (reworded for your phrasing here):
The thought that the Nazi Regime murdered ~11,000,000 people “ is not something that I can stomach” But that doesn’t change the fact that it happened.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 2, 2010 at 2:50 pm
ADPBitchslap gurgled: “The ID from the ID movement (ala The Discovery Institute etc.) IS NOT legitimate research, ”
Parker, no one cares about your “OPINION” of the Discovery institute.
Hell what the fuck what YOU know about a “legitimate” research when you assholes have taken an extinct pigs tooth and built an entire caveman around it. When you guys have tweaked and fudged so much data to make your theory work on paper, then you call the paper “peer reviewed” by other morons like you who then call it “evidence”
The same so called “legitimate science” that has been so un-critical of dino to bird fossils coming out of china, it has become a multi million dollar industry selling you idiots fakes. The same allegedly legitimate science that is compelled by it’s very “too impossible to be true” attributes, has them attaching the silly theory to those having REAL credibility and riding on the coat tails of various other REAL science discoveries thinking these comparisons such the claim the TOE is as proven as gravity when such statements are so absolutely absurd and utterly ridiculous, it only makes them look incompetent and woefully desperate.
The comments such as “Their is no argument” or “the debate is over” or “Their is no question that evolution happened” are really quite hysterical. I mean if you want to believe that, it is certainly your right to do so. But at least do it because you can prove it and that is what is missing from the deck of cards evolution is built is their is NO E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E and we know the motives for sustaining this asinine theory is out of angst for religion and your disdain for it. You not being able to have an excuse to disobey a creator for a religion you imagine is behind ID is your problem, not ours.
No one but no one has proven the whale evolved from a land animal, someone just came up with this idea and reverse engineered the anatomy of a whale and created a fable using a myriad of suggestions to explain this leviathan size re-construction effort, giving little consideration to the insurmountable problems that would exist if such a biological re-engineering process were to take place.
The whole idea for it is ludicrous and anyone who believes it needs their damn head examined because anyone so foolish, has NO business, teaching children this absurd fairy tale. It isn’t plausible, it isn’t technically feasible save for some miracle, and it certainly isn’t science. It is nothing but pathetically contrived hoax, a joke, and you are the product of the punchline.
“it is apologetics in a cheap lab coat. And time and time again this duplicity has been revealed.”
No it hasn’t. The NAS and all the way up to top levels in Science have claimed this but this has been an attempt by the same group who can’t seem to grasp their is NO WAY what we see today in all the life forms on earth could have come about using Natural Selection and Mutation. It just doesn’t cut it as a mechanism pal. Evolution is a dead theory. Hell it isn’t even a good hypothesis anymore. Take you head out of your ass Parker. Jeez you have got to be the most terminally stupid, intentionally ignorant, deaf dumb and blind idiot and moron I have ever come across.
ADPassclown thinks:”My favourite was when Michael Behe openly admitted in court that ID would be real science, if only we redefined what “science” means!
This leads to two things:
The admission that “science” has to be redefined, is an (unwitting?) admission that ID is NOT science as it is currently defined.”
You don’t think too much do you dumb shit. Ya see park. behe is right ID isn’t science as it is defined and THAT is why he believes if something requiring as much faith and belief in miracles as evolution does, can be called “Science”, then it only stands to reason why ID should be allowed under the same umbrella. Evolution simply is not nor has it ever been a science. It is a PHILOSOPHY .
The only difference between you and Behe, is that Behe is honest enough to admit it. It doesn’t surprise me however that you are too dumb and stupid having been brainwashed with it, that you wouldn’t be so above board. Or you really DO believe that evolution is a REAL science, in which case I would say you are pathetically uninformed, have no real understanding of science what so ever because for all intents and purposes, what you believe is the Atheists answer to Religion and not the study of science. Some of the conclusions evolutionist come up with, I’d swear they were using a magic 8 ball to get their answers.
ADPassclown thinks: “. His redefinition would mean that Astrology would then count as “science” as well! ”
The science of what? I mean if you think that is so outrageous, I fail to see how, I mean after all, something even more ridiculous is now being taught in our public schools called “evolution”, so what’s your problem accepting astrology as a science? It has more going for it than anything Dawkins has taught.
Here watch Dawkins contradict himself when trying to explain evolution. No one has been able to show me where this video is in error. The bottom line is, NOT even Dawkins can explain evolution without looking like a dufus.
ADParker said,
December 3, 2010 at 7:35 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Hell what the fuck what YOU know about a “legitimate” research when you assholes have taken an extinct pigs tooth and built an entire caveman around it.”
Oh look! Another of you claimed many examples, is just as I said; one of those few much repeated creationist apologetics distortions; Nebraska man.
This one is even more fabricated than the previous two you dredged up ( Haeckel’s embryos and Piltdown Man.)
Let’s see here:
In 1922 Henry Fairfield Osborn described a fossil tooth found by geologist Harold Cook, as just possibly a new “ape man’ find.
A newspaper jumped (as they too often do, before the science has been done) on the story, as the speculation, if true, would have meant that it was the first higher primate of North America. An artist, Amedee Forestier, drew up an image for the newspaper, modelling the characters in it on Homo erectus (although that was known as Pithecanthropus at that time) as there was no scientific work, not even postulations, on what the actual find might have looked like.
On seeing the drawing, Osborn referred to is as “a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate”.
More research was done in the find site, and it was found in 1925 that it had been misidentified, being a deceptively worn down tooth of an extinct pig called Prosthennops – interestingly this WAS a new discovery itself! – as more parts of the fossil were found. The identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.
So: it was an artist, for a regular newspaper that “ built an entire caveman around it”, not scientists.
And it was the “legitimate research” which discovered the truth. Another example of good science distorted by anti-evolution apologists to suit their own agenda.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The comments such as “Their is no argument” or “the debate is over” or “Their is no question that evolution happened” are really quite hysterical.”
Their/there: learn the difference.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“But at least do it because you can prove it and that is what is missing from the deck of cards evolution is built is their is NO E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E and we know the motives for sustaining this asinine theory is out of angst for religion and your disdain for it. ”
This is known as projection. The claimant knows full well that the science is quite separate from religion. And that it is the creationists who have the big problem with evolution, not the ‘evolutionists’ with religion (how many religious people accept the theory of evolution? How many creationists accept evolution? You do the math.) But insists on turning it around; pretending that ‘their’ bias is ‘ours.’
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“No one but no one has proven the whale evolved from a land animal,”
Whale evolution seriously?!
But then this used to be a favourite of creationist apologists, and many of them have not kept up with the research and evidence found on that in the past twenty years or so, making it one of the more explained-in-detail lines of direct evidence of major evolutionary change.
By the way, have you heard the radio debate between PZ Myers and Geoffrey Simmons on this very subject? So hilarious that even creationist fans of the show found it embarassing:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-6850624687498691777&hl=en
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The whole idea for it is ludicrous and anyone who believes it needs their damn head examined because anyone so foolish, has NO business, teaching children this absurd fairy tale. It isn’t plausible, it isn’t technically feasible save for some miracle, and it certainly isn’t science. It is nothing but pathetically contrived hoax, a joke, and you are the product of the punchline.”
Do you have any evidence for these bold assertions, or is it just the argument from personal incredulity?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“No it hasn’t. The NAS and all the way up to top levels in Science have claimed this but this has been an attempt by the same group who can’t seem to grasp their is NO WAY what we see today in all the life forms on earth could have come about using Natural Selection and Mutation. “
And what does the National academy of science, and the “top levels of science” know about what is or is not science, right?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It just doesn’t cut it as a mechanism pal. Evolution is a dead theory.”
And only those who understand it disagree.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“You don’t think too much do you dumb shit. Ya see park. behe is right ID isn’t science as it is defined and THAT is why he believes if something requiring as much faith and belief in miracles as evolution does, can be called “Science”, then it only stands to reason why ID should be allowed under the same umbrella. Evolution simply is not nor has it ever been a science. It is a PHILOSOPHY .”
Um, and you think that is why Behe thinks the definition of “science” should be broadened so far as to include astrology and the like?! Would that not be allowing MORE “faith and belief” into the definition, not less? Someone is not thinking too much, that’s for sure!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ADPassclown thinks: “. His redefinition would mean that Astrology would then count as “science” as well! ”
The science of what?”
What?! English not your first language? Behe stated that for ID to be counted as a part of science, the word “science” would have to be broadened to include ID, and this broadening would also include astrology as a science, as a part of what we call science.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“I mean if you think that is so outrageous, I fail to see how, I mean after all, something even more ridiculous is now being taught in our public schools called “evolution”, so what’s your problem accepting astrology as a science?”
My problem is that it is NOT science, and nor is Intelligent Design.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Here watch Dawkins contradict himself when trying to explain evolution. No one has been able to show me where this video is in error. The bottom line is, NOT even Dawkins can explain evolution without looking like a dufus.”
Oh no, not another play with that stupid Australian creationist hatchet job video?! It’s so bloody stupid.
Where the video is in error? Okay then:
The first question asked by the author was “But what does this have to do with the question originally asked Dick?”
The answer is simple: Nothing. Why? Because this is a dishonest edit job, he is answering a different question, and the dishonest creationists (they pretended not to be creationists, and that infamous 11sec pause was when Dawkins figured this out, due to the nature of that question, because only creationists would ask something so stupid – a question he never answered, not in that interview anyway.)
Next error: the claimed contradiction;
The author splices (and quote mines) these two pieces:
“that we ought to see the intermediates between fish and reptile, between reptiles and mammals, we ought to also be able to see fish kind of on the way to becoming reptiles, but of course that is not the way it is at all”
and
“and becoming something like an amphibian”
The implied contradiction is that in the first instance he says that it is NOT true that we see fish on the way to becoming reptiles, but in the second instance that we do, that this did happen!
The error can easily be found by actually doing what the author suggested; “roll back tape” instead of letting him do it the dishonest way he does. Then we will see that Dawkins ACTUALLY said in the first instance was that it is wrong to expect to see those intermediates LIVING AS WE LOOK AROUND TODAY, that they should still exist. In the second instance he says this is false because the fish we see today are “modern” and those transitions and intermediates occurred a long time ago, and what we see today are the descendants not the ancient intermediates. So this too, is a distorted lie. Either the author knows this and is actively trying to mislead believers like yourself, or honestly is JUST THAT lacking in basic comprehension skills.
What’s next? Is that from the “Walking with Monsters” documentary? Why yes it is (the sea scorpion striking the camera is a dead give-away) I have that, not bad actually. The DVDs include some of the science, and collaboration between the scientists and the film makers/animators as well, in “making of” features. The coolest bit was that of pterodactyls (in the Walking with Dinosaurs documentary, its a series of four – not that pterodactyls were dinosaurs); it was the animators that figured out how they would have ‘walked’ because the scientists really didn’t know (fossils don’t walk) and their tentative ideas didn’t work with the computer animation models, so they found ways to make them work. Those scientists then went back to the fossil evidence and actually found some supporting evidence that they really did walk as the animators suggested!
The video author’s commentary over this footage is clearly just foolishness, so I won’t comment further on that.
I do think the final 2 min 36 secs of the video is the author’s best work to date though.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 3, 2010 at 7:34 am
ADParker said,
December 3, 2010 at 8:11 am
stevebee92653 said:
“Hey ADParker, “
Oh; hej stevebee92653! You have been oddly absent from the discussions here, of late.
stevebee92653 said:
“is it true that not one single evolutionaut in the world has a sense of humor?”
Well; it is true that “evolutionaut: is a silly word that you made up, so as there is no such thing; technically yes.
But if you mean those how you slap with that inane moniker; no it is not true. In fact, as you have surely found for yourself, a number of us find what you say to be most amusing. Just not the things you claim are intended humor, but those that you claim are serious points.
For instance your recent “partially formed/evolved organ” comments; funny funny stuff!
stevebee92653 said:
“Or just you guys at RS.”
Well; that example was from RS, so asked and answered.
stevebee92653 said:
“Absolutely impossible to believe your answers to the ostrich question. And the birds with teats? I mean impossible. I mean astounding.”
You made up the birds with teats nonsense, and I agree; insane.
Care to detail what you think I said in response to your ostrich example, and why you find it so hard to believe?
stevebee92653 said:
“What’s wrong with you people??”
Buried in creationist bullshit.
stevebee92653 said:
“ If I were you I would disavow evolution just to get my sense of humor back.”
Now that would be a stupid reason to change one’s views on reality, wouldn’t it?
stevebee92653 said:
“ It would be worth it. Really!”
And that says a lot about your approach to assessing reality, too much.
stevebee92653 said,
December 3, 2010 at 8:36 am
Re: “Now that would be a stupid reason to change one’s views on reality, wouldn’t it?”
No, I would much rather have a sense of humor. You have no idea when your chain is being pulled. No sense explaining anything to you. An Ostrich with teats. and you give me a serious dissertation? What a laugh. At least Cadman is right in there with you with zero sense of humor and HIS serious dissertation. I truly do feel sorry for you people at RS. All of you.
You think “partially evolved” is incorrect? What are Dawkins’ and Eugenie’s “tea cup eyes” that then close to “pinhole cameras” and later fully formed eyeballs. Are they partially evolved eyeballs? And PLEEZE don’t do your serious thing about “no, the tea cups are fully evolved tea cups” and make yourself look even more foolish and fully indoctrinated than you already do. Anything that goes from zero to a fully formed entity had partial states unless they flashed into existence. Is that the new theory of evolution? Kazaam, and there it is? So absurd arguing at RS and with you, so not worth the effort. And don’t give me the bullshit that “each cell that is added makes a new and fully formed thingy with some other wonderful use”. Say hallelujah! Say bye to your friends at RS. I hope they keep ragging on me when I am gone. Probably no such luck. They need me there to keep the thread going. But I will check in and maybe lay a comment occasionally if there is anything interesting, which I doubt. The best and most intelligent comment was the Fuck You I got from the baby picture guy.
John Matrix said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:53 pm
You can lead an atheist to evidence for Intelligent Design and Divine Creation, but ya can’t make him think. That’s my conclusion after reviewing all the posts.
Creationists win!!
stevebee92653 said,
December 8, 2010 at 2:35 am
Funny how these people don’t realize they are creationists as well. A whole universe popping out of a singularity smaller than a proton is a creation. So is the formation of all of life on earth and it’s systems. The difference is the speed. NS and RM did it slowly, Religious Creationists say it happened rapidly. Slow, fast, either way it’s a Creation.
ADParker said,
December 8, 2010 at 4:36 am
stevebee92653 said:
“whole universe popping out of a singularity smaller than a proton”
As opposed to those singularities that are larger than a proton?! Ha ha ha.
stevebee92653 said:
“The difference is the speed”
No, the difference is the non-postulation of an extra Creator being.
The difference is not asserting that such vast intelligence (and capability) somehow existed/exists before/beyond the universe and spacetime.
stevebee92653 said,
December 8, 2010 at 7:31 am
I’m glad your sense of humor is back. Larger or smaller singularity? That is really hilarious.
The difference is a slow entity that can’t be evidenced to do a job that requires intelligence vs. a fast entity that can’t be evidenced to do a job that requires intelligence
You don’t know shit about what was here before the Big Bang. Quit trying to fool yourself and others.
Charlie said,
December 8, 2010 at 5:05 pm
ADParker, I am curious. What exactly is it that you believe? I hesitate to reopen this with you, but I am dealing with a friend that appears to be stepping out onto the same ledge that you have. Though you appear to have given it some thought- and I believe my friend has not yet. What exactly is it that you believe about free will and chaos and determinism?
First off, let me quickly deal with a few items that I thought were amusing:
ADParker:
[responding to my query of a lack of final cause for his existence within an atheistic worldview; he is dismissing the idea that an accidental existence must face its lack of imbued purpose.]
>And what of it? If it is in fact true, then it is something we have to deal with. It >is not like your distaste for a fact can make it no longer a fact, can it?
>Or do you think it is a good idea to believe something that isn’t true, if you >prefer the lie to the truth, the fantasy to the reality?
[Again later, responding to an opinion that I expressed- simply as an opinion- not as an argument bearing weight]
>If it were true, then your inability to stomach it would not change that fact in >the slightest. Your personal preferences, likes and dislikes have no >bearingon what is, or is not, true.
I find it funny that you invoke the same concept that I have agreed with over and over again: that we cannot will the truth into being what we want it to be. Whatever it is indeed, neither our perception of it nor our cooperative acceptance/rejection of it does anything to change that truth. It remains the truth.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that point. But that is not an argument that bears any weight. It is simply an observation that either you are right or I am right- but we cannot both be right. We can alternatively simply both be wrong.
ADParker:
[regarding my observation that materially speaking, chaos and chance do not really exist- and furthermore, that the atheist world-view is self-negating]
>No. In Strict Determinism this is the case; that is a different philosophical >position entirely. Are you not familiar at all with quantum physics (the >science is decades old you know, 85 years or so)? That includes chance >and probability at its very core. Ad evolution includes random mutations; >chance. There is plenty of chance to be found within materialism. You >have been misinformed.
[and]
>Most of us materialists (but not all) see intelligence and the ability to >achieve “free will” (or what sure feels like it, it is an open question) etc. are >emergent properties of matter and energy (many call this just “matter”, I >prefer “energy” myself.)
[and]
>I see my ability to reason as an emergent property of my primate brain. No >mystical gods required, as far as I can tell.
So- it appears that the atheist- in order to get take back ownership of his free will, invokes a subcategory of materialism called Strict Determinism, and then states that he is not part of that subset. What exactly is the alternative?
The non self-deterministic atheist (for lack of a better term) seems to affirm that Quantum Physics/ Mechanics provides chaos and chance to formally exist somehow. That once enough matter has self-organized somehow through that chance and randomness into our complex brains, that emergent properties such as consciousness and mind come into existence.
One monkey to another- why don’t you explain to me how any of your randomly chemically-induced ‘thoughts’ amount to anything that has any value? What exactly is it that you are able to affirm your existential purpose upon? What exactly is it about that purpose-giving entity that has purpose of its own- from which anything can derive purpose in the first place? By what authority are you able to justify your answers? (Remember- all that we are is a random accumulation of molecules in the first place, right? Oh- with emergent properties that also have no purpose.)
Help me understand so that I can see where my friend’s next side-step will be headed. You are indeed teaching me things, and I am anxious to learn.
Finally:
ADParker:
>No, the difference is the non-postulation of an extra Creator being.
>The difference is not asserting that such vast intelligence (and capability) >somehow existed/exists before/beyond the universe and spacetime.
Agreed- the single difference between the evolutionist view and the ID view is that you deny the postulation that an ‘extra (instead of zero)’ Creator/Designer exists.
Don’t you see that the only reason that the ToE exists is solely to provide one (of many) shields for the blind to remain blind and justify that blindness?
If one cannot know whether that Creator indeed exists (you must admit that we cannot know, right?) then how can one assert that scientific knowledge must begin with the false premise that it DOES indeed know that one does not exist in order to commence from that and only that starting point? Doesn’t it appear logical that if one does not know, that one must begin with all possible explanations and move forward fairly from there?
(If the creationist is errantly ‘asserting’ that an Intelligent Designer exists, is not the evolutionist also errantly asserting that an Intelligent Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard?)
Charlie said,
December 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I am continually amazed at how dearly they cling to their shield of vapors. I am afraid for the day when I am no longer amazed. I hold out hope for them to open their eyes and their minds. I really do.
But it is a solid repetition of the same thing over and over again. They spout off ridicule- with no factual assertions; they go on and on about evidence that doesn’t exist (or at the very least doesn’t actually support their assertion; they try to overwhelm with the sheer number of mindless posts and empty commentaries. Do they even bother to read through this site and its comments to see that they are simply lemmings marching to the beat of their blind watchmaker?
Other than Steve, I have only ever heard from a few people that have started rubbing their eyes and waking up from this delusion that Darwin so naively gave us.
stevebee92653 said,
December 8, 2010 at 6:27 pm
You mean there are a few? They are brainlocked. Once indoctrinated, it’s permanent. I have that experience. But I escaped. A rare circumstance. I keep hoping. And, you are right. Their best “evidence” is demeaning which is the best strategy when you have none.
Interesting article on the speed of bio-reactions, BTW. Actually quite amazing. Heating the broth speeds the rxn’s, but destroys the reactants. The more you know, the more mind boggling it gets. The whole thing is such a fascinating Puzzle. Evos get to miss out on most of it. People do when they think they know all. I am convinced that they feel empowered by “knowing” how all of nature formed. They are not going to give up that power easily.
ADParker said,
December 9, 2010 at 1:23 am
Speaking of empty commentaries.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 8, 2010 at 6:38 am
ADPJackass said: Oh look! Another of you claimed many examples, is just as I said; one of those few much repeated creationist apologetics distortions; Nebraska man.
Few? Few, you say?
To use your own words whenever you mock up some shock how stupid you think your opposing interlocutors are,,,
Are YOU SERIOUS?
The fact is Parker. I only mentioned a few, NOT because there is only a few to mention.
You offer up words to the effect you are bored or tired of seeing the “same few” tactic used again not forgetting to mention it by name as if it is an agenda we’re are all trained to use.
You remind me of the old TV show titled “Get Smart” starring Don Adams and Barbara Feldon.
I can just see Adams now, playing his Maxwell Smart Agent 86 character whining “It’s the old claim of many examples of fraud by showing the same tired few examples, trick”
Hate to bust up your rebuttal with another more accurate reason Parker but the reason I only named a few, is because I assume you had common sense.
That like cock roaches, when you see a couple,. There are a lot more you do not see.
I just did not want to bore you with that LONG list of debunked peer reviewed papers and the politics that have corrupted it.
I did not want to have to bring into this the United States Senate investigation that FOUND them GUILTY and all the way up the ladder to the highest levels of Science.
Guilty of the same shenanigans we saw going on in the emails of Global Warming scientists that look so much like those written by scum bag evolutionists in there efforts to destroy careers and black list anyone that doesn’t abide by their religion of Junk Science and self retardation rituals called Peer Review.
Busted for everything from using Tax Payers money to ruin the careers of scientists they didn’t like for their religious views to purchasing spy equipment and spying on members In the Science community to “out them” as a creationist or ID enemy traitors.
When are you shit heads gonna fuckin grow up Parker
If you think you’re smarter than I am and you got something I can’t shoot down,
BRING IT .
We will use your own scientific method and Ill show how it trips over the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent every time.
So, I suggest you pony it up Hoss and “school me” with your staggering intellect. Just show us what cha got slick.
Make it your best example. In the mean time Ill be satisfying any doubts lurkers may have, believing your attempt to diminish what is arguably, the most corrupt area of Science (evolution) in all areas of Science period.
So share with us Parker, how do you explain all this? How do the Philosopher Kings of Infallible Science, keep getting it wrong and why is it so easy for you to dismiss as nothing more than a few “isolated incidents” . Not that the following will destroy your sacred cow of a theory or anything.God forbid we expose your theory, complete with the slogan for the so called “Mountain of evidence”, as nothing more than a molehill or more specific, a pile of pathetically orchestrated hoax’s, Piltdown fraud, fables and foibles, so numerous, it wouldn’t fit on this server.
I mean, I was just being gracious as to not trouble you answering for so many of these retractions and admissions for speaking too soon or celebrating so fast what is ALWAYS purported to be the “Nail in the Coffin” of creation.
Time and Time again, any mention of this delicate and ultra sensitive theory, so weak is its story, that it REQUIRES, its proponents to over sell the sizzle while 150 some years later, we are still waiting to see the steak.
Prof. Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyer’s that there is “Massive Evidence” for the theory of evolution.
Massive? Really?
They must mean this:
“Thousands of fish species + Thousands of amphibians + 1 fossil that may be transitional if you look at it in the right light while holding it upside down and making plaster of paris proto limbs for the back where most if not all the rest of the things body is missing = A fact”
That is what we have been served and why we are not all that impressed.
Evolution theory requires things like new organs forming for useful purposes, not “old ones” dying out, as we see really happening. Not coccyx appendages of a tailbone used as a cheap but silly excuse to call it a vestigial tail when Medical Physicians wince whenever some Darwit uses it in an argument .
How do evolutionists know that the ‘Missing Link’ is missing if they’ve never found it to begin with?
Why should we see so much of this going on on science? Why is the so-called Science community so busy arguing and debating creationists?
Don’t they have some Science to get on with? Why is it all they ever seem to do is defend this asinine theory.
When will this so-called science do more, having something to show for it other than the latest new hoax of dead lemur fossil they will pitch as their latest “proof” we evolved with a common ancestor of the lemur.
Why do they not develop something more for man, than to bolster some silly idea Atheists have and their obsessed insistence on proving, so desperate to believe.
It has come to the point that, proving their point, is all the science ever does.
By any means necessary.
Just a few he says.
“PLIOPITHECUS:
(A) #5, Ramapithecus, was shown to be that of an extinct relative of the orangutan. #1 was placed on the chart before #5 because it seemed more monkey-like than #5. It stands to reason that it too was a monkey and not part human.
(B) #1 was named as a hominid because it looked like a cross between two monkeys, the spider monkey and the gibbon, not because it looked part human.
PROCONSUL:
(A) Same as above.
(B) Same as above.
DRYOPITHECUS:
(A) Same as (A) of #1 and #2.
(B) #3 is based only on a lower jaw fragment which later became known as that of an extinct ape’s.
OREOPITHECUS:
(A) Same as (A) of #1, #2, and #3.
(B) #4 is based only on teeth and pelvis remains.
RAMIPITHECUS:
(A) Fossil finds in 1982 and 1988 showed that # 5 was only an extinct relative of the orangutan and not part human at all.
(B) #5 was based only on a set of teeth.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS:
(A) #6 was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose apelike features had not yet fully developed because it was still a baby.
(B) #6 was studied by a team of scientists which concluded that the skull had no human features at all.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS:
(A) #7 was based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree.
(B) Same as (B) of #6.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI:
(A) Same as (A) of #7.
(B) Same as (B) of #6 and #7.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy)
(A) #9 is based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are also small with most of the skeleton missing.
(B) Same as (B) of #6, #7, and #8.
10. HOMO ERECTUS: #10 was regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European’s.
11. NEANDERTHAL MAN: #11 was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.
12. CRO MAGNON MAN: #12 is indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.”
//End quote list
Then six months later, someone comes across the truth and again it is found to be a hoax or just an extinct monkey.
We got people like you defending the now diminished discovery of some fossil or experiment. You completely IGNORE, where data was fudged or fraudulent.
Then you offer something I suppose is some consolation, announcing, scientists, debunked them.
Sneering, you say in a snide condescending tone, completely missing the point.
The point is that a pattern for corruption, lies, and deceit is what this Science is about and always has been. It goes back to when Haekel first committed to perpetrating fraud to keep darwits theory alive.
I mean it escapes you, that saying Science is auto correcting, or that “the cool thing about evolution is that it keeps evolving”.
Sorry Jerk,,, that simply just doesn’t cut it as an excuse to dismiss yet another of the great aggregation of many egregious sinister scientists whose crimes you scoff at.
It simply means nothing to you but it DOES give US, some idea why the many times it has happened, have taken decades to correct and remove from science textbooks.
It is not because it takes so long to research or that it fooled so many that it just slipped past the cracks. It takes so long because atheist’s are so reluctant to admit they are wrong and even YOU have defended Ernst Haekel whose retort when asked why he did it was a sophomoric punks excuse one hears so often in the juvey home jails of our adolescents saying, “everyone else does it”.
You want ME to take your science seriously when taking it serious is the last thing I see you OR, your cult members of followers ever do. You are the ones that claim ID and Creationists don’t belong among your peers of puffed up preachers, pontificating what can only be concluded as your own deluded version of the problem using sneering snide stuck up foolish pride and a boatload of BS.
So please do Parker, share with us as we still have never got an answer for why something so absolutely absurd as using an extinct pigs tooth to fashion a skillfully rendered wax figure of a big brow caveman. If it is so easy to prove as the missing link, used so much as some mocked up and emotionally embellished excuse to rub in our faces after its debut in NG or Science, Magazine.
That after we have been bludgeoned with yet another trophy icon of evolution where it actually gets MSM exposure, we shake our heads, knowing full well, six months later it’s just another dead lemur.
In some cases, far to many to mention here, they are out and out frauds, manufactured evidence passed off as fact and spooned up our kids rectums like so much hot chili they will suffer
embarrassingly later, like the dysentery causing bullshit it proves to be.
Please explain how someone like Haekel can be so celebrated when the guy is a common crook, a liar and a manipulative little loser, you make excuses for in addition to the rest.
What are their excuses Parker?
ADParker steps in it again saying:” more fabricated than the previous two you dredged up ( Haeckel’s embryos and Piltdown Man.) “
MORE FABRICATED???
Are you saying Piltdown man was NOT a fraud ?
Are you suggesting Haekel drew those images suggesting vestigial gills on the necks of human embryos were an accident?
That his admission, was something elucidated from him using copious injections of sodium pentothal?
Or did a creationist water board it out of him?
Please do explain Parker? Where did I go so wrong in my assessment of this man?
While you shift the blame to over ambitious Newspapers writing too soon, I ask how they knew in the first place.
Or that artists never consult with Scientists when fabricating their imagined ape man
Let’s see here:
In 1922 Henry Fairfield Osborn described a fossil tooth found by geologist Harold Cook, as just possibly a new “ape man’ find.
You said:” A newspaper jumped (as they too often do, before the science has been done) on the story, as the speculation, if true, would have meant that it was the first higher primate of North America. An artist, Amedee Forestier, drew up an image for the newspaper, modelling (it’s “Modeling” Guess you can’.) the characters in it on Homo erectus (although that was known as Pithecanthropus at that time) as there was no scientific work, not even postulations, on what the actual find might have looked like.”
That does not seem to stop them from making shit up about how they looked though does it shit head.
Here is why we know better.
“Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist’s claim that man and ape share a common ancestry. Over the last 20 years, studies have shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3. These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting evidence”
See Here: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
Discussed here at genetics website. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297?
But the best way to destroy evolution is with good ole Common Sense and Conventional Wisdom. You know I’d hate to see how screwed up our civilization would be today if it were not for creation science. Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, all their work would have been dissed and ridiculed they would never get a paper peer reviewed by the atheist shit heads that infect science and discriminate by religious belief.
The bigotry alone gives us all a reason for a grand culling of the atheist shit stains and start getting some real science done for a change.
Parker agrees with logic like this: “Argument from final Consequences
Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. Christian creationists have argued, for example, that evolution must be wrong because if it were true it would lead to immorality. One type of teleological argument is the argument from design. For example, the universe has all the properties necessary to support live, therefore it was designed specifically to support life (and therefore had a designer).
Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.?”
Kent Perry’s translation = I hate losing to creationist’s
Dawkins says the designer would have to be more complex than the design so it follows who designed the designer.
Really? Who says so Dick?
Dick is the one always saying we evolved from simple to more complex but now all of a sudden, a designer must “qualify” by some dumb ass arbitrary rule of evolution’s “Bubba dubba standards”. The argument from “evologic” fallacy.
The answer to a created universe does not have to have a created God and that is what Dick and his butt lover Parker have in common.
They are talking about created Gods apparently and creationists are not.
If the argument that space time and matter is created from a place transcendent of that same time space and matter, then we can also conclude this to be true as matter cannot create itself. SOMETHING or SOMEONE HAD to bring it into existence.
Therefore, it HAS to be something of a God creator being, a designer because materialist Science knows that it cannot happen any other way.
“Evolution Argument:
The idea that nature allows this to happen without human intervention is no surprise or cause for alarm to me. I think it is obvious that nature allows some mutations to survive because of the practical application of a mutation over those without such a mutation.
A rabbit with a slight mutation in its legs may be allowed by use of the mutation to run faster and thus survive more often. If two rabbits with such a mutation get together and breed, then you have evolution the new mutation may take over or form a sub-species. the length of the leg would seem to be part of a complex design that is too complex to map, but if you map it one mutation at a time it is
easy to understand.”
“Best response:
Characteristic changes are not equivalent to mutations. Almost 100% of the time, mutations are destructive to the species. The exception is macro evolution which isn’t actually mutation. Color changes and in the case of virus, mutation does not change the species, only the ‘strand’. A virus is still a virus. A peppered moth is still a peppered moth. Improved conditions may bring out better characteristics, but it does not show evolution. Mutations – especially in the animal world – are commonly known as defects. When a baby is born as a mutation, is it ever a positive change?
Where are the new mutating races that should be evolving to make us better?
Cross breeding rabbits to force characteristic changes is not evidence for evolution. A rabbit will always be a rabbit. Once again we go back to my same argument. You are pointing to researchers that purposefully force breeding selection – often by artificial insemination – to genetically alter a species.
This is intelligent intervention and far from proves that the world was created without design. Another fact about breeding to enhance changes is the ‘gene ceiling’. Breeders use selective breeding to bring out desired traits. During the first few generations these traits will improve dramatically and then the changes will rapidly slow down and eventually cap off.
Why?
Because breeding for traits does not add new genetic code, it can only bring out different combinations of what is already present.
A good example of this I’ve borrowed from Charles Colson’s book ‘How Now Shall We Live’. Darwin began breeding pigeons to show how changes within species can occur.
He theorized that the rapid changes that he observed over a few generations indicated that over billions of years it was conceivable that these changes could create a new species of bird. What we now know and have proven is that pigeons, like all animals, have a limit. Darwin was able to selective breed to bring up fantail, cropped and other breeds of pigeons descending directly from the common Rock pigeon.
Never was he able to go beyond the genetic ceiling once the traits capped out. What is more, when pigeons are left to nature, they always return back to the common Rock pigeon within a few generations.
There are only so many combinations the DNA can hold for each trait. It is scientifically impossible to cross that DNA barrier without a mutation. Almost all mutations are deformities and do not enhance the species but usually are incapable of survival.
Even nature itself rejects the idea of mutation. Many animals will destroy or neglect an offspring that shows a mutation.
Jumping back, I would like to mention another example Colson presented that illustrated the gene ceiling.
150 years ago sugar beet farmers began an effort to increase the sugar content in the beets. By intelligent selection, they were able to get the sugar content from 6% to 13% within a few generations. Over the next 75 years they were able to increase this to 17%. Over the next 75 years the sugar content remained at 17%. It is common to get rapid change under the right conditions at first, but these changes slow down just as rapidly and eventually hit the barrier that DNA cannot cross. Selective breeding cannot add genetic code – it can only manipulate what is already present.
Once that has been done it can go no further. To add to the dilemma of the breakdown of evolution, when traits are exploited, the plant or animal becomes vulnerable to disease and sterilization.
This counters Darwin’s theory.
If natural selection were true, the species should become stronger and more capable of survival.
This is not the case.
The more a specialized trait is enhanced, the greater the likelihood the species will die off.
It becomes clear that the natural return to the norm is a designed characteristic to protect the species.
Left to itself, nature will eventually return a breed to the common species.
I don’t know how much of my information you read, but in one article I point out the absolute necessity of amino acid formations just to allow a cell to support life. The simplest life form contains over 500 different amino acids.
The unique problem with life is that only left-handed molecules are used in living cells.
Intelligent researchers working in climate controlled labs and artificially perfect conditions can produce amino acids, but no researcher has ever formed a left-handed amino acid. The odds of one amino forming by chance is astronomical. For the simplest self-sustaining life form, 500+ different types of specialized aminoes are needed.
The odds now go from astronomical to
impossible.”
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/mutation.htm
ADParker said,
December 8, 2010 at 11:08 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Few? Few, you say?
Yes, yes I do.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“That like cock roaches, when you see a couple,. There are a lot more you do not see.”
Yet, for some bizarre reason, you lot ALL proceed to spout off the SAME few examples. Funny that.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“just did not want to bore you with that LONG list of debunked peer reviewed papers and the politics that have corrupted it.”
How about just one, not of those few regular, much debunked, ones? Or how about ANY that are not well known creationist falsehoods?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“When are you shit heads gonna fuckin grow up Parker”
I’m sorry, are you accusing me of that inane little “global warming conspiracy” conspiracy?!
What does that have to do with anything anyway?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ “Thousands of fish species + Thousands of amphibians + 1 fossil that may be transitional if you look at it in the right light while holding it upside down and making plaster of paris proto limbs for the back where most if not all the rest of the things body is missing = A fact”
Are you referring to Tiktaalik? I have heard that very assertion before. Fascinating that it is ALWAYS “One fossil” even though anyone who has any understanding of the discovery knows full well that three fossils were found on that first dig.
But then creationism apologists have never let reality get in the way of a good conspiracy story.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Not coccyx appendages of a tailbone used as a cheap but silly excuse to call it a vestigial tail when Medical Physicians wince whenever some Darwit uses it in an argument .”
Do they wince when people are born with a functional tail as well?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“How do evolutionists know that the ‘Missing Link’ is missing if they’ve never found it to begin with?”
By actually following the science as it moved through from the 19th to 20th, and beyond, to recognise that “Missing Link” is an antiquated term. As the found quite a few of what was once missing in that case.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Why should we see so much of this going on on science? Why is the so-called Science community so busy arguing and debating creationists?”
Yet creationists complaining that they aren’t?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Don’t they have some Science to get on with? Why is it all they ever seem to do is defend this asinine theory.”
Anti-science attacks need to be defended against.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“When will this so-called science do more, having something to show for it other than the latest new hoax of dead lemur fossil they will pitch as their latest “proof” we evolved with a common ancestor of the lemur.”
Ida? Interesting isn’t she? A fine example of the link between wet-nose (lemurs being the prime survivors) and the dry-nose (monkeys and apes) primates. filling in one of the last remaining “missing links” in the primate family tree.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Why do they not develop something more for man, than to bolster some silly idea Atheists have and their obsessed insistence on proving, so desperate to believe.”
All those vaccines and “evolutionary medicine” doesn’t count, right? So what if it has saved a few billion lives?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
““PLIOPITHECUS:
(A) #5, Ramapithecus, was shown to be that of an extinct relative of the orangutan. #1 was placed on the chart before #5 because it seemed more monkey-like than #5. It stands to reason that it too was a monkey and not part human.”
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm
A bit of a mess of a site.
A case of science improving our understanding or extinct organisms. And?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“PROCONSUL:
(A) Same as above.
(B) Same as above.”
What a deep argument that is.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“DRYOPITHECUS:
(A) Same as (A) of #1 and #2.
(B) #3 is based only on a lower jaw fragment which later became known as that of an extinct ape’s. “
Just love those “extinct ape” lines. Guess what; when our species dies out WE will be an extinct ape.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“OREOPITHECUS:
(A) Same as (A) of #1, #2, and #3.
(B) #4 is based only on teeth and pelvis remains.”
Ain’t science grand? You point? (Sorry, that’s not fair; you HAVE no point, you are just copying things without thinking yet again.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS:
(A) #6 was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose apelike features had not yet fully developed because it was still a baby.
(B) #6 was studied by a team of scientists which concluded that the skull had no human features at all. “
Huh?! Four sites have been found for these, interesting actually.
Why am I not surprised that creationists rant about a select few cases in which they can pretend there are ways to discredit it, being careful to not tell their followers about all details or other specimens. Confidant in the expectation that none of them will bother to do their own research, and thus catch them out in their innumerable lies.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS:
(A) #7 was based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree.
(B) Same as (B) of #6. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_robustus
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI:
(A) Same as (A) of #7.
(B) Same as (B) of #6 and #7. “
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusboisei.htm
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy)
(A) #9 is based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are also small with most of the skeleton missing.”
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“10. HOMO ERECTUS: #10 was regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European’s.”
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm
I’m sorry, are these (poorly given) examples of scientific research improving our understanding as new evidence is uncovered, supposed to mean something in reference to your case?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“11. NEANDERTHAL MAN: #11 was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.”
A famous creationist LIE that one. Well done for repeating the lie Kent.
Funny; the team that completed the mapping of the Neanderthal genome a few months back, said nothing like that. In fact it is definitively established as NOT human.
There was ONE example where a Neanderthal was found to have had broken bones, which were set and healed (evidence of community care etc.), and then suffered from arthritis in his old age., but by no means a member of Homo sapiens. That is just a bald face lie; probably loosely founded on a early dismissal (later recanted after it was studied, including early DNA evidence) that the case-type specimen (found in a cave above the Neader valley river in Germany) was “just an old man with rickets.”
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“12. CRO MAGNON MAN: #12 is indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.””
Yup; now classified as early Homo sapiens. Don’t you just love how scientists don’t rest on their laurels, accepting old doctrine and dogma, and instead improve our understanding, including correcting and deepening that understanding as the continue to examine and explore!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“We got people like you defending the now diminished discovery of some fossil or experiment. You completely IGNORE, where data was fudged or fraudulent. “
What ARE you talking about?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The point is that a pattern for corruption, lies, and deceit is what this Science is about and always has been.”
You mean all those examples of science IMPROVING itself, of making progress? Of LOOKING FOR flaws and errors, and correcting them whenever they are found?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It goes back to when Haekel first committed to perpetrating fraud to keep darwits theory alive.”
Except it was Haeckel’s hypothesis, not Darwin’s. A hypothesis that Darwin never accepted, arguing that it probably went way too far (and only “probably” because Darwin wasn’t an embryologist.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It simply means nothing to you but it DOES give US, some idea why the many times it has happened, have taken decades to correct and remove from science textbooks.”
That I agree with. Textbooks (especially high-school level ones) are frequently far too slow to catch up with the progress of science. That, and the methods by which textbooks are chosen (by school boards etc. who often don’t know any science themselves) need a serious overhaul.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It takes so long because atheist’s are so reluctant to admit they are wrong and even YOU have defended Ernst Haekel whose retort when asked why he did it was a sophomoric punks excuse one hears so often in the juvey home jails of our adolescents saying, “everyone else does it”.”
Where the Hel did you get this odd little fantasy Straw Man from? Do you hear voices? I clearly said that Haeckel definitely let his love of his “brilliant new idea” lead him into error, and that he could have deliberately falsified his drawings as well. And this is what you call “defending Haeckel’?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“So please do Parker, share with us as we still have never got an answer for why something so absolutely absurd as using an extinct pigs tooth to fashion a skillfully rendered wax figure of a big brow caveman.’
The pig’s tooth” was the artist’s drawing in a newspaper – there was no “ rendered wax figure.” Can’t you even keep your conspiracies from getting crossed?!
I already explained that one. You clearly didn’t even pay any attention.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Please explain how someone like Haekel can be so celebrated when the guy is a common crook, a liar and a manipulative little loser, you make excuses for in addition to the rest.”
He’s only “celebrated” by creationism apologists, professional Liars for Jesus.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“What are their excuses Parker?”
Those creationists? Oh, the are full of them.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Are you saying Piltdown man was NOT a fraud ?”
No. I am saying that the typical creationist fairy tale about it is also a fraud.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Or did a creationist water board it out of him?”
No, they just make every effort to con people into think that those drawings are such a major part of evolutionary science, in order to use it as one of their favourite canards to insult that science.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Please do explain Parker? Where did I go so wrong in my assessment of this man?”
In your implications that his drawing are a part of evolutionary science.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“While you shift the blame to over ambitious Newspapers writing too soon, I ask how they knew in the first place.”
Science journalism (that is not a part of science, but a news beat); they do that kind of shit all the time. Like with that stupid “life on Mars rock” crap, and much of that “Ida” nonsense.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Or that artists never consult with Scientists when fabricating their imagined ape man”
That particular one didn’t. And that is why the scientist in question said that it was probably rubbish.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Let’s see here:
In 1922 Henry Fairfield Osborn described a fossil tooth found by geologist Harold Cook, as just possibly a new “ape man’ find.
You said:” A newspaper jumped (as they too often do, before the science has been done) on the story, as the speculation, if true, would have meant that it was the first higher primate of North America. An artist, Amedee Forestier, drew up an image for the newspaper, modelling (it’s “Modeling” Guess you can’.) the characters in it on Homo erectus (although that was known as Pithecanthropus at that time) as there was no scientific work, not even postulations, on what the actual find might have looked like.”
That does not seem to stop them from making shit up about how they looked though does it shit head.”
The French artist? No, it didn’t. And your point?
And no; it is not necessarily “Modeling”, unless you INSIST that everyone, including non-Americans, use American English!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Christian creationists have argued, for example, that evolution must be wrong because if it were true it would lead to immorality.”
Some do, yes. Stupid isn’t it?
stevebee92653 said,
December 8, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Hey AD, what happened to your buddy stevetinyid? Note: If you place more than one link, your entry must be screened. WordPress rule, not mine. They read it as spam. So if you write and it doesn’t post immediately, that would be why. Posts here are not currently being screened. If I get an overwhelming nutcase who posts dozens of evo-nut-comments, I will have to go back to screening. I’m sure you will have lots of criticism for that necessity, so don’t waste your time.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 8, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Christian creationists have argued, for example, that evolution must be wrong because if it were true it would lead to immorality.”
Yes some do is right and there is a good argument to support it and one I’m afraid you wouldn’t agree with regardless but that is to be expected.
Charlie said,
December 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Hi, Kent,
I am interested in following up on some of your evidences, so that I can also bring them up in other conversations that I am having outside of this forum. Please provide some idea of where I might find resources that support your arguments? These aren’t papers for sure- and formal citations are not what I’m asking for. But maybe just enough to start looking.
For example, you referred to Darwin’s letters in another post- and ADParker requested references. I also didn’t see enough to go on for further reading and research.
Personally, I’ve been getting a lot of thoughtful stuff- with valuable references- from evolutionnews.org- you might also find that site interesting.
Thank you,
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 8, 2010 at 7:52 am
By the way Parker, you didn’t debunk the Contradictions video an Iota and YOU are the one being dishonest. Quote mined you say ??
HA HA HA . I swear you’re brainwashed like that.
They are so conditioned to memorizing atheist “comebacks” like “quote mining” “quote mining” !!
Their isn’t ONE quote in that video that is out of context or misrepresented. Even that bullshit he fed you about “Being Tricked” by those evil creationists. Was similar to the one when Ben Stein did the same thing. You all yelled quote mining blah blah blah,, so call the quote mine police.
Evolution = One Dead Dumb and Debunked Theory .
ADParker,= PffffT just another atheist child of the grave,,
given over to his delusions,
ADParker said,
December 8, 2010 at 11:11 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“By the way Parker, you didn’t debunk the Contradictions video an Iota”
You are, of course, free to keep believing that, if it brings you some comfort in your delusion.
ADParker said,
December 8, 2010 at 9:38 am
stevebee92653 said:
“You don’t know shit about what was here before the Big Bang. Quit trying to fool yourself and others.”
You are the one who claimed there was a singularity (a term which apparently you don’t understand.) Something which I don’t believe by the way.
stevebee92653 said,
December 8, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Sorry, I am not the one who “claimed there was an initial singularity.” It’s generally accepted astrophysics. Obviously you don’t know shit about the BB. Strange how you pick evolution so adamantly, but are a BB denier! How does that match up? “Yes” to one science, “no” to the other? Strange.
BTW Try a new track. Your “you don’t understand” thing is repeated so often by you groupthinkers, trite as hell, and worn out long ago.
ADParker said,
December 9, 2010 at 3:08 am
Actually stevebee92653, it is that I understand the Big Bang model, and related cosmological science, better than you do. That I understand that the singularity hypothesis is but one of many postulations on what (if anything) existed before the rapid expansion event known as the big bang. As well as a few arguments for and against that particular hypothesis.
stevebee92653 said,
December 9, 2010 at 6:55 am
Actually you understand everything better than everybody. Ergo, you understand the BB better than everybody as well. Congratulations. Delusions are sure wonderful.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 8, 2010 at 7:20 pm
No parker. this again is something where the creator of the video assumes you have common sense and sadly, you do not and you superimpose a mis-understanding you project onto the creationist where their is none. Yes of course we hear Dawkins say that fish are modern animals just as modern as we are but what you seem to imagine is that WE think they are not. No where in that video is that assumption expressed. What is pointed out is Dawkins saying if we could have been there “back then” we would have seen “something like” a fish coming on to the land something like “an amphibian” BUT THAT’S NOT THE WAY IT IS AT ALL.
Really? The problem is Dawkins thinks WE think we descended from modern fish etc,. and WE DON’T! He actually says that.
Has he forgotten what creationists believe we come from the seed of our kind? I mean this guy is an amazing kind of stupid. We don’t think we came from ANY common ancestor PERIOD! The whole argument is a straw man Parker. Or did YOU forget what we ID believers think too? You never pay attention to anything so I assume you did. Oh yes if evolution WERE true you’re damn right we ought to be seeing evidence of all those fossils Dawkins refers to as “something like an amphibian” without adding the red herring for what he thinks we think we should see in modern fish.
The fact is Parker, the video Proves Dawkins is dishonest and couldn’t even explain evolution himself without contradicting himself while blaming creationists for a misunderstanding, his own inability to explain it is responsible for in the first place.
Nice try Parker but you are doing the same thing Dawkins does and what is so utterly sad and pathetic is the fact you make patent what is said in Romans “they claim they are wise but are as fools and are given up to their delusions” .
He is the quintessential example of what is wrong with science today parker. Believe it or not, ther was a time when Biology class was about understanding what was dissected and pinned down on a board right in-front of us. The bees were studied as they are, NOW, TODAY. and not what or how they might have been in the distant past. They studied their behaviors and how they worked with nature pollinating flowers as the flowers attracted them with their nectar. Yeah Back then, science actually had taken for granted God created everything so much so, that he didn’t have to be mentioned in science. It was a given,
Back then, Science wasn’t in a conundrum to figure out how Bees evolved just in time for the interdependent existence of the flower and vice versa, much less all the millions of other bio genetic systems and their interdependence with other planetary systems.
Scientists were people who weren’t busy creating asinine spaghetti monster icons or even interested in religion because they were smart enough to know science was born out of religion and didn’t dishonor its parent.
Scientsts were not about advancing atheism, they were about science. They weren’t about giving lectures to antagonize religious believers or writing books about their opinions of religious believers being “delusional” and using a construct of science based on nothing but wishful thinking as an excuse to explain away GOD. No one of our prominent well known scientists today and especially in Biology, can talk about science without giving some commentary ridiculing religion as if anyone gives a shit.
All science does today is spend their time castigating creationists and denying children the right to ask questions they are not given a context for where any questions outside the context of the Darwinian paradigm, is subject to harsh peer group pressure and undeserving ridicule.
It has been so long an American student could even talk about God in school let alone teach anything about it, yet it is faith in religion that is blamed for holding education back.
The fact is, it is atheism and their infiltration of science with a mission to destroy family values, while they use science to excuse un-acceptable sexual depravity, same sex marriage. multi culturalism and diversity when unity is what used to make us strong. Learning Math and a Science that isn’t pre-occupied making up alibi’s and imagining how life could have came about if their wasn’t someone to make it happen. That the IDEA of LIFE just “Happening by some cosmic coincidence” or Happenstance is accepted as scientific fact and you morons haven’t any idea how far from what science is supposed to be about, you are.
Science is making shit up as they go while they indulge in mocking others calling them names like some gaggle of bitches in circle jerk gossip orgy.
You have exalted yourselves as the final authority in so many ways while no one is allowed to criticize it.
Isn’t that what you all complained was wrong with religion?
You all have these cookie cutter comebacks of copy pasted quotes, memorized as responses to anticipated questions and statements regarded as FAQ of creationist’s “fundies” and “xians”
You have brought the discussion to a level where the ad hominem isn’t a logical fallacy, IT IS THE CENTER PIECE OF EVOLUTIONARY ANSWERS TO ANYONE QUESTIONING IT!
The idea that ridiculing the creationist into better behavior is a STUPID IDEA ! This seems to escape Dawkins when ever he says it. The idea that using bad behavior will beget good behavior is ASININE and this man is an Oxford Professor???
Religion is an anvil that has wore out more hammers than anything men like Dawkins can imagine. Man has survived thousands of years of religion but I am starting to wonder if we will survive the next decade of immature children masquerading as Scientists that think it’s cool to teach kids to mock religion, experiment with homosexual sex, kill the unborn, make fun of morality but respect ethics, and talk about something they do not believe exists as if it was the only thing that existed and the center of their world.
Atheist, you got no idea what has got a hold of you but I do and i know you ain’t no match for it, intellectually or philosophically.
You are within smelling distance of having no heartbeat left and soon you will die and it will be like you never existed in the first place. Everything you ever knew or experienced will be as if you never did. It makes you want to have at least enough of an excuse to believe in God just enough to ask him.
What was the point?
Well you are condemned to living that way right now with that idea in the back of your mind knowing subconsciously your life is pointless and without meaning or purpose.
So easy to understand how atheism invariably embraces, eugenics and socialism or communism which is nothing more than socialism in a hurry.
You better take a serious look at your soul pal because you ain’t got much time left and don’t take a second of it for granted. The most important decision you make in this life is not the one offering excuses why it isn’t important so you don’t have to make a decision at all. The one that procrastinates dying an atheist is living like life never happened at all. You either live doing what ever the hell you want to do no matter how depraved as if you can take the memories with ya or you live like no one elses life is important for that very reason.
I got to tell ya, atheists like you, keep proving the Bible more accurate every day, making it more current than any “breaking news” main stream media television program or news paper. Ironic isn’t it, they scoff at this book calling it antiquated or just some bronze age book of the ancient past.
The fact is, it is a book from the past where the New Testament makes Patent what the Old Testament makes as Prophecy.
It is the book of all ages past, present and future. and it reads like a road map warning of the inevitable circumstances you are heading straight for and if you don’t change your direction Parker,
you’re going to end up where you’re headed.
You are like a nomad who has lost his way,
possessionless and
un-possessed
ADParker said,
December 9, 2010 at 3:04 am
stevebee92653 said:
“Hey AD, what happened to your buddy stevetinyid?”
How would I know? You are the only one suffering the delusion that he is my buddy, I don’t even know the guy.
ADParker said,
December 9, 2010 at 3:27 am
Charlie said:
“ADParker, I am curious. What exactly is it that you believe?”
I believe a lot of things, I suppose.
Charlie said:
“I hesitate to reopen this with you, but I am dealing with a friend that appears to be stepping out onto the same ledge that you have.”
Into the wide world of reason? Good for him/her.
Charlie said:
“Though you appear to have given it some thought- and I believe my friend has not yet. What exactly is it that you believe about free will and chaos and determinism?”
Free will: An open question. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I like the phrase I have heard: “Of course we have free will, we have no choice”
Chaos: Dunno. If you mean a kind of “pure” randomness, then it seems to be a fundamental aspect of quantum physics – an area that is extremely complicated and in need of more research and insight.
Determinism: Again an open issue. At the moment I tend to side with Daniel Dennett, who suggests that ‘determinism’ is compatible with free will. How is complicated, and I don’t think I understand it all just yet.
The main thing is that although I am most eager to learn and understand, I am also comfortable not currently understanding.
Charlie said:
“So- it appears that the atheist- in order to get take back ownership of his free will, invokes a subcategory of materialism called Strict Determinism, and then states that he is not part of that subset. What exactly is the alternative?”
I have no clue where you got that idea from.
“The atheist” is ‘free’ to believe in free will (of any variety), reject it as false, or not (be on the fence.) The one has nothing to do with the other.
I am not a strict determinist (as I defined it here) and strict determinism does not “get back ownership of free will” is denies that free will is real. These determinists claim that we have no free will, as everything we do, ‘choice’ we make, is already determined.
I am not completely sure of the status of Free will. Is it real or an illusion? Is the term itself even useful at all?!
We make choices all the time. Aspects of those choices are clearly determined by our past experiences and the world around us. A silly example being that no matter how much I “will’ it, I can’t fly unaided like a bird or turn invisible by force of will… So is there any freedom in it at all? Maybe, it sure feels like it. But that may well be an illusion.
I have a question: What do you, the theist, believe about free will, and why?
Such apologists always imply that the existence of their god just automatically makes Free will true and workable somehow. As if this is some kind of “False Dilemma” where if the atheist can’t explain Free will then Magic-Man-Dun-It wins, and ‘explains’ it, by default.
Charlie said:
“The non self-deterministic atheist (for lack of a better term) seems to affirm that Quantum Physics/ Mechanics provides chaos and chance to formally exist somehow.”
Not exactly. It is just that it appears to be a fundamental part of that science. In a manner that thus far suggests that this randomness and ‘chaos’ is real, not merely apparent.
Charlie said:
“That once enough matter has self-organized somehow through that chance and randomness into our complex brains, that emergent properties such as consciousness and mind come into existence. “
That is what the science is suggesting at the moment, (broadly speaking) yes.
Charlie said:
“One monkey to another- why don’t you explain to me how any of your randomly chemically-induced ‘thoughts’ amount to anything that has any value?”
That is a long discussion. Which your track record, the nature of this blog, and the fact that it IS a blog (as opposed to a forum or similar), leads me to be disinclined to get fully into.
But short snippets of the answer:
“Value” is a subjective/relational thing.
Question: “Is X of value?”
Response: “To whom?”
Is my life of any value? It is to me (much of the time, I suffer from clinical depression, which changes this at times) and it appears to be of some value to others (my wife, parents, siblings, friends, colleagues…) And in each case; the value is different! Which strongly suggests that value is relational, and not a fixed quantity/quality of the thing in question (myself in this example.)
By the way I like the ”monkey” line. Only accurate of course if by “monkey” one means Simian: The closest technical classification that is inclusive of both “New world” and “Old world” monkeys. A classification which includes us (and all other apes of course) as well.
Charlie said:
“What exactly is it that you are able to affirm your existential purpose upon?”
Either “myself”, or “I do not believe there is such a thing as intrinsic value.”
It is (like “mind”) a misattribution of a noun to what should more properly be a verb: Value is not a property of an object (X has value x) but an action one takes on that object “I value X this much (x) – even though you value it that much (y) [where x may be more or less than y]”
Charlie said:
“What exactly is it about that purpose-giving entity that has purpose of its own- from which anything can derive purpose in the first place?”
I think such statements are confused gibberish. It ASSUMES that value must exist in an intrinsic sense at least somewhere. I reject this assertion. I don’t even think it makes any real sense.
A: “What is the value of this bushel of apples?”
B: “Well the grocer sells them for $5,
The supermarket sells them for $4,
Sally would buy them for as much as $5.50,
but James would only pay up to 4.75.”
A: “But what is the REAL value?!”
B: “That question is meaningless, the value varies on who does the valuing, and on what criteria they do so. As the people and criteria vary, so too does the perceived values. Including being valued differently by different people to different degrees simultaneously.”
Charlie said:
“By what authority are you able to justify your answers?”
My own.
You can do the same.
And even when we disagree, we are BOTH correct, as the value you ascribe is a different value than the one I ascribe.
Charlie said:
“(Remember- all that we are is a random accumulation of molecules in the first place, right? Oh- with emergent properties that also have no purpose.)”
“Purpose” is just a synonym for “value” in this case. The ability and tendency to value things is the emergent property. Value/purpose is not a property OF the things being valued.
Charlie said:
“Help me understand so that I can see where my friend’s next side-step will be headed. You are indeed teaching me things, and I am anxious to learn.”
Hope that starts you on the path. There are entire books on the subject, and individually they too only scratch the surface.
Charlie said:
“Agreed- the single difference between the evolutionist view and the ID view is that you deny the postulation that an ‘extra (instead of zero)’ Creator/Designer exists.”
No, actually. I do not “Deny” it. I deny the claim that such a thing has been established as true. As such I deny the assertion, not the subject of the assertion. It is the difference between “Not proven/justified” and “not true.”
Charlie said:
“Don’t you see that the only reason that the ToE exists is solely to provide one (of many) shields for the blind to remain blind and justify that blindness?”
No I don’t. In fact I reject that silly assertion.
But this brings us back to your repeated “It’s Self Evident” assertion:
What I see here is your use of “God Goggles.” God seems obvious/self-evident to you, due to the FILTER through which you “see” (interpret the world.) In other words: of course it seems obvious that your god exists IF you look at the world with the view that what you are looking at is this god’s creation/work. This also explains why Hindus/Muslims/Buddhists/Scientologists see it as “obvious” in their own ways as well.
Related mental filters have been much examined. Namely the “Rose coloured glasses” and its opposite, which I will call “smoke filtered glasses.” When instructed (in experiments, or habitually in ‘real life’) to try to have a positive outlook and see the good in everything. Or on the contrary see the negative/worse in everything, and then answer a questionaire on the state of the world (economy/community etc.) Those ‘wearing’ the rose coloured classes tend to see things as pretty good, not so bad and generally getting better. While those with the smoke filtered glasses tend to see the very same world as “going to hell in a hand basket.”
We all have such filters to varying natures and degrees. The trick is to minimise their usage as much as possible.
*My depression helps me with this to a degree, strangely enough. As I am now capable to a greater degree to recognise when my negative interpretations are being altered by the condition beyond the reality of the situation.
Imagine an image which includes some white areas, and no fully rose one: Those with the rose coloured glasses fitted on tightly, nonetheless, see no white spaces (they all look at least a little rose coloured) and see fully rose patches even though there are none guite that strongly coloured.
Likewise an image with shades from white to dark grey: When seen by the one with the smoke filtered glasses, they see no whites (the whites appear a little grey) but they do see a number of purely black areas (the darker greys further darkened by their own filtering glasses/viewpoint.)
It is the same, I think, with those God Goggles of yours.
Charlie said:
“If one cannot know whether that Creator indeed exists (you must admit that we cannot know, right?)”
No. But I do admit that we DO not know.
I seen no reason to ever close my mind to the possibility of anything.
Charlie said:
“then how can one assert that scientific knowledge must begin with the false premise that it DOES indeed know that one does not exist in order to commence from that and only that starting point?”
Complex Question logical fallacy. “One” asserts no such thing.
Charlie said:
“Doesn’t it appear logical that if one does not know, that one must begin with all possible explanations and move forward fairly from there?”
Not really, no. What the scientific method does does is SEEK to form explanations (theories) based on what can be examined.
Charlie said:
“(If the creationist is errantly ‘asserting’ that an Intelligent Designer exists, is not the evolutionist also errantly asserting that an Intelligent Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard?)”
No.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 10, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Charlie said:
“(If the creationist is errantly ‘asserting’ that an Intelligent Designer exists, is not the evolutionist also errantly asserting that an Intelligent Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard?)”
parker said: “No.”
No what? An intelligent designer does not exist or you don’t want to admit it exists believe it exists to avoid discussing it.
The only explanation that makes logical sense if the designer parker. That HAS proof and the only thing I have ever seen evolutionists say to refute it, is to mock or ridicule. That doesn’t change the facts of the evidence however and it is done to effectively degrade the discussion so that it can’t be discussed. It has become the mode of operation in handling any challenge to the evolutionary theory.
I have seen so many “possible” explanations given for how life could have began but NO proof they began the way science says they did and invariably they give way to someone else explanation and someone else and someone else etc,. The only thing we know for sure is that science doesn’t know period and since they refuse to consider the idea we may be the product of design by an intelligence, they do indeed avoid the subject. So sorry pal, you do NOT know what you’re talking about. Please stop the charade, you’re only beginning to look pathetic, someone so fixed in their dogmas and religion of Darwin that you hate the truth and refuse to even consider the possibility let alone the evidence for design which is,
EVERY WHERE YOU LOOK SON
ADParker said,
December 11, 2010 at 3:10 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Charlie said:
“(If the creationist is errantly ‘asserting’ that an Intelligent Designer exists, is not the evolutionist also errantly asserting that an Intelligent Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard?)”
parker said: “No.”
No what? An intelligent designer does not exist or you don’t want to admit it exists believe it exists to avoid discussing it.”
Why not try a little reading comprehension?
Charlie said “…is not the evolutionist also errantly asserting that an Intelligent Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard?”
and my answer to that is “No, the evolutionist [is not] also errantly asserting that an Intelligent Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard.”
Oh and doesn’t everyone know that the prime avoiders of discussing this Intelligent Designer is the Discovery Institute?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The only explanation that makes logical sense if the designer parker.”
Well don’t hold back Kent, I have studied logic, so think I can keep up with the logic. Lay it on me.
Or is this yet another case of using “logic” as a clobber word assertion that is synonymous with “It’s just self-evident/obvious/common sense!” as often employed by people like Banana Man and the Crocoduck kid?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ That HAS proof”
Which I have, after years of asking, yet to see. Where is this claimed proof?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“and the only thing I have ever seen evolutionists say to refute it, is to mock or ridicule.”
Mock and ridicule what?! You empty assertions that there is proof, without saying what the evidence is (beyond inanities like “look at the trees!”)
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ That doesn’t change the facts of the evidence however and it is done to effectively degrade the discussion so that it can’t be discussed.”
What ARE you talking about?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ It has become the mode of operation in handling any challenge to the evolutionary theory.
Huh?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“I have seen so many “possible” explanations given for how life could have began”
That is abiogenesis, not evolution. Seriously; how hard is that to grasp?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ but NO proof they began the way science says they did and invariably they give way to someone else explanation and someone else and someone else etc,.”
Yes, it’s called science. “No proof” because we don’t know yet. The current lines of evidence and efforts centre around biochemical reactions resulting in rudimentary self-replicating molecules. If you have a better hypothesis, with the corroborating evidence etc., then please make your presentation…where it will count of course, a scientific peer-review journal such as Science or Nature.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ The only thing we know for sure is that science doesn’t know period and since they refuse to consider the idea we may be the product of design by an intelligence, they do indeed avoid the subject.”
What a travesty of a sentence.
But no, science doesn’t “know”, and doesn’t pretend to (unlike some.) Instead it is a SEARCH for knowledge. And through the scientific method scientists derive better and better approximations of knowledge and truth. And it is a lie that they “ refuse to consider the idea”, the idea has just failed to get off the starting blocks; nothing tangible has come from it, on which real science could then be undertaken.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“So sorry pal, you do NOT know what you’re talking about. Please stop the charade, you’re only beginning to look pathetic, someone so fixed in their dogmas and religion of Darwin that you hate the truth and refuse to even consider the possibility let alone the evidence for design which is,
EVERY WHERE YOU LOOK SON”
Only to those who have their God Goggles on way too tight.
You know; it is also Obvious/Self-evidence/logic to the paranoid schizophrenic that everyone is out to get them.
And for people like David Icke that there is a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood that controls humanity, and that some prominent people are actually such reptilians, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II and Kris Kristofferson.
Charlie said,
December 13, 2010 at 3:26 pm
To ADParker:
ADParker:
>“Charlie said:
>“(If the creationist is errantly ‘asserting’ that an Intelligent Designer exists, is not the >evolutionist also errantly asserting that an Intelligent Designer does not exist in >order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard?)”
>
>parker said: “No.”
>
>No what? An intelligent designer does not exist or you don’t want to admit it exists >believe it exists to avoid discussing it.”
>
>Why not try a little reading comprehension?
>Charlie said “…is not the evolutionist also errantly asserting that an Intelligent >Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in every regard?”
>and my answer to that is “No, the evolutionist [is not] also errantly asserting that an >Intelligent Designer does not exist in order to avoid discussing the possibility in >every regard.”
>
>Oh and doesn’t everyone know that the prime avoiders of discussing this Intelligent >Designer is the Discovery Institute?!
In summary, ADParker, you’ve obviously left me and Kent both confused. In the first case, you answer quite simply, “No”. Which I took to mean you clearly had no idea which way to turn anymore, and so I just decided to ignore you.
But then Kent pressed you on this question again, and you responded with some sort of strange contortion of words and uncomfortable squawking of unconnected ideas. It called my attention and I can’t help but ask…
Did you answer the question? Fine- you say that you answered No. And I think that we can settle on this as the [more specific] summary of your answer:
ADParker’s summarized answer to Charlie’s question:
Though the creationist *errantly* asserts that an Intelligent Designer exists
The evolutionist *validly* asserts that an Intelligent Designer does *not* exist.
But I really don’t understand how you defend this response. The original pair are statements of equivalent logic value. How is it that you are able to take both statements and reduce their equivalence in order to call one errant and the other valid?
You dodged Kent’s question by floundering about on other tangentially related ideas and more empty declarations. But you didn’t really answer the question very well either to me or to Kent. I’ll try again:
How do these two assertions differ in logic value?
1. The creationist asserts that an ID exists.
2. The evolutionist asserts that an ID does *not* exist.
They seem to be equal to me. Please explain to me how they differ? They both seem pretty empty to me without further evidence. In fact, all evidence that I have seen to support 2 has been weak in my opinion. And more importantly, seems to be dependent upon the original assertion- that an ID does not exist. That would be begging the question, wouldn’t it?
Charlie said,
December 14, 2010 at 4:56 pm
So you say that my summary of what you stand on is a fantasy of some sort. And it appears that perhaps this is where I had begun to assume incorrectly?..
ADParker
>Charlie said:
>“Agreed- the single difference between the evolutionist view and the ID view is that
>you deny the postulation that an ‘extra (instead of zero)’ Creator/Designer exists.”
>
>No, actually. I do not “Deny” it. I deny the claim that such a thing has been
>established as true. As such I deny the assertion, not the subject of the assertion. It
>is the difference between “Not proven/justified” and “not true.”
My confusion arose from your response to Stevebee’s comparison of evolutionists to creationists… in essentially saying that they are both creationists of some sort- simply differing on their idea of what was doing the ‘creating’ at the beginning. He said that essentially the difference was simply in the speed at which creation occurred according to both views…
ADParker:
>No, the difference is the non-postulation of an extra Creator being.
>The difference is not asserting that such vast intelligence (and capability) somehow
>existed/exists before/beyond the universe and spacetime.
Somehow, the phrase above does not equate to the following one- in which I tried to provide a genuine summary:
>“Agreed- the single difference between the evolutionist view and the ID view is that
>you deny the postulation that an ‘extra (instead of zero)’ Creator/Designer exists.”
Your explanation:
>No, actually. I do not “Deny” it. I deny the claim that such a thing has been
>established as true. As such I deny the assertion, not the subject of the assertion. It
>is the difference between “Not proven/justified” and “not true.”
Seems to me that you ‘deny the claim’ and likewise ‘deny the postulation’, and that they are one and the same.
ADParker “[apparently does NOT] deny the postulation that a[…] Creator/Designer exists.”
BUT he does “deny the claim that such a thing [‘a[…] Creator/Designer exists’] has been established as true.”
Seems very nuanced. So I’ll tiptoe carefully…
A) First off, I suppose if that is the case, you’ll have to submit that doubters of evolution share a very similar but opposing view:
They ‘deny the claim that such a thing [neo-Darwinian ToE is the best explanation] has been established as true’. You might easily take it for granted that they also ‘deny the claim that neo-Darwinian ToE is the best explanation’. It is indeed very difficult to deny that both phrases say essentially the same thing. My attempt was just to simplify a complex phrase. I didn’t realize that I had oversimplified. Alas.
B) You say that the difference is between essentially saying ‘a Creator/Designer exists’ is ‘not proven/justified’ and saying it is ‘not true’.
C) Yet, the ID proponent *proposes* that “a Creator/Designer *just might* exist” and that we should examine a theory that includes him.
But you deny that the claim that ‘a Creator/Designer exists’ has been established as true, and thereby accept the alternative ToE and reject the advancement of ID as a branch of science. How do you do that?
You must essentially declare that “a Creator/Designer *might* exist” is false/not justified. Am I wrong?
In that way, aren’t you essentially declaring that “a Creator/Designer exists” is false/not justified?
C1) If you declare that “a Creator/Designer exists” is false, then the burden of proof is upon you.
C2) If you declare that “a Creator/Designer exists” is not justified, then you have put the cart before the horse, since
a) science cannot affirm nor deny;
b) most theories begin with a hypothesis that cannot initially be justified until the scientific research has been allowed to continue.
c) science cannot be honestly used to reject something that it cannot know or justify- only that which is knowably not plausible.
Which is it, ADParker? C1? C2? Some other very delicately nuanced version (how might it be different than these 2)?
This is like playing whack a mole. You seem to constantly slip beneath your words in order to avoid the inevitable- that you have no real ground to stand on that does not stand firmly on that which you intend to refute.
ADParker said,
December 14, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Charlie said:
“My confusion arose from your response to Stevebee’s comparison of evolutionists to creationists… in essentially saying that they are both creationists of some sort- simply differing on their idea of what was doing the ‘creating’ at the beginning.”
I see no real difference at all really. Most ID proponents simply are creationists. For example William Dembski relatively recently came out as a creationist. Those that avoid creationism by either tend to instead doggedly avoid addressing the nature of this Intelligent Designer; some clearly believing it is the god they believe in (many openly admit this is their belief, but that ID is not about the Intelligent Designer’s identity.)
So it is not “ differing on their idea of what was doing the ‘creating’ at the beginning” but one claiming what did the creating, and the other avoiding addressing that question.
Charlie said:
“He said that essentially the difference was simply in the speed at which creation occurred according to both views…”
Which is nonsense of course.
Charlie said:
“A) First off, I suppose if that is the case, you’ll have to submit that doubters of evolution share a very similar but opposing view:
They ‘deny the claim that such a thing [neo-Darwinian ToE is the best explanation] has been established as true’. You might easily take it for granted that they also ‘deny the claim that neo-Darwinian ToE is the best explanation’. It is indeed very difficult to deny that both phrases say essentially the same thing. My attempt was just to simplify a complex phrase. I didn’t realize that I had oversimplified. Alas.”
That’s fine, deny away. They happen to be wrong at the base level, as evolution is an observed fact (set of facts actually.) But of course you are using “evolution” (somewhat disingenuously) as meaning the entirety of the theory of evolution, which in that case hardly anyone (there are always some aren’t there?) claims it all as necessarily true. Science doesn’t do “proof,” and thus doesn’t claim absolute truth. In fact it is readily accepted that some aspects of the theory probably are incorrect, and a great deal of them less that fully fleshed out.
So ‘we’ rarely address that, instead we address specific claims made by evolution deniers. E.g. “This is impossible/false therefore evolution is false” to which I reply “No, that is not established as impossible/false at all, your premise/argument is incorrect.”
That is one reason why I don’t come along and make assertions of the theory being absolutely true, and being able to prove it (the other main reason is that I don’t claim to have such a level of expertise in the theory) but instead only seek to address certain claims and arguments made against it, where I find error.
There is nothing wrong with challenging aspects of the theory (you can’t really challenge the whole directly, as it is not a single simple theory, but a collection of theories and hypotheses; a “meta-theory” if you will.) In fact that is precisely how much of the current status of the theory has been built! What IS wrong is erecting (and unthinkingly repeating) falsehoods and logically fallacious arguments in order to attack the theory. And that holds true for anything, theory, belief, or whatever.
Charlie said:
“B) You say that the difference is between essentially saying ‘a Creator/Designer exists’ is ‘not proven/justified’ and saying it is ‘not true’.”
Correct. One is a positive claim, which bears a certain burden of proof. The other is the non-acceptance of such a claim from another.
Charlie said:
“C) Yet, the ID proponent *proposes* that “a Creator/Designer *just might* exist” and that we should examine a theory that includes him.”
Which sounds insane, doesn’t it?
Fairies *just might* exist, so do you think we should examine a theory that includes them
*** just realised! “ a Creator/Designer…exist…theory that includes HIM”
Him?! That’s awfully specific. And highlights a not uncommon sight; where ID proponents often slip and reveal what they are really talking about, creationism.
Charlie said:
“But you deny that the claim that ‘a Creator/Designer exists’ has been established as true, and thereby accept the alternative ToE and reject the advancement of ID as a branch of science. How do you do that?”
Because the ToE IS NOT the alternative. Contrary to the claims of many cdesign proponenentsists this is not a True dilemma. The theory of evolution has been (and continues to be) established on it’s own merits; not in this ridiculous manner that you imply. I accept the theory of evolution (as a remarkably robust theory) because of the theory of evolution, NOT because the ID (weak) hypothesis is not sufficiently supported. In fact the one had nothing to do with the other for me.
So drop that “thereby” crap.
I have looked at BOTH concepts, and happened to find that only one has any rational merit, only one comes close to being more than a mere hypothesis. It ‘could’ have been that both appeared to have merit, and thus closer inspection would have been required for me to choose, or even that I would find that both were so close in strength that I was left with a position of having two competing hypotheses as possibly being the correct answer in my mind. Of course that doesn’t happen to be the case at all. And the vast majority of the scientific community agrees. And I will add that I strongly suspect the the Discovery Institute (as a whole) probably agrees as well, and that is why they engage in dishonest tactics, such as trying to get their un-established hypothesis taught in schools without having first successfully gone through the scientific process, as EVERYTHING else in those textbooks has done.
Charlie said:
“You must essentially declare that “a Creator/Designer *might* exist” is false/not justified. Am I wrong?
In that way, aren’t you essentially declaring that “a Creator/Designer exists” is false/not justified?”
?! “False” and “not justified” are not the same thing at all.
And yes you are wrong; I don’t have to ‘declare’ anything. You claim that The Intelligent Designer exists (and is a “he” apparently) I simply say that I don’t believe you, and furthermore see no reason to do so.
Charlie said:
“C1) If you declare that “a Creator/Designer exists” is false, then the burden of proof is upon you/”
Correct. Of course if you declare that one does exist, then we would BOTH have our own burdens of proof. And as it happens the one making the ‘positive’ claim (that X does exist) has the greater burden, at least to a degree. As the saying “you can’t prove a negative” while not entire accurate, does make the accurate point that it is all things being equal far far easier to prove a positive than a negative.
For example; say we have the claim that there is/in not a celestial teapot. The positive claimant only has to find it and point it out. The negative claimant however has to find and point out EVERY single point in the universe where it could be to show that it is not in ANY of them!
But the negative claim can be bolstered, but not proven, by simply pointing out that as far as we has so far looked, we have found no real signs of this claimed object.
Charlie said:
“C2) If you declare that “a Creator/Designer exists” is not justified, then you have put the cart before the horse, since
a) science cannot affirm nor deny;”
What?! That makes no sense whatsoever. For starters this is NOT affirming or denying. It is not accepting a claim as “justified”, as supported or established. Not until sufficient investigation has found such support.
Charlie said:
“b) most theories begin with a hypothesis that cannot initially be justified until the scientific research has been allowed to continue.”
Well really they start with observations (facts) which are in ‘need’ of being explained. Tentative explanations are postulated, these are carefully worked on, forming a solid hypothesis, which is then rigorously tested, hopefully eventually becoming a theory. Although said theory is usually distinct (to some degree) from the original hypothesis.
What is not done; is a hypothesis being just made up, or taken from pre-scientific religious beliefs – i.e. NOT observed facts of reality, but personal belief systems. And use those as basis’s of hypotheses and theories.
And that is what the current ID movement (coming out of creationism – hello Wedge document) does: it starts with the postulation of an intelligent designer, and THEN tries to look for observed facts to support that assumption. This is known as confirmation bias and the creationist method:
Charlie said:
“c) science cannot be honestly used to reject something that it cannot know or justify- only that which is knowably not plausible.”
It can however reject something as not a theory, not sufficiently supported as worthy of being, for example, being inserted in high school textbooks. AND not adhering to the scientific method, and thus not science AT ALL.
Charlie said:
“Which is it, ADParker? C1? C2?:
C2 with nuanced mentioned above.
Have I not repeated just that over and over, already?
Charlie said:
“Some other very delicately nuanced version (how might it be different than these 2)?
Charlie said:
“This is like playing whack a mole. You seem to constantly slip beneath your words in order to avoid the inevitable- that you have no real ground to stand on that does not stand firmly on that which you intend to refute.”
My position has not moved a whit on this blog Charlie. You just can’t hit for shit (to keep within you analogy 😀 )
Charlie said,
December 15, 2010 at 7:03 pm
ADParker:
>I see no real difference at all really. Most ID proponents simply are creationists.
I was talking about the comparison of evolutionists to creationists. Not ID proponents and creationists. But that tangent may not be of consequence…
As far as most ID proponents eventually ‘coming out’ as creationists, it would be fair for me to conclude that perhaps they had genuinely found something of value once they opened the door. That doesn’t mean that they were creationists when they were actively ID.
I would assert that ID proponents are a superset of biblical creationists. But that they are not one and the same, since ID proponents stop short of postulating what/who did the designing/creating. I think that you do yourself a disservice by equivocating them needlessly.
I, personally, have no qualms being a biblical creationist. But I am there on faith and reason. I am an ID proponent on reason alone. I would venture also to say that you (and I) are believers in micro-evolution on reason. But we differ in that you are a believer of macro-evolution on faith.
I say you can have your faith if you like. But don’t call it science, because it is nothing of the sort.
ADParker (on evolution doubters):
>That’s fine, deny away. They happen to be wrong at the base level, as >evolution is an observed fact (set of facts actually.)
I think that it has been established- at least to reasonable people- that the facts are conflated to imply macro-evolution is proven by evidences of micro-evolution. I have yet to see anyone effectively address the logical and rational questions that Steve and many others have pointed in the ToE. (You make the most valiant effort- but it does fall short.)
The level of evasiveness I have seen in these discourses points not to knowledgeable people with scientific answers, but to dogmatically programmed people with a deeply ingrained bias. (Anti-God goggles if you will.)
ADParker (on evolution doubters pointing to flaws and on scientific ‘proof’):
>So ‘we’ rarely address that, instead we address specific claims made by >evolution deniers. E.g. “This is impossible/false therefore evolution is >false” to which I reply “No, that is not established as impossible/false at all, >your premise/argument is incorrect.”
Sure. ToE has proposed all sorts of scenarios which provide for a path that it could have followed. And no one was there, so absolutely, they are not (all) ‘impossible’. They are simply not reasonable. They are indeed often unreasonable. I choose to not believe in your fairies and unicorns named Time and Chance. I do *not* believe that ToE has been established scientifically. I do believe that ToE has *not* been established scientifically. (ToE referring here to that which includes undirected micro and macro evolution)
ADParker:
>[Charlie]…
>“C) Yet, the ID proponent *proposes* that “a Creator/Designer *just might* >exist” and that we should examine a theory that includes him.”
>
>Which sounds insane, doesn’t it?
>Fairies *just might* exist, so do you think we should examine a theory that >includes them
Why does that sound insane? Fairies and God are two entirely different ontological entities. One has the definition of being completely outside of, transcendent, and in control of nature- and cannot be affirmed nor denied by science. The other is a creation itself and has no such grand-scale powers or existence. Not to mention that we have NO idea what might be the scope of the definition for an ID Designer… other than to state that they would be something similar to or inferior to that which is the definition for the Christian (or the Jewish or Islamic) God.
Evolutionists like to equivocate these two in order to create a strawman out of God. But it is entirely inappropriate. This is not an emotional response. It is just matter of fact. I think that you are more intelligent than that. I can hardly imagine that you can dismiss the definition of God as being on the same level as the definitions of fairies and unicorns.
If God exists, then He is the necessary cause of our existence.
Whether or not fairies or unicorns exist, they are NOT a necessary cause of our existence.
Two totally different types of ontological entities. You know that, though, I am quite sure. You sound intelligent enough to grasp at least that.
ADParker:
>*** just realised! “ a Creator/Designer…exist…theory that includes HIM”
Yes, ADParker, I personally am a YEC Christian. I’m sure I’ve mentioned that unabashedly before. No qualms there. I inappropriately and unconsciously imposed MY bias upon the ID proponent’s view. Let’s correct that:
So I correct and stand by this being something worth pursuing in discussion:
>“C) Yet, the ID proponent *proposes* that “a Creator/Designer *just might* >exist” and that we should examine a theory that includes [this Designer].”
So anyhow, now we get back to the heart of the discussion:
ADParker:
>Charlie said:
>“You must essentially declare that “a Creator/Designer *might* exist” is >false/not justified. Am I wrong?
>In that way, aren’t you essentially declaring that “a Creator/Designer exists” >is false/not justified?”
>
>?! “False” and “not justified” are not the same thing at all.
>And yes you are wrong; I don’t have to ‘declare’ anything. You claim that The >Intelligent Designer exists (and is a “he” apparently) I simply say that I don’t >believe you, and furthermore see no reason to do so.
As far as I can tell, the ID proponent does not spend any time making any such claims or inquisition toward identification. He simply asserts that it *just might* be a possibility- a plausible theory. I don’t believe in an Oort Cloud. Does that stop you from posing it as a plausible theory for the youth of comets? I know that you don’t claim that it is true- but that it *just might* be a possibility. You seem to apply your reason in a very biased manner.
Your plainly asserting that in the ID proponent’s case, *just might* is not something worth pursuing. But that in the evolutionist’s case, *just might* is indeed something worth pursuing. It is plainly a bias toward those theories which are of materialistic causes exclusively preferred over those which are not materialistic causes.
ADParker (with my latest comments embedded):
>Charlie said:
>“C2) If you declare that “a Creator/Designer exists” is not justified, then you >have put the cart before the horse, since
>a) science cannot affirm nor deny;”
>
>What?! That makes no sense whatsoever. For starters this is NOT >affirming or denying. It is not accepting a claim as “justified”, as supported >or established. Not until sufficient investigation has found such support.
>> clarity: a) science cannot affirm nor deny that “a Creator/Designer exists”
>> Try applying that strict policy on any number of controversial evolution
>> hypotheses (before and after they are ‘supported’)
>Charlie said:
>“b) most theories begin with a hypothesis that cannot initially be justified >until the scientific research has been allowed to continue.”
>
>Well really they start with observations (facts) which are in ‘need’ of being >explained. Tentative explanations are postulated, these are carefully
>> Let’s see… we exist. we know we exist. we ponder our own existence and >> that of our origin… I think that is a fact that is in ‘need’ of being explained.
>> (unless of course you’re an evolutionist, and then you’re content to accept >> that you are simply an accidental DNA vehicle.)
>worked on, forming a solid hypothesis, which is then rigorously tested, >hopefully eventually becoming a theory. Although said theory is usually >distinct (to some degree) from the original hypothesis.
>What is not done; is a hypothesis being just made up, or taken from >pre-scientific religious beliefs – i.e. NOT observed facts of reality, but >personal belief systems. And use those as basis’s of hypotheses and >theories.
>> pre-scientific religious beliefs… No, not quite. I believe that you won’t find >> a single ancient culture that didn’t ponder creation. There are two broad >> reasons for why they believed in some sort of God: a) there is a God and >> they recognized his works and tried to understand him; b) there is NO
>> God and they psychologically created scenarios to explain his nature.
>>
>> Both reasons are rationally equivalent. To expound:
>> If God DOES exist, your denial of Him will not destroy Him. He simply IS.
>> If God DOES exist, my desire of Him will not produce Him. He simply IS.
>> If God DOES NOT exist, your denial of Him will not destroy Him. He simply IS NOT.
>> If God DOES NOT exist, my desire of Him will not produce Him. He simply IS NOT.
>> In other words, our beliefs about Him have absolutely no bearing on His
>> existence. He either IS or IS NOT. It has absolutely nothing to do with
>> religious beliefs. He is Ontologically Plausible. And likewise, so is an
>> Intelligent Designer of any name or non-name. It is for this reason that
>> ID proponents propose that Design should be examined. Because it is
>> indeed a rational path of discovery.
>And that is what the current ID movement (coming out of creationism – >hello Wedge document) does: it starts with the postulation of an intelligent >designer, and THEN tries to look for observed facts to support that >assumption. This is known as confirmation bias and the creationist >method:
>> The supporters of ToE are any different? They postulate that our origins >> are from a common ancestor and they dogmatically search for those
>> observed facts that support their theory. It cannot be falsified. And it
>> certainly has the same level of confirmation bias.
>
>Charlie said:
>“c) science cannot be honestly used to reject something that it cannot know >or justify- only that which is knowably not plausible.”
>
>It can however reject something as not a theory, not sufficiently supported >as worthy of being, for example, being inserted in high school textbooks. >AND not adhering to the scientific method, and thus not science AT ALL.
>> Same garbage- ToE as it currently exists in textbooks suffers the same >> problem. Not science at all. And very religious to boot. All hail the Great
>> Time. All hail the Great Randomness. All hail the Great DNA.
>Charlie said:
>“Which is it, ADParker? C1? C2?:
>
>C2 with nuanced mentioned above.
>> Please simplify your nuance for me, since it was a bit hard to read- and I >> seem to do a poor job of summarizing your thoughts.
>> “C2) If you declare that “a Creator/Designer exists” is not justified…
ADParker:
>My position has not moved a whit on this blog Charlie. You just can’t hit for >shit (to keep within you analogy 😀 )
Your position has been vague and vacuous this whole time, ADParker. Just like the ToE. Of course it hasn’t moved a whit. (And I’ll admit, maybe I can’t hit for shyte- but I am getting some practice here.)
John Matrix said,
December 10, 2010 at 7:48 pm
ADParker:
Please provide the evidence or proof you rely upon to support your belief that God does not exist.
ADParker said,
December 11, 2010 at 1:40 am
It’s self-evident!!!!!!
Heh; sorry, couldn’t resist, if that’s good enough for certain theists here, why not eh?
But seriously:
On a comment section of a blog about evolution?! Why should I?
And finally:
Who says that I believe that God does not exist?
I do not believe that God, or any other gods (with proper names) for that matter, exists. Which is a different thing. Can you see how?
Why? Because I have seen no “evidence or proof” to support teh innumerbale assertions that such a being does exist.
John Matrix said,
December 10, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Mathematics is the signature of God in Creation:
ADParker said,
December 11, 2010 at 1:55 am
Wow! That guy is just certifiable!
Charlie said,
December 14, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Maybe a genius…
Maybe just WAY out there.
Sometimes just very hard to tell. He could definitely use some nair, though- or at least put on a shirt. LOL
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 10, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Are you saying Piltdown man was NOT a fraud ?”
Parkers answer: “No. I am saying that the typical creationist fairy tale about it is also a fraud.”
The typical creationist fairy tale about it is a fraud?
I’m not familiar with the fairy tale and I didn’t offer a fairytale so please refrain from seeing things that are not there or imparting answers to past debates you were in with others regardless of how typical you think they all are. I gave you the facts and there are so many frauds and hoax and out and out lies going in in science it is criminal.
John Matrix said,
December 10, 2010 at 11:38 pm
ADParker: Is that the best fallacious argument you have? Cool!!
Now please put your money where your mouth is and show us the proof and/or evidence you rely on to support your belief that there is no God.
We are waiting Parker.
ADParker said,
December 11, 2010 at 3:17 am
John Matrix said,:
“Now please put your money where your mouth is and show us the proof and/or evidence you rely on to support your belief that there is no God.”
I never made such a claim John, so bear no such burden of proof.
I simply see no reason to believe such a thing. In fact about all I hear is empty rhetoric such as Kent just gave: “[The evidence is] EVERY WHERE YOU LOOK SON” Well great; you should have no difficulty in presenting some of it then.
If YOU claim that this entity is anything more than a figment of the imagination, then it is up to you to back up that assertion. Until then there is no good reason for anyone to believe you at all.
John Matrix said,
December 12, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Vortex based Mathematics is absolute proof of an Intelligent designer creator.
What more proof do you need?
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 11, 2010 at 5:53 am
AdParker thinks he is slick and says “Who says that I believe that God does not exist?
I do not believe that God, exists. ”
adding the “does not exist?” is pretty slick symantics then you take the phrase and turn it inside out and it to us backwards in a mirror.
So Ill tell you who says it ok.
Adparker says you believe God does not exist, that’s who.
So that is why I say that you do not believe God exists
Now seeing how you were talking to JM there, You misrepresented his statement Parker,, you’re slipping pal. This is what JM said:
“your belief that there is no God.”
Now I would ask, is there or is there not a God. Yes or No.
The only answer you can give is by that same filter you implied Charlie uses, you use to deny every God made flying thing but have no problem believing man made an airplane. A cheap copy of Gods design but a design nevertheless. You can argue the reason you know it was designed because their is evidence of a designer. Then the silly atheist would bring up historical documents and plans blue prints etc by the wright brothers Da vinci etc, Sort of how Dawkins tries to do in the blind watchmaker. That is when us creationists shake our heads in disgust with the intentional slippery schemes and semantics they are so well known for.
You see to anyone else, the evidence of the designer
would be the fuckin airplane
So it doesn’t surprise me when I say the evidence is every where and you say words to the same effect as Dawkins does the watch.
The argument goes prove the designer or I refuse to acknowledge the watch was made by a watch maker.
This is why Romans uses the phrase “they are without excuse” .
See JM, he knows their is a designer, he just doesn’t agree with the idea of a designer. It’s in there seared on his soul like the Nike Logo it has a slogan, “Just Do It” ADParker has a logo with a slogan too stamped there on his heart.
It says, “Every knee will bend, every mouth will confess” .
Ive heard em too Parker, atheists, they start confessing.
Others have seen it too, just like Comedian Sam Kinison when he died.:
http://www.paulluvera.com/.a/6a00d8341c84f353ef0120a6f232a8970b-320wi
“A couple of teenagers in a 1974 Chev truck were approaching Kinison’s Trans-am on Highway 95 near the California-Nevada border. The teens had been drinking and the truck crossed the center line. Sam saw the truck coming at him and managed to slow his car to 15 miles per hour in an effort to avoid a collision.
In the van behind Kinison’s car his brother Bill saw the truck across the center line and yelled out “Watch out for that guy Sam, That guy’s in your lane” and then he screamed: “Watch him Sam! Watch him!”A tremendous crash followed and Bill skidded the van to a stop. He ran to check on his brother.
The teenage driver had moderate injuries but his teenage passenger had only minor cuts and bruises. Sam had not been wearing a seat belt and the crash had thrown hm into the windshield. It knocked out Malika, but Kinison managed to get out of the car with what appeared to be only cuts on his lip and forehead.
His brother and the others begged him to lay down and he did with his best friend, Carl LaBove, who had been in the following van. holding his head in his hands. At first it looked like there were no serious injuries to Kinison, but within minutes he suddenly said to no one in particular “I don’t want to die. I don’t want to die.” LaBove later said “it was as if he was having a conversation, talking to some unseen somebody else” some unseen person.
Then there was a pause as if Kinison was listening to the other person speak. Then he asked “But why?” and after another pause LaBove heard him clearly say: “Okay, Okay, Okay.’ LaBove said: “The last ‘Okay’ was so soft and at peace…Whatever voice was talking to him gave him the right answer and he just relaxed with it. He said it so sweet, like he was talking to someone he loved.” Kinson then lost consciousness. Efforts to resuscitate him failed” Sam Kinison died peacefully.
Atheists, In cries of anguish you’d hear em.
Word to the wise, don’t make the same mistake they did Parker. When they’d say “Sorry, I’m so sorry, I didn’t know” then real fast , “.I didn’t know i didn’t know no NO NOOO” I am pretty sure i wasn’t hearing an echo on the last successive “No’s” and that they weren’t “know” but “no” with an “n”.
The reason I’m saying is like those who witnessed Kinison dying in the street
It was the ones adding the “I didn’t know” part that seemed to go out the most scary.
Guess they thought ignorance was an excuse but wherever they were, whatever they were going through, lying in willful ignorance seems to make dying (at least in their case) a real living hell.
no pun
ADParker said,
December 11, 2010 at 9:33 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“AdParker thinks he is slick and says “Who says that I believe that God does not exist?
I do not believe that God, exists. ” “
I just checked; Oh good I didn’t say that horrible sentence with the rogue comma. What I did say was:
“I do not believe that God, or any other gods (with proper names) for that matter, exists.”
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“adding the “does not exist?” is pretty slick symantics then you take the phrase and turn it inside out and it to us backwards in a mirror. ‘
I did not add that. What are you on about?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“So Ill tell you who says it ok.
Adparker says you believe God does not exist, that’s who.”
Um, what?!
I say ‘who believes God does not exist’? I say I believe that?! Actually Kent; no I did not. I might in the right context, but I haven’t here. I have never claimed to know it though.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“So that is why I say that you do not believe God exists”
And who are you to tell me what I believe?!
You are right though; I don’t believe your god exists. But I don’t CLAIM it doesn’t exist, as I see no need to do so. If you want me to believe it does, then the burden is on you to convince me. And claims that it is obvious, appeals to emotion or threats do not even begin to do the job, and nor should it.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Now seeing how you were talking to JM there, You misrepresented his statement Parker,, you’re slipping pal. This is what JM said:
“your belief that there is no God.” “
No it isn’t. What John Matrix said was:
“…your belief that God does not exist.” (copy and pasted directly from his post [#23])
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Now I would ask, is there or is there not a God. Yes or No.”
I don’t know.
And the grammar of your question is awful. These would be proper:
“Now I would ask; are there, or are there no, gods?”
“Now I would ask, is there or is there not a god of any kind?
“Now I would ask, does God exist?” (this one using the personal pronoun “God” implying this is a name (or place holder for a given name.)
I could answer it this fashion, if forced to use one or your given optional answers:
No, I see no reason to think any being by that name exists.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The only answer you can give is by that same filter you implied Charlie uses, you use to deny every God made flying thing but have no problem believing man made an airplane. “
What the Hel?!
No; I just don’t ASSUME that those things (birds and stuff right?) are “God made.” In fact that is precisely what I am saying about the God Goggles: you are assuming that conclusion into what you see. I see a bat or bird, you see a bat or bird MADE BY YOUR GOD.
But yes; we all ‘wear’ and see through filters of one type and/or another. And that is why I try to refrain from relying on what I may see as “obvious/Self-evident/common sense”, But instead on reason and actual evidence, as well as info that comes through such methodologies. Not least of all because I am well aware that common sense is notoriously unreliable, that what may SEEM obvious, including to me, often times turns out to be in error.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“A cheap copy of Gods design but a design nevertheless.”
Note the empty assertion of the truth of your chosen conclusion therein.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“You can argue the reason you know it was designed because their is evidence of a designer.”
“There” not “their” (just trying to help you there.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“You see to anyone else, the evidence of the designer
would be the fuckin airplane”
No, as a matter of fact it is not. Except that just happens to suffice in that case, because we already know (and therefore don’t need to see again) the evidence that such things are designed and built by people. We know of the aeronautics industry, of airlines and aeroplane design and building companies. And of the existence of people, people of which include those capable of such creativity. Do we have ANY of that for your claimed “intelligent designer of bats and birds”? None that I have ever seen.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“So it doesn’t surprise me when I say the evidence is every where and you say words to the same effect as Dawkins does the watch.”
So again with the “It’s obvious” canard?!
Do you think that impresses any more than “The evidence for evolution is everywhere (one word by the way)!” would impress and convince you?! It IS practically everywhere as it happens, but simply asserting that is not even close to good enough.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The argument goes prove the designer or I refuse to acknowledge the watch was made by a watch maker.”
You haven’t even read ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ have you?
And clearly have no clue as to what counts as Proof. If it was proof, then we would be done, as we would all know it for a fact.
Are you seriously claiming that “Birds exist. The bird proves that God made them!” really PROVES that God exists?! Because that is about all your ‘argument’ amounts to.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“This is why Romans uses the phrase “they are without excuse” .
Yes I am aware of that particular insult to human intelligence. It is essentially a genetic fallacy that places the blame on anyone that does not accept a given assertion, instead of the quality of the assertion itself.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“See JM, he knows their is a designer, he just doesn’t agree with the idea of a designer.”
What?! Don’t be silly; both of those statements are false.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It’s in there seared on his soul like the Nike Logo it has a slogan, “Just Do It” ADParker has a logo with a slogan too stamped there on his heart. “
Have you actually lost your mind Kent?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It says, “Every knee will bend, every mouth will confess” .”
Ooh thinly veiled threats. ‘It’ says this, ‘it’ says that. So what? Is there ANY reason to think it’s true?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Ive heard em too Parker, atheists, they start confessing. “
And? Some atheists in Hindu-centric communities start confessing to their gods as well… Evidence of the indoctrination, not the reality.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“…Efforts to resuscitate him failed” Sam Kinison died peacefully.”
Nice little anecdotal story. So what? The fairy folk were talking to him? No, you just paste the religious dogma you happen to adhere to onto the story, don’t you?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Atheists, In cries of anguish you’d hear em.’
Some of them, perhaps. So what?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Word to the wise, don’t make the same mistake they did Parker.”
Empty threats don’t impress me Kent. Quite the contrary.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ When they’d say “Sorry, I’m so sorry, I didn’t know” then real fast , “.I didn’t know i didn’t know no NO NOOO” I am pretty sure i wasn’t hearing an echo on the last successive “No’s” and that they weren’t “know” but “no” with an “n”.”
Pathetic.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The reason I’m saying is like those who witnessed Kinison dying in the street”
He muttered a few words which you choose to interpret in a certain way. Big freakin’ deal. Like you have any clue that at that moment he tapped into something ‘beyond’, that he was talking to anythinthat existed outside of his own damaged mind.
You don’t even realise how juvenile this all is, do you?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“no pun”
No sense either.
Charlie said,
December 14, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I saw the same thing, Kent. Very amusing.
ADParker:
>Who says that I believe that God does not exist?
>I do not believe that God, or any other gods (with proper names) for that matter, exists. >Which is a different thing. Can you see how?
>Why? Because I have seen no “evidence or proof” to support teh innumerbale >assertions that such a being does exist.
“I do not believe that God [… or other God-like beings] exists.”
Logically speaking, this is a simple OR clause that can easily and accurately be dissected. Thereby ADParker DID say, essentially:
‘I do not believe that God exists’
‘and also’
‘I do not believe that any other gods (with proper names) for that matter, exists.’
This is also very nuanced, but fairly taken, when he says he does ‘not believe that God exists’, he is not necessarily saying that he does ‘believe that God does not exist.’
But holy cow. If he is going to equate God with some fairies and unicorns which are categorically entirely different beings by definition, then I think he should forgive us for not noticing his [honest] obfuscation.
ADParker:
>Why? Because I have seen no “evidence or proof” to support teh innumerbale >assertions that such a being does exist.
I do not believe that the sun is purple.
I do believe that the sun is not purple.
Yeah- it’s pretty hard to tell the difference. Not really sure that there is one unless someone is trying very hard to semantically make a point.
The only reason you don’t see the evidence is because you won’t accept that which is self-evident. That denial is if anything the most telling evidence that you believe that God does not exist. You can put your ‘not’ wherever you like- but we know exactly what it means. It means you’ve run out of rope.
ADParker said,
December 15, 2010 at 12:17 am
Charlie said:
“This is also very nuanced, but fairly taken, when he says he does ‘not believe that God exists’, he is not necessarily saying that he does ‘believe that God does not exist.’”
Spot on.
It shouldn’t be seen as “very nuanced” though; one of the many failings in early education I think.
“I don’t believe your story” does not equate to “I believe you story is false.”
I DO happen to believe/think that gods don’t exist. But I don’t claim that they don’t. As I don;t claim to have the evidence FOR such a claim, just a lack of evidence for the counter, positive, claim.
Charlie said:
“But holy cow. If he is going to equate God with some fairies and unicorns which are categorically entirely different beings by definition, then I think he should forgive us for not noticing his [honest] obfuscation.”
Fascinating observation of a mental barrier with some theists this one. Who is equating God with fairies and unicorns? No one. All that is being done in such examples is comparing the claim on one thing “God” with that of other things also lacking in supporting evidence.
In other words; if you can figure out why we both (I hope) don’t believe, accept the existence of, unicorns and fairies, then perhaps you can recognise why I don’t accept the existence of this “God” either. THAT is the level of this “equating” you speak of. But so many instead choose to take offence at the atheist DARING to equate those creatures of fantasy to their cherished believed in deity. It’s an emotional response, not a rational one.
Charlie said:
“I do not believe that the sun is purple.
I do believe that the sun is not purple.
Yeah- it’s pretty hard to tell the difference.”
For you, really? There’s that childhood education problem once again.
“I do not believe your claim that there is a man in a red hat standing behind that wall”
“I believe there is not a man standing in a red hat standing behind that wall.”
How hard do you find it to tell the difference there?
If less so, then your problem is a common one; an inability/difficulty to divorce the structure of an argument/statement/claim from its content. Something childhood teaching of critical thinking could readily correct.
Charlie said:
“Not really sure that there is one unless someone is trying very hard to semantically make a point.”
Such a shame. This inability to distinguish “I don’t believe your story” with “I believe your story is false.”
Charlie said:
“The only reason you don’t see the evidence is because you won’t accept that which is self-evident.”
The only reason I don’t see the evidence is because I am not wearing my God Goggles (any more.)
I see no point in repeating myself with this empty “It’s Obvious” canard.
Charlie said:
“That denial is if anything the most telling evidence that you believe that God does not exist. “
Wow! Now that is certainly telling.
Charlie said,
December 15, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Nice try. Way to over-complicate something in order to simplify it. This seems to be key to your strategy.
ADParker:
>Charlie said:
>“I do not believe that the sun is purple.
>I do believe that the sun is not purple.
>
>Yeah- it’s pretty hard to tell the difference.”
>
>For you, really? There’s that childhood education problem once again.
>“I do not believe your claim that there is a man in a red hat standing behind >that wall”
>“I believe there is not a man standing in a red hat standing behind that wall.”
Your example was not even a good one. Here- try this set without the added obfuscating person that ‘claims’ anything:
I do not believe that there is a man in a red hat standing behind that wall
I do believe that there is no man in a red hat standing behind that wall
Basically, your pattern of attack here seems very simple, and I am astounded that you would try to use it on me, since I thought we had gotten past such trivialities: a) ridicule your opponent’s education; b) over-complicate and obfuscate his response and re-present it as a strawman to destroy; c) hope it works; d) cross your fingers.
ADParker:
>Such a shame. This inability to distinguish “I don’t believe your story” with “I >believe your story is false.”
Another great example of your obfuscation. Let’s try to clear it up (without the magically appearing ‘claimant’ and separately, implication of sub-truth- ‘story’.)
I do not believe the premise is true
I do believe the premise is not true
The difference is very thin. And does require someone to be trying to slip out of a hole in the wall.
(It did take me a moment to figure out where the key ingredient was… the mysteriously appearing ‘claimant’. Nice- I’ll watch for it again later.)
ADParker:
>How hard do you find it to tell the difference there?
>If less so, then your problem is a common one; an inability/difficulty to >divorce the structure of an argument/statement/claim from its content. >Something childhood teaching of critical thinking could readily correct.
Oooh… shiny… pretty… you so smart! 😀 LOL! Especially the critical thinking part.
Given a choice, ADParker has stated that he prefers A over B:
A) ADParker does not believe God exists.
B) ADParker does believe no God exists.
These statements are so subtly different. But this is where you hide. Let me try to examine them:
1st set (unnamed Creator/Designer)
Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, his nature and his judgment is unknown.
Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, consequences may apply regardless of whether or NOT you believe this C/D exists.
Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, consequences may apply regardless of whether or NOT you believe this C/D does NOT exist.
Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, whatever the consequences are, they will apply regardless of your belief.
1st Conclusion: Because IF this Designer DOES exist, there are no discernible consequences (unless you appropriately anticipate that your journey toward Truth should continue), you either accept and welcome whatever the consequences may be, or you DO believe He does NOT exist.
2nd set (the Triune Christian God)
Fact: If my God does exist, He holds your eternal life in the balance.
Fact: If my God does exist, you will be judged regardless of whether or NOT you believe He exists.
Fact: If my God does exist, you will be judged regardless of whether or NOT you believe He does NOT exist.
Fact: If my God does exist, you WILL have eternal Hell to pay if you don’t accept Him with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength.
2nd Conclusion: Because IF he DOES exist, these are direct consequences, you either accept and welcome those consequences or you DO believe He does NOT exist.
In both scenarios, you either accept and welcome the certain consequences that WILL transpire if you are wrong, or you DO believe He does NOT exist. That is plain and simple.
NOTE: this is not an emotional plea. It is a logical evaluation of the outcomes. Do you accept and welcome the consequences? Or do you believe He does NOT exist? (If there is another choice, please explain how it logically applies.)
Interesting stuff, ADParker. It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 11, 2010 at 5:47 pm
ADParker said, “Wow! That guy is just certifiable!”
Yeah the guy is out there and I don’t know what to make of him. Did you listen to the whole series ? He wasted a lot of time explaining a lot about nothing and the rodin coil I figure he came up with that tweakin on crystal Meth trying to fix an unbroken electric motor vacuuming his floor in one of their all night cleaning marathons
ADParker said,
December 11, 2010 at 9:31 pm
No I didn’t. I forced myself to sit through the first two, and that was more than enough to see how full of crap he is. The first was more than enough actually. He is using a well known technique of throwing in all these impressive and technical sounding words, tying in the scientific with the ‘metaphysical’ and ‘mystical’, but in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. It is reminiscent of the trend for purveyors of Mystical woo to add “quantum” to their rubbish to (in the their mind) make it sound more impressive. Such as “Quantum healing.”
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 11, 2010 at 11:23 pm
parker said:”It is reminiscent of the trend for purveyors of Mystical woo to add “quantum” to their rubbish to (in the their mind) make it sound more impressive. Such as “Quantum healing.”
Ha ha yeah I know what ya mean, everyone is getting into the act. I have heard of quantum economics as the only way we can understand the faltering economy.
Well if that is the case, then we will NEVER BEGIN to understand how to fix it. Hell it puts a whole new meaning on “Too Big to Fail”. Too much printing of the money supply backed by metaphysical gold eh.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 11, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Oh for Pete’s sake Parker, MUST you make this such a meticulously dissected argument, acting like you’re grammar’s answer to the obsessive compulsive detective on TV known as “Monk” ?
I Maen if yuor giong to nit pcik bieng scuh a jrek abuot it, undrestnad taht poelpe can reed a setnence as bad as this jsut as esay as if it was spleled rihgt.
The human brain has a remarkable ability to understand the central message in the written word, in spite of our need to derail that message by drawing attention to what is otherwise nothing more than your need to cheaply enhance your ego by belittling others playing “Grammar Style Cop”.
I just checked; Oh good I didn’t say that horrible sentence with the rogue comma. What I did say was:
“I do not believe that God, or any other gods (with proper names) for that matter, exists.” – Adparker. //end quote
Use a colon after a complete sentence to set off a list. It is incorrect to use a colon to set off a quotation.
“Um, what?!” – ADparker
If the marked thought is an incomplete thought, try making it using a complete sentence adding a verb might help sans the additional confusing punctuation. Either it is a question or it is not.
By adding, the superfluous exclamation point to your sentence is incorrect use of proper punctuation. Please learn proper sentence structure and punctuation Parker before you start correcting my comma’s okay Hoss.
See Parker, two can play this game jackass. I get it though, when you have nothing substantive to attack the premise of an argument, you resort to grammar monk and attack that or spelling. Not to correct me but to insult me. That is typical and something I would expect from self-aggrandizing pseudo intellects like you Princess.
I will not continue in this silliness, I copy pasted the direct quote from JM and will not do it again. You know what he meant and I know what he meant. I think one of the most ridiculous arguments atheists make is the one where they correct what it is they do not believe exists with what they believe doesn’t exist. I have seen it copy pasted from every stupid atheist website engaged in such things as “How to debate a xian” and “Contradictions in the Bible”.
It gets to where I wonder if you people have a mind of your own calling yourselves “brites” and “freethinkers” is the kind of self-promotion bordering on conceit, if I did not know already how delusional you all are or how stupid you think Christians are.
It is that kind of stereotypical indoctrination, atheists are all told by their exalted leaders of your pious religion. We come IN to the debate with a deficit to overcome. If that wasn’t bad enough, we then have to remind the atheist, that just because some mouthy little Christian antagonist with a chip on his narrow slumping shoulders, going by the name of Dawkins, says atheists are the “science community”, doesn’t mean all atheists.
The idea that being an atheist gives one some sort of advantage understanding science is the biggest mistake we have let them get away with believing. It has become so entrenched an idea among them that is all that are allowed in Science while any Christian “outed” by the atheist iron fist that lords over what is left of science academia, is ostracized or “let go” usually in some atheist created campaign to remove them from their Job.
Newton would be the target for all the nasty jokes, stares, hostility, and ridicule being in today’s combative, adversarial atheist, academic atmosphere.
Now you can go back in my post and you will find me guilty of many of the same criticism but the difference between you and me, is YOU would never admit it.
No atheists are too proud and think themselves above such criticism, especially coming from a people who believe in “sky fairies” or invisible super hero friends. Really bodes well for your long-range goals and objectives. I mean pissing people off so, even when you have to make someone offering advice, into what you suggest is an empty threat.
Where I come from, an empty threat like that would be shoving the barrel of a 12 gauge shot gun up some atheists faggot ass and telling them to get right with God n be born again else I’m going to blow your upper torso all over while meat like stalagmites of your innards hanging from the ceiling dripping blood. Sending you to hell, right now.
Now that is a threat.
Telling someone that while the gun is not loaded, is an empty threat.
Telling you not to make the same mistake I saw atheists make when dying, was not a empty threat Parker, and I can assure you, when you see men die in a military where today’s atheist, like today’s homosexual, want that stamped on their dog tags so everyone knows, etc,. It is not JUST that they said the things they did, that makes it a compelling argument.
That it was JUST the atheists that did it, which makes it so compelling.
Therefore, you asking me if I were completely out of my mind about metaphors, anyone with an IOTA of common sense would know are a metaphorical stamped logo of God on your heart, does not surprise me you play dumb and assume I am the one who is out of his mind.
No different from the ADPARKER that would see a Timex watch on Mars and not know it had a watchmaker as a designer. Therefore, it is not I, saying the bird proves God, but it is I saying the watch is evidence of a watchmaker. What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy in my argument, ONLY applies if that argument has a flawed premise to begin with. I am not merely suggesting you know their is a designer, I am telling you, everything you see man copying from nature calling it “intellectual Property and Copyright designed invention, using your logic, should no more be considered as either intellectual property OR designed.
Not without attaching the same distinction to those things in nature, they copied it. So why the hell should I care what you say about copy pasted articles, Hell I should just rewrite them using a few added ideas and claim them as mine of you want to continue making accusations for same when links and quotes are on every one of them or the references given in the introduction.
Your silly outrage doesn’t impress me because I know how full of shit you are and the extent you go to make correlations to such egregious errors in judgment, grammar and plagiarism is pathetic and you are an asshole for insisting on using all of that to avoid providing the best proof for evolution you can give us. Your asking me for proof is fine and I am more than happy to shove it in your face but I asked first.
In addition, you just keep making excuses, un-necessary grammar corrections, and incorrect accusations
Now, isn’t that unusual…
ADParker said,
December 11, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“I Maen if yuor giong to nit pcik bieng scuh a jrek abuot it, undrestnad taht poelpe can reed a setnence as bad as this jsut as esay as if it was spleled rihgt.”
{Sigh} Of course they can Kent. And that is why I didn’t bother correcting your other spelling errors (like “symantics”) I just thought to point out your “their/there” error, because for you it appears not to be just a simple error-of-the-moment (one you just made on this one occasion) for you, as you make it all the time. No big deal, but thought you might just appreciate the correction. I guess some people just don’t want to self-improve.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Use a colon after a complete sentence to set off a list. It is incorrect to use a colon to set off a quotation.:
I don’t think that is technically correct. But thanks just the same.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“By adding, the superfluous exclamation point to your sentence is incorrect use of proper punctuation. Please learn proper sentence structure and punctuation Parker before you start correcting my comma’s okay Hoss. “
I didn’t correct your comma though. I only wondered about it because it was a used as a quote for what I said.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It gets to where I wonder if you people have a mind of your own calling yourselves “brites” and “freethinkers” is the kind of self-promotion bordering on conceit, if I did not know already how delusional you all are or how stupid you think Christians are. “
I agree that “brights” is just bloody ridiculous. “Freethinkers” I understand is a little different, as it is often used as something more than a simple synonym for “atheist.” But when it is, that too is just a waste of time.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It is that kind of stereotypical indoctrination, atheists are all told by their exalted leaders of your pious religion.”
All?! Sorry Kent, I for one have no leaders. I have grown out of such needs and desires.
That is why, for instance, I can say that most (but not) all Prof. Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion is pretty spot on, but was too light in most cases, and going with the “Bright” label was just stupid. In other words I can think for myself, and agree or disagree with what anyone says or claims.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“We come IN to the debate with a deficit to overcome. If that wasn’t bad enough, we then have to remind the atheist, that just because some mouthy little Christian antagonist with a chip on his narrow slumping shoulders, going by the name of Dawkins, says atheists are the “science community”, doesn’t mean all atheists.”
He said that? I would have to see the actual context to comment properly. But there is a positive correlation with atheism and scientific literacy. But correlation does not equal causation, and it is far from a perfect 1:1 correlation, not by a long shot.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The idea that being an atheist gives one some sort of advantage understanding science is the biggest mistake we have let them get away with believing.”
The lines of causation, in my opinion, are two-way. Increase scientific literacy often undermines religious adherences (adherences to any ideology as well of course.) And weaker (and lack of) adherence to religious doctrine often leads one to be more open to learning scientific concepts more accurately; without the distortions of religious filters. But again this is hardly universal or anything.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Newton would be the target for all the nasty jokes, stares, hostility, and ridicule being in today’s combative, adversarial atheist, academic atmosphere.”
And well he should. He was quite possibly the greatest scientist of all time. Unfortunately he abandoned that for religion and alchemy (yes, that was even seen as laughable in his day.) I often muse on how far he could have gotten if he had stuck to the science, the content of which is ALL he is really known for today.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Telling you not to make the same mistake I saw atheists make when dying, was not a empty threat Parker, and I can assure you, when you see men die in a military where today’s atheist, like today’s homosexual, want that stamped on their dog tags so everyone knows, etc,. It is not JUST that they said the things they did, that makes it a compelling argument.”
I am ex-military myself you know. And was a medic to boot. Your assertions that amounts to that old “there are no atheists in foxholes” canard is patently false. And when people do cry out, in fear and extreme emotion, it is NOT exclusively to your god, but to whatever (comforting) notion they have been brought up and immersed in. Be that God, Allah, Buddha, Ganesha, and all manner of tribal gods etc, or just their own mothers and so forth. It has nothing to do with any mystical other reality or beings, but the nature of the human mind – we seek what comforts us, especially in times of stress.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Therefore, it is not I, saying the bird proves God, but it is I saying the watch is evidence of a watchmaker.”
Would it be to a non technological organism though? One that has no concept of the production of such items. No, I would expect it to find it a very strange ‘rock’ or insect indeed (the ticking might suggest to it that it is a living organism.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy in my argument, ONLY applies if that argument has a flawed premise to begin with.”
Logical fallacies do not require flawed premises. This is a logically fallacious argument:
p1: All Sharks are Fish.
p2: The Hammerhead is a Fish.
Therefore
c: The Hammerhead is a Shark.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ I am not merely suggesting you know their is a designer, I am telling you, everything you see man copying from nature calling it “intellectual Property and Copyright designed invention, using your logic, should no more be considered as either intellectual property OR designed.”
Non Sequitur; does not follow.
I have no interest in “proving” evolution to you Kent. You have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in learning anything. And the theory of evolution is not something that can be ‘proven’ in a sentence or two, being a far more multi-faceted thing. Richard Dawkins entire book “The Greatest Show on Earth” for instance merely offers a brief synopsis hinting at, with a few intriguing examples, the various lines of evidence that there are. Doesn’t even come close to being the “proof” because that is a far more mammoth task.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 11, 2010 at 11:04 pm
“{Sigh} Of course they can Kent. And that is why I didn’t bother correcting your other spelling errors (like “symantics”) I just thought to point out your “their/there” error, because for you it appears not to be just a simple error-of-the-moment (one you just made on this one occasion) for you, as you make it all the time. No big deal, but thought you might just appreciate the correction. I guess some people just don’t want to self-improve. ”
Yeah I hear that a lot, its a bad habit of typing as I talk. Ill say are in place of our, or won’t think about whether I am referring to a place there and say their. Lots of people say things on the internet using symbols or bad grammar. Doctors write like shit and I know attorneys that can’t spell for shit too. You have too but it isn’t a pet peeve of mine nor is it any indication you resist improving yourself. The only reason I can understand such resistance is if I were to use it as an excuse to ridicule you behind the guise of helping you to improve yourself.
Basic Dale Carnegie stuff man, you can’t sell an idea to someone you’ve insulted first. It makes the motive for helping second to the one to personally insult and injure. Anything you got to say after that comes off just like you did,
Disingenuous and Phony
You said. “Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy in my argument, ONLY applies if that argument has a flawed premise to begin with.”
Logical fallacies do not require flawed premises. This is a logically fallacious argument:
p1: All Sharks are Fish.
p2: The Hammerhead is a Fish.
Therefore
c: The Hammerhead is a Shark.”
Nice example but it isn’t the logical fallacy using a false premise. That would be the one you are comparing mine to and a false premise is a flawed premise. Ya know if you weren’t so god damned focused on holding back until someone writes a flawless pristine perfect post, we might be able to get to the heart of the issue. Umm I don’t mean Heart like the Organ by the way, It’s a metaphorical heart. Just so you don’t go “there”
You said: “I am ex-military myself you know. And was a medic to boot. Your assertions that amounts to that old “there are no atheists in foxholes” canard is patently false”
I beg your pardon? I never said any such thing Parker and I owe my life to atheists in fuckin fox holes as many other people in the armed forces do and have no shame admitting it. When you stop reading things into shit I never said let me know. If their were no atheists in country, how the hell can you expect me to say I saw them die and use that canard you are suggesting ? and by the way, I don’t know WHAT God you are talking about as “MY” God, I am just telling you what I saw, and if you were a medic, and didn’t see that shit a LOT, you are either lying or were never in the theater of operations.
I understand what you mean and all Parker but to me, an atheists is an atheist and doesn’t have a religion much less any particular religions God they just happen to adopt because they are fighting a war in that country.
If that were the case, I am sure I would have heard them crying out to Allah! But they didn’t give a name of anything and I saw many atheists shit there pants and they began on spiritual path of their own without anyone telling them what to believe.
The point is, their smug disbelief was not so smug anymore and any atheists dissing Christians, Hindu’s you name it, they would tell em to back off because they had a change of heart and it made them smarter for it and a lot easier to care about watching their backs than those who claimed we used religion as a crutch because we were scared to die. EVERYONE was scared of that and anyone saying they weren’t is either nuts or a liar. .
You don’t want to debate evolution and you don’t want to believe either. You just want to be a dick.
this is getting nowhere
Later Parker
ADParker said,
December 12, 2010 at 12:49 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Doctors write like shit’
Do they ever! I used to work with some. We made a game of it at times, trying to decipher what hey wrote.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Basic Dale Carnegie stuff man, you can’t sell an idea to someone you’ve insulted first.”
Not that I was in this case (you have just chosen to be antagonistic to me, so take anything I say in that light. Yes; it is another pair of filtering goggles.) but sometimes ridicule is the best means. In fact I just listened to a podcast where someone pointed out that they only became a real sceptic due to such ridicule, when they are sure that they would have only changed their view on that one point, instead of the whole outlook, if the correction was approached in a more respectful manner.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Logical fallacies do not require flawed premises. This is a logically fallacious argument:
p1: All Sharks are Fish.
p2: The Hammerhead is a Fish.
Therefore
c: The Hammerhead is a Shark.”
Nice example but it isn’t the logical fallacy using a false premise.”
And that is not what I said, did I?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“That would be the one you are comparing mine to and a false premise is a flawed premise. “
Which one? Vague references like that only make discussion impossible.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Ya know if you weren’t so god damned focused on holding back until someone writes a flawless pristine perfect post, we might be able to get to the heart of the issue. Umm I don’t mean Heart like the Organ by the way, It’s a metaphorical heart. Just so you don’t go “there” “
I made one little comment, and THEN went on to address everything you wrote, sheesh. Could it be that it is YOU who are “ so god damned focused”?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“I beg your pardon? I never said any such thing Parker and I owe my life to atheists in fuckin fox holes as many other people in the armed forces do and have no shame admitting it.”
They just all transform into Christians when faced with death, right. Oh please,
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“and by the way, I don’t know WHAT God you are talking about as “MY” God, I am just telling you what I saw, and if you were a medic, and didn’t see that shit a LOT, you are either lying or were never in the theater of operations.”
The difference is that I don’t pretend that every atheist single reacts in that manner. Nor did I attach that to anything real beyond their own emotions and mental states.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“I understand what you mean and all Parker but to me, an atheists is an atheist and doesn’t have a religion much less any particular religions God they just happen to adopt because they are fighting a war in that country.”
Sorry, couldn’t quite parse that one out. (That, by the way, is why making some effort in forming grammatically correct sentences can be important.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“If that were the case, I am sure I would have heard them crying out to Allah! But they didn’t give a name of anything and I saw many atheists shit there pants and they began on spiritual path of their own without anyone telling them what to believe.”
Anecdotal evidence at best. I recently heard a story that was the reverse; The atheist kept his head, and as a result saving the lives of the theists (Christians as it happens) who were busy cowering and praying for God to get them out of it. The story came up due to certain parts of the media touting this “brave Christian soldier” before the truth came out. Due in large part for an extreme emphasis from certain quarters of he war in Iraq being something of a Holy war between Christians (American forces) and Muslims.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“EVERYONE was scared of that and anyone saying they weren’t is either nuts or a liar.”
Doesn’t change the validity of what you call the “crutch” charge.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“You don’t want to debate evolution and you don’t want to believe either. “
I don’t to believe FOR NO GOOD REASON. There is a difference. I am not one to choose what I want to believe and then try my best to do so. Confirmation Bias is irrational.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 11, 2010 at 10:29 pm
“And who are you to tell me what I believe?!
You are right though; I don’t believe your god exists”. – ADPARKER
Ahh there ya go, and that is what I was saying you were saying.
“But I don’t CLAIM it doesn’t exist,”
You do when you challenge the belief it does else you wouldn’t have the motive to invoke such a challenge as a claim of your own that God does not exist. The idea atheists don’t make claims god does not exist is the biggest crock I see. They are constantly interrupting chats coming in out of the blue trying to convert people to give up their belief and adopt their denialism
“as I see no need to do so. If you want me to believe it does, then the burden is on you to convince me.” – ADPARKER
Sorry, anyone saying “I dare you to convince me” has no intention of agreeing with the facts. The onus is on the one making the extraordinary claim. What makes you think we don;t see your intentional disbelief in what is blatantly obvious to us, as even more extraordinary and I might add contrived.
“claims that it is obvious, appeals to emotion ” – ADPARKER
I am not attempting to appeal to your emotions parker and I see no attempt to do so. Just because you get angry and refuse to see the obvious, isn’t my fault.
” or threats do not even begin to do the job, and nor should it.” – Parker
You see a threat in that statement you call the police Parker, else STFU. You accuse people of threatening your dumb ass so much it’s getting a little ridiculous.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Now I would ask, is there or is there not a God. Yes or No.”
“I don’t know.” – Adparker
Ok and I’ll leave it at that as you have convinced me it isn’t something you think is all that important to know either.
You know, I used to think if evolutionists weren’t so pre-occupied running from this question but exploring it and investigating it scientifically, we might have all been atheists by now.
I don’t think that is a bet they will ever be willing to take however.
ADParker said,
December 12, 2010 at 12:23 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“ “And who are you to tell me what I believe?!
You are right though; I don’t believe your god exists”. – ADPARKER
Ahh there ya go, and that is what I was saying you were saying.”
Then why did yo also say that I am saying that there “is no God”?! Because that is NOT what I am saying.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“ “But I don’t CLAIM it doesn’t exist,”
You do when you challenge the belief it does else you wouldn’t have the motive to invoke such a challenge as a claim of your own that God does not exist. “
No. You just don’t get it. I challenge the ARGUMENTS and CLAIMS that such an entity exists. Because I don’t find that they have been justified, the arguments don’t work, the evidence doesn’t manifest. So whether your god does (or any gods do) exist or not; the claim that it does (they do) has not been established as reliable.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“The idea atheists don’t make claims god does not exist is the biggest crock I see.”
Some do, some don’t. Because ALL atheists lack a belief in any gods, but only some of them claim that they don’t exist. And there are some that may be of the opinion that none of them are real, but do not claim to have any evidence for this beyond the fact that those making the positive claim (that God/Allah/Quetzalcoatl… does exist) have failed to make their case.
It is not as if (contrary to some such assertions) that one can just make up some fantastic story, and are justified in asserting that everyone should believe their until such time as it has been positively disproved.
Try to look at it this way:
Theist: (my) god exists.
Atheist: I don’t believe you, why should I?
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“They are constantly interrupting chats coming in out of the blue trying to convert people to give up their belief and adopt their denialism”
Never seen that before.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“Sorry, anyone saying “I dare you to convince me has no intention of agreeing with the facts. ” “
And who said any such thing?!
All I am saying is that I have no reason to believe you until you provide me some reason to do so. So if you want me to believe as you do, then of course you have to convince me (and I only respond to reason, not appeals to emotion and “it’s just obvious”…) If you don’t, then that’s a shame; I really would like to know if it is in fact true, but of you can’t be bothered to argue for it then you should expect people to remain atheistic, as you didn’t give us any reason to be otherwise.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“The onus is on the one making the extraordinary claim. What makes you think we don;t see your intentional disbelief in what is blatantly obvious to us, as even more extraordinary and I might add contrived.”
Another appeal to the empty assertion that it’s just obvious? Really?! Thank you for once again blaming me for not just accepting your vapid assertions.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“I am not attempting to appeal to your emotions parker and I see no attempt to do so. Just because you get angry and refuse to see the obvious, isn’t my fault.”
Whose angry Kent? Am I sensing projection perhaps?
And what you have done is appeal to emotion in the sense that one should believe based on emotion, a most unreliable means of obtaining knowledge.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Now I would ask, is there or is there not a God. Yes or No.”
“I don’t know.” – Adparker
Ok and I’ll leave it at that as you have convinced me it isn’t something you think is all that important to know either.”
If one like the one you appear to believe in, then it is most important. But besides repeated claims that it is obvious you provided no arguments for the truth of that belief.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“You know, I used to think if evolutionists weren’t so pre-occupied running from this question but exploring it and investigating it scientifically, we might have all been atheists by now.
I don’t think that is a bet they will ever be willing to take however.”
What bet? That doesn’t even make any sense.
Charlie said,
December 14, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Thank you for responding to this one, Kent.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,:
“The onus is on the one making the extraordinary claim. What makes you think we don;t see your intentional disbelief in what is blatantly obvious to us, as even more extraordinary and I might add contrived.”
I would add that ADParker’s response could almost certainly mine… in response to the evolutionist’s defense of the ToE:
“Another appeal to the empty assertion that it’s just obvious? Really?! Thank you for once again blaming me for not just accepting your vapid assertions.”
Awesome stuff.
I have to get away from this blog. (I’ll try at least.)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all!
John Matrix said,
December 12, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I’m very keen on seeing through the BS and agenda’s behind a lot of teachings. I didn’t view only the one series on Rodin’s votex based math. I looked into it much deeper. There are websites that give you the mathematical system without the slow classroom interruptions. I haven’t read any peer reviews that debunk him…not ONE.
His purpose, as he states himself on video, is to show everyone that their is a creator behind creation. He did not sell his mathematics to private developers of technology. He gave it freely to the public domain so anyone can develope it. The Rodin coil is only the foundation to build other technologies on. FOr example, feed two wires from your stereo speaker outputs to the coil and place an object in the center of the coil and it becomes a speaker. Developers expect to make a speaker system that will make your present 3D system sound like a transistor radio in comparison. The coil makes objects levitate, even after the power to the coil is shut off.
The point is this: The mathematics…(all mathematics) is God’s signature on and in His creation….and that even includes you ADParker….whether you acknowedge that reality of it or not.
ADParker said,
December 14, 2010 at 2:07 am
Charlie said:
“In summary, ADParker, you’ve obviously left me and Kent both confused. In the first case, you answer quite simply, “No”. Which I took to mean you clearly had no idea which way to turn anymore, and so I just decided to ignore you.”
Why on earth would you have thought that?
You asked if something was the case, I answered “No.” Can’t get much clearer than that.
Charlie said:
“ADParker’s summarized answer to Charlie’s question:
Though the creationist *errantly* asserts that an Intelligent Designer exists
The evolutionist *validly* asserts that an Intelligent Designer does *not* exist.”
That is your summary?! Fascinating. As that is basically what you asked, and I said was incorrect.
“Evolutionists” (or whatever ridiculous label you want to slap on the scientifically literate) make no assertions on the existence of this mysterious Intelligent Designer. Evolutionary theory simply has no need for such a hypothesis.
Charlie said:
“But I really don’t understand how you defend this response.”
Probably because it is NOT my response, but you dogmatic fixation that it must be.
Charlie said:
“The original pair are statements of equivalent logic value. How is it that you are able to take both statements and reduce their equivalence in order to call one errant and the other valid?”
I have no idea; you made them up, you tell me. And I don’t think you have a clue about logic either.
Charlie said:
“How do these two assertions differ in logic value?
1. The creationist asserts that an ID exists.
2. The evolutionist asserts that an ID does *not* exist.”
Neither has ANY logic value, they are just base statements, either true or false.
The first happens to be true, the second false (if by it you mean all ‘evolutionists’)
Charlie said:
“They both seem pretty empty to me without further evidence.”
Exactly.
“I don’t accept your claim/assertion of the existence of an Intelligent Designer.” is less so, as it is not making a claim at all, but simply holding off accepting a given claim, until sufficient reason to do so is presented. We are still waiting. And after so much discussion are even justified in thinking that ‘your’ claim is false, not dogmatically, but provisionally. As we do for assertions of other unfounded things, like fairies, unicorns, magic and so forth.
Charlie said:
“In fact, all evidence that I have seen to support 2 has been weak in my opinion.”
Can’t really say that I care about you interpretation of the strength of the arguments/evidence of your chosen Straw man assertion.
Charlie said:
“ And more importantly, seems to be dependent upon the original assertion- that an ID does not exist. That would be begging the question, wouldn’t it?”
More of a tautology actually. But it’s your little fantasy story, so why should I care?
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 14, 2010 at 4:16 am
adparker said “But it’s your little fantasy story, so why should I care?”
As evolution is yours. That’s why we don’t pay much respect to other unfounded things, like fairies, unicorns, or believing a frog turned into a handsome prince.
Not by being kissed by a beautiful princess, but by small gradual changes over time but basically, yeah it’s like believing in fairy tales and magic your evolution.
Parker if you don’t like people calling you an “evolutionist”, should we be upset being called a creationist? . Your religion sure has its double standards for believing in magic why you use that in comparisons to mock religion when you believe the same absurd ideas having nothing but just so story to fill in the gaps and a veritable cornucopia of stuff they just make up and for someone who claims he doesn’t care, that doesn’t stop you from caring enough to keep comin back for more. What are you trying to prove?
F.Whitman said,
December 15, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I’m now fully convinced. Stevebee is suffering from early onset Alzheimers.
I’m also convinced that Steve has copied much of what he says from creationist websites and whilst educated, doesn’t fully understand the issues and the underlying theory of that which he criticizes. It’s almost as if he’s taken the creationist torch and then gone off on another tangent. Creationists agree with him and strangely many of them don’t have a problem with his views (despite hating gays) because I suppose they don’t attack creationism per se. INteresting to see how the creationists just tore into ADParker here who maintained composure throughout whilst the Christians were boiling and very close to declaring some kind of holy war on atheism. Please, let’s not go back to all that again, it’s embarrassing, childish, bigoted and frankly unproductive. Kent, when did you choose to be straight, since it appears that you believe that people choose to be gay, it appears it’s not an innate human trait but a choice now. Nice, the Christian-bigot-censor combo.
Charlie said,
December 15, 2010 at 4:50 pm
And that would be about on par with the rest of the valuable arguments put forth by the evolutionaught on this site toward Steve’s questions regarding evolution. Thank you so much, Ms. Whitman, for the the inciteful reply.
Did you actually attempt to bring forth any sort of valuable information at all?
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 15, 2010 at 7:46 pm
F.Whitman said “Kent, when did you choose to be straight, since it appears that you believe that people choose to be gay, it appears it’s not an innate human trait but a choice now. Nice, the Christian-bigot-censor combo.”
I chose it when I saw my parents sexual dynamic as a child. Homosexuality is an acquired taste and if you want to argue it is genetic, then I will offer the same for my bigotry saying, I can’t help it I hate faggots you see,,,
I was born that way too, so it isn’t my fault.
When did you chose to be
such fucking idiot
ADParker said,
December 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm
“I can’t help it I hate faggots you see,,,”
And what exactly do you have against bundles of sticks?
Only kidding, you bigoted asshat.
And yes; you CAN help holding any such prejudices, you just don’t want to.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 15, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Hey whitman, you want to see how atheists “tear into” someone? What you saw here pales in comparison to how your Godless bunch of morons tear into stevebee at parkers dark alley forum of atheist ambushing creationists website.
Hell, if we do it, it is only because we learned it from them. Some of us, like me, like giving back what atheists are know for dishing out having nothing to do with reason and logic but merely because they got it comming to them so shut your fuckin pie hole shit head.
The moment ADPARKER called us “Creatards” was the moment his right to complain about ad-hominem was relinquished and our obligation to turning the other cheek like some revolving door, ended.
If you don’t like what ya read here, don’t be a hypocrite complaining about it,
just leave.
ADParker said,
December 15, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“What you saw here pales in comparison to how your Godless bunch of morons tear into stevebee at parkers dark alley forum of atheist ambushing creationists website.”
It wouldn’t be such a “dark alley forum of atheist ambushing” if enough theists had enough balls to continue posting, and actually engaging in rational argumentation, on that forum. It is sadly lacking in theists, because theists rarely stick around long enough to make an impact. (Had one just yesterday who basically admitted -through insults of course – that he couldn’t hack it after just one day.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“so shut your fuckin pie hole shit head.”
And this is about the hight of Kent’s rational arguing ability apparently.
dark alley forum of atheist ambushingThe moment ADPARKER called us “Creatards” was the moment his right to complain about ad-hominem was relinquished and our obligation to turning the other cheek like some revolving door, ended. ”
I don’t recall ever calling you a Creotard Kent. I have referred once or twice to them however, and explained that I use the term for a certain specific limited group of creationists. But I guess you just can’t help taking everything personally., your religion being so largely based on emotion as opposed to reason.
ADParker said,
December 15, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Charlie said:
“I, personally, have no qualms being a biblical creationist. But I am there on faith and reason.”
‘Reason’ AND ‘belief through the abandonment of reason’; interesting contradiction there. But not uncommon unfortunately.
Charlie said:
“I am an ID proponent on reason alone. I would venture also to say that you (and I) are believers in micro-evolution on reason. But we differ in that you are a believer of macro-evolution on faith.”
Oh brother not the old micro-macro rot. There is a reason why real scientists dropped the distinction decades ago.
Charlie said:
“I say you can have your faith if you like. But don’t call it science, because it is nothing of the sort.”
And you are of course free to holding onto that delusion.
Charlie said:
“I think that it has been established- at least to reasonable people- that the facts are conflated to imply macro-evolution is proven by evidences of micro-evolution.”
Actually I was speaking of evolution, not this micro-macro evolution crap. The theory of evolution is an explanation (and extrapolation) of the facts of evolution. Those facts include, what one who actually understands the terms would say fits within both micro and macro evolution.
Charlie said:
“I have yet to see anyone effectively address the logical and rational questions that Steve and many others have pointed in the ToE. (You make the most valiant effort- but it does fall short.) “
And I have yet to see a “ logical and rational” question from Steve. And now that he seems to have resorted to just taking the piss, I no longer see any point in addressing anything he has to say.
Charlie said:
“I choose to not believe in your fairies and unicorns named Time and Chance.”
Wow! You don’t believe in time or chance? How on Earth do you make it to work on time?
This is just yet another inane creationist straw man canard, which displays a severe lack of understanding of that which you attack.
Charlie said:
“I do *not* believe that ToE has been established scientifically. I do believe that ToE has *not* been established scientifically. (ToE referring here to that which includes undirected micro and macro evolution)”
Then your beliefs are not based on any understanding of science, so why should anyone take your beliefs seriously?
Charlie said:
“Why does that sound insane? Fairies and God are two entirely different ontological entities.”
Irrelevant. Why do so many creationists get there knickers in a twist when people replace “God” with something else to make an analogy to better highlight the flaw in the structure of the claim/argument?
Charlie said:
“One has the definition of being completely outside of, transcendent, and in control of nature- and cannot be affirmed nor denied by science.”
By design. God has been shuffled into this deliberately unfalsifiable position. Making the entire thing rationally worthless.
Charlie said:
“The other is a creation itself and has no such grand-scale powers or existence.”
What? So you assert that the universe WAS created, and created by your chosen mystical entity. And you think that counts for anything?
Charlie said:
“Evolutionists like to equivocate these two in order to create a strawman out of God.”
Demonstrating your complete failure to grasp the basic nature of analogy, at least when it in any way involves your most cherished beliefs.
It’s rather like this:
Theist makes a claim about their god.
Atheist suggests “Let’s see how your argument works, by substituting your god with something we both think is ridiculous, and see how and if the structure works.”
Theist takes an emotional gut reaction response by getting upset that the atheist is equating their god with this deliberately ridiculous thing. Which is NOT the point at all.
It is like you are instinctively avoiding even having your cherished beliefs challenged or tested at all.
Charlie said:
“But it is entirely inappropriate. This is not an emotional response. It is just matter of fact.”
It is an emotional response as a matter of fact, whether you recognise it or not. You just try to rationalise it is all.
Charlie said:
“I think that you are more intelligent than that. I can hardly imagine that you can dismiss the definition of God as being on the same level as the definitions of fairies and unicorns.”
Only you have made that silly connection. I could have used ‘the celestial teapot’ for instance, which was deliberately coined to be of a most ordinary nature (A common teapot floating in space.)
Charlie said:
“If God exists, then He is the necessary cause of our existence.”
Only if you define “God” as being the “necessary cause of our existence”, making this assertion an empty tautology, adding nothing. I’m going to make another apology, and don’t care I you confuse it with me equating it with your god:
If the purple universe creating hippopotamus called Gus exists, then Gus is the necessary cause of our existence.
Iff you can see the fatal flaw in that assertion, then think on why you can’t see it in your own version.
Charlie said:
“Whether or not fairies or unicorns exist, they are NOT a necessary cause of our existence.”
Entirely irrelevant to the point of such analogies. The only equating point EVER used in such analogies is that both are both extraordinary things that can be claimed to exist, whose existence is in doubt.
Charlie said:
“Two totally different types of ontological entities. You know that, though, I am quite sure. You sound intelligent enough to grasp at least that”
Of course I do. And I am even capable of realising how irrelevant that is to the point of those analogies. This IS NOT however a matter of differing levels of intelligence (as you seem so eager to imply), but mental filters and the like.
Charlie said:
“Yes, ADParker, I personally am a YEC Christian.”
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Sorry, I have come to the point of just finding whole Young Earth Creationism thing worthy of nothing more that laughter. Young earth because of some interpretation of some lineages in a book, ignore all the evidence of the REAL WORLD – laughably ridiculous! Ha ha ha!
Charlie said:
“As far as I can tell, the ID proponent does not spend any time making any such claims or inquisition toward identification.”
No, they (at least when they really try, they do often slip) positively AVOID addressing that significant point. Going so far as claiming that they have no interest in the identity of this Intelligent Designer – astounding if true! Not that I believe it for a second.
Charlie said:
“ He simply asserts that it *just might* be a possibility- a plausible theory.”
“Just might” is not even close to a theory, not in scientific terminology, which they are pretending to employ.
Charlie said:
“I don’t believe in an Oort Cloud. Does that stop you from posing it as a plausible theory for the youth of comets? I know that you don’t claim that it is true- but that it *just might* be a possibility. You seem to apply your reason in a very biased manner.”
False analogy. The Oort cloud is a hypothesis, and they DO make some effort to finding this cloud. Do not claim that it must exist until they do so. They don’t insist that The Oort cloud hypothesis be taught in schools etc. The problem is that ID goes way to far.
Charlie said:
“Your plainly asserting that in the ID proponent’s case, *just might* is not something worth pursuing. But that in the evolutionist’s case, *just might* is indeed something worth pursuing. It is plainly a bias toward those theories which are of materialistic causes exclusively preferred over those which are not materialistic causes.”
And who asserts that ID includes a “not materialistic cause” Charlie?
The problem is that ID has never brought up anything that is best explained by their pet hypothesis. And due to the finite resources to the sciences, this makes it not a project/hypothesis really worth pursuing in any large way. The ID movement people are free to continue in their efforts to find such evidence of course. There have been many such weak hypotheses engaged in by lone (or small groups of) proponents, some of which have even ended up with enough to break into mainstream science. ID is not there yet, who knows if it ever will be. But until that time, one would be remiss to claim as status for it that it just does not warrant.
Charlie said:
“>> Same garbage- ToE as it currently exists in textbooks suffers the same >> problem. Not science at all. And very religious to boot. All hail the Great
>> Time. All hail the Great Randomness. All hail the Great DNA.”
{Sigh} All hail the Great Time. All hail the Great Randomness. All hail the Great DNA.. All hail the great God/Intelligent Designer.
Except only the first three of those are known to exist. OF course, as is usual you missed out the one that is actually evolution.
Time exists (in a sense), Randomness seems to exist, DNA (and RNA and proteins) exists, as does the observed process labelled as Natural selection. Thus we have a broad explanation of the diversity of all life that DOES NOT require the postulation of any EXTRA entities, let alone extraordinarily complex entities! As a result your pet hypothesis actually demands more supporting evidence that the ToE does! Evidence of the existence of this claimed entity. Of intelligence being able to somehow exist prior to that of all life.
Charlie said:
“Your position has been vague and vacuous this whole time, ADParker. Just like the ToE. Of course it hasn’t moved a whit. (And I’ll admit, maybe I can’t hit for shyte- but I am getting some practice here.)
I fear your aim is getting worse, not better.
ADParker said,
December 16, 2010 at 1:01 am
Charlie said:
“Nice try. Way to over-complicate something in order to simplify it. This seems to be key to your strategy.”
I am always trying to simplify it. I do hate this blog format of conversation though, so I am not surprised that it is not really coming across. But as you are unwilling to discuss this on the Ratskep forum (and in so doing somewhat address the imbalance we both see there regarding theists/atheist numbers) I guess it can’t be helped.
Charlie said:
“>“I do not believe your claim that there is a man in a red hat standing behind >that wall”
>“I believe there is not a man standing in a red hat standing behind that wall.”
Your example was not even a good one. Here- try this set without the added obfuscating person that ‘claims’ anything:
I do not believe that there is a man in a red hat standing behind that wall
I do believe that there is no man in a red hat standing behind that wall”
Same thing, I don’t see the problem. But if that makes it easier for you, then fine.
Charlie said:
“Basically, your pattern of attack here seems very simple, and I am astounded that you would try to use it on me, since I thought we had gotten past such trivialities: a) ridicule your opponent’s education;”
{Sigh} I ‘ridiculed’ education – I see it as a very real and serious problem, possibly world wide, certainly in our two countries – not your own level of education. Get over yourself, always taking everything so personally. The distinction is trivial, and should be easy to spot, but for almost everyone this is not the case, not without being taught to recognise it in higher education classes, when it SHOULD be taught at the earliest levels of education.
I took a paper called “Critical Thinking” as a ‘100 level’ (first year) university paper. And immediately realised that this is something that should be taught (and has not been in my experience) from the very earliest stages of formal education – Five years olds (but that would be six year olds in your country, am I right? First year of school) should be introduced to this stuff. And then throughout their entire educational experience.
*Ha! I just happen to be listening to an old podcast while writing this, and on it someone is arguing that exact same point! From an American position.
Charlie said:
“ADParker:
>Such a shame. This inability to distinguish “I don’t believe your story” with “I >believe your story is false.”
Another great example of your obfuscation.”
Obfuscation?! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Sorry, couldn’t resist using that film quote. As misapplied as it was in that film.)
Charlie said:
“Let’s try to clear it up (without the magically appearing ‘claimant’ and separately, implication of sub-truth- ‘story’.)
I do not believe the premise is true
I do believe the premise is not true
The difference is very thin. And does require someone to be trying to slip out of a hole in the wall.”
The difference IS ‘thin’ but significant. One is not accepting a given claim (implying one is more open to being convinced), the other is making a (counter) truth clam of it’s own.
Charlie said:
“(It did take me a moment to figure out where the key ingredient was… the mysteriously appearing ‘claimant’. Nice- I’ll watch for it again later.)”
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is most likely why it ‘took you a moment’ to find it.
Okay that is not entirely true anymore, it took me a moment to find it as well, you are tilting at winmills, the “claimant” part is an irrelevance. Skipping it even implies that someone, somewhere is making such a claim, it just doesn’t spell it out, anyway.
Charlie said:
“Oooh… shiny… pretty… you so smart! LOL! Especially the critical thinking part.”
Cheap sarcasm noted.
Well I did ace that particular paper after all – cheap shot returned.
Charlie said:
“Given a choice, ADParker has stated that he prefers A over B:
A) ADParker does not believe God exists.
B) ADParker does believe no God exists.”
It is not a matter of simple preference, but otherwise yes.
Charlie said:
“These statements are so subtly different. But this is where you hide.”
{Sigh} Sometimes there is a great deal of significance within such subtleties.
And I am not hiding. I ‘could’ say that I believe no gods exist (including the poorly defined one you believe in/claim exists of course.) As at times I do believe that (I have said this before.) And explain that the reason for my disbelief is the lack of supporting evidence and reasoning in support of such an extraordinary claim. Ever so slightly bolstered by the often simply horrendously bad attempts to defend that claim – although this is circumstantial evidence at best, simply displaying how those (or all those I have come across at least) making the claim, do so on poor foundations indeed.
But would that in any way convince anyone, or even count as an good argument for the non-existence of gods? No, not really. An argument against holding such a belief perhaps, but not against the reality itself.
In other words my position is more non-belief than active disbelief because you have not met your burden of proof, not because those with the contrary claim have met there’s.
Charlie said:
“In both scenarios, you either accept and welcome the certain consequences that WILL transpire if you are wrong, or you DO believe He does NOT exist. That is plain and simple.
NOTE: this is not an emotional plea. It is a logical evaluation of the outcomes. Do you accept and welcome the consequences? Or do you believe He does NOT exist? (If there is another choice, please explain how it logically applies.)”
That makes no sense. What do you mean “accept and welcome the consequences”?! Your two offered choices are all confused and messed up.
If there is a claim then one either believes it to be true or does not. AND one either believes it to be false or does not.
A rational person, of course, accepts the consequences of her current position. I am more than willing to be proven wrong, and even to hold a position based on the best reasoning I can muster, even if that position happens to be incorrect – so I will not play the inane game found in Pascal’s Wager (which your argument came dangerously close to making) which IS an ’emotional plea’, or more aptly an Appeal to Consequences; a logical fallacy that does ultimately rest on emotion – on choosing a position based on what one WANTS to be true, on what one finds PREFERABLE, and picking the option that offers the greatest promise of reward/pleasure (and least for punishment/distress.)
But of course I wish to believe as many true things, and as few false this as possible.
Fine; might as well address your little syllogism-type-things as well:
Charlie said:
“1st set (unnamed Creator/Designer)
Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, his nature and his judgment is unknown.”
“Premise 1” not “Fact” This is an empty tautological assertion, only made by defining this creator in that manner. You can not define something into existence.
If “ his nature and his judgment is unknown” what use is the hypothesis? What, if anything, can be gained from such a postulation. It is, to quote a phrase I once heard; Replacing/answering a mystery with a mystery.
Charlie said:
“Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, consequences may apply regardless of whether or NOT you believe this C/D exists.
Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, consequences may apply regardless of whether or NOT you believe this C/D does NOT exist.
Fact: If a Creator/Designer does exist, whatever the consequences are, they will apply regardless of your belief.”
Premise 2,3 and 4.
Of course, personal belief does not dictate reality.
Charlie said:
“1st Conclusion: Because IF this Designer DOES exist, there are no discernible consequences (unless you appropriately anticipate that your journey toward Truth should continue), you either accept and welcome whatever the consequences may be, or you DO believe He does NOT exist.”
What a confused non sequitur of a conclusion. All that can really be concluded from you syllogism is that if this entity exists, then the consequences of that fact will follow regardless of what your personal beliefs happen to be.
By way of simple analogy:
If as speeding car is going to run you over, then the consequences of that event will happen whether you happen to believe they will or not.
This adds nothing to the claim that this entity exists or not.
Nor does it add anything to the question on whether one shouldld believe it (as true of false) or not.
In fact it adds nothing more than saying that reality is not based on what you believe.
Charlie said:
“2nd set (the Triune Christian God)
Fact: If my God does exist, He holds your eternal life in the balance.”
As above “Premise 1” is an empty assertion. That itself requires it’s own argument/evidence before it can be rationally accepted as true enough to be accepted as a premise.
Charlie said:
“Fact: If my God does exist, you will be judged regardless of whether or NOT you believe He exists.
Fact: If my God does exist, you will be judged regardless of whether or NOT you believe He does NOT exist.
Fact: If my God does exist, you WILL have eternal Hell to pay if you don’t accept Him with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength.”
Again mostly same as above. But a fair amount of threats and promises, carrots and sticks thrown in for good measure (although it seems you have chosen to focus exclusively on the threat/stick approach here. – go on why not also promise me candy and empty promises of eternal bliss if I do choose to believe your fairy tale for no good reason but personal greed as well – you know appeal to BOTH my base fears and desires, in order to try to skirt around my reason? No of course it won’t work; I am not an idiot who allows my emotions to overrun my reason, but while you are on this track, what the Hel eh?)
This IS an emotion driven appeal to consequences: A claim that, without any supporting evidence or reasoning, that if you only believe then you will get a reward, if not you will be severely punished FOREVER (for a necessarily finite crime, which is just immoral.)
No better than “Do this thing for me and I wail give you a cookie, don’t do it and I will give you a severe thrashing!!” Which involves absolutely nothing on the truth/falsehood or morality/immorality of the thing being demanded. It is just plain insulting, to be perfectly honest.
Thanks for trying to insult my intelligence with that age-old drivel.
Charlie said:
“2nd Conclusion: Because IF he DOES exist, these are direct consequences, you either accept and welcome those consequences or you DO believe He does NOT exist.”
I am sorry Charlie. But is that conclusion even supposed to make any sense?
Again the conclusion is only; IF the first premise is true then whatever consequences that follow from that premise WILL follow from that premise. Well Duh! And ones beliefs won’t change that. And a second “well Duh!”
The question remains: Are those first premises true? Is there any reason to think that they are? And without that, any argument that follows from those premises are rationally without any value whatsoever.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 2:44 pm
ADParker, you completely avoided the answer to that question.
ADParker:
>All that can really be concluded from you syllogism is that if this entity exists, then >the consequences of that fact will follow regardless of what your personal beliefs >happen to be.
>By way of simple analogy:
>If as speeding car is going to run you over, then the consequences of that event will >happen whether you happen to believe they will or not.
>
>This adds nothing to the claim that this entity exists or not.
I was absolutely not looking to prove that ‘this entity’ exists or not. So you are absolutely correct here- it does not add anything to the ‘claim’ that I did not make.
You have dismissed the first premise of each of the scenarios blindly, and decided that nothing else was worth really thinking about. But the fact remains that IF a Creator/Designer exists, then he exists. And IF the Christian God exists, then he exists. Is that difficult for you to get your mind around? If it is Truth, then it is Truth. It is only tautology if I am trying to use that 1st premise to prove something that is outside of the initial subset of IFs. And I am not. My entire scenario remains within the IF GOD EXISTS clause.
So… I’ll repeat (and I’ll re-specify for you- this is NOT an attempt to PROVE God exists, and therefore is NOT an emotional plea):
1st Conclusion: Because IF this Designer DOES exist, there are no discernible consequences (unless you appropriately anticipate that your journey toward Truth should continue), you either accept and welcome whatever the consequences may be, or you DO believe He does NOT exist.
2nd Conclusion: Because IF he DOES exist, these are certain and direct consequences, you either accept and welcome those consequences or you DO believe He does NOT exist.
Do you accept and welcome the consequences? Or do you believe that a Creator/Designer does NOT exist?
Do you accept and welcome the consequences? Or do you believe that the Christan God does NOT exist?
You have tiptoed and avoided this question long enough.
ADParker said,
December 16, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Charlie said:
“ADParker, you completely avoided the answer to that question.”
Bollocks.
Charlie said:
“I was absolutely not looking to prove that ‘this entity’ exists or not. So you are absolutely correct here- it does not add anything to the ‘claim’ that I did not make.”
I know. I was simply assessing the syllogisms. That is went no way to establishing the truth of the first premises being but one such assessment.
Charlie said:
“You have dismissed the first premise of each of the scenarios blindly, and decided that nothing else was worth really thinking about.”
No, I pointed out that the first premises were not established as true, and therefore could not rationally be accepted as true premises, certainly not by all.
Charlie said:
“ But the fact remains that IF a Creator/Designer exists, then he exists. And IF the Christian God exists, then he exists.”
Yes, it is known as a tautology.
IF a square circle exists, then it exists, as well.
And IF a creator/designer doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist…
Charlie said:
“Is that difficult for you to get your mind around?”
Not even a little bit. If something exists, it exists – well duh.
Charlie said:
“If it is Truth, then it is Truth. It is only tautology if I am trying to use that 1st premise to prove something that is outside of the initial subset of IFs. And I am not. My entire scenario remains within the IF GOD EXISTS clause.”
What are you on about, a tautology is simply where the conclusion is included in the premises, it adds nothing. As is the case with “ If it is Truth, then it is Truth.” It’s a non argument.
Charlie said:
“1st Conclusion: Because IF this Designer DOES exist, there are no discernible consequences (unless you appropriately anticipate that your journey toward Truth should continue), you either accept and welcome whatever the consequences may be, or you DO believe He does NOT exist.”
Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
Charlie said:
“2nd Conclusion: Because IF he DOES exist, these are certain and direct consequences, you either accept and welcome those consequences or you DO believe He does NOT exist.”
Charlie said:
“Do you accept and welcome the consequences? Or do you believe that a Creator/Designer does NOT exist?”
Your question is inane. OF COURSE I accept the consequences of whatever I happen to believe. Including the consequence of being correct or incorrect.
Charlie said:
“Do you accept and welcome the consequences? Or do you believe that the Christian God does NOT exist?”
Which Christian God? There are over 30,000 denominations of that religion, and it has been reasonably implied that there are (in the minds of believers) probably as many different versions of this god as there are believers.
To answer your question, On the former: accepting the consequences, I accept whatever consequences may follow from whatever may be the truth and reality. I, of course, see no reason to believe your initial premises to be true of course, and thus have no reason to expect your claimed consequences. But if true, then the consequences are what they are, and by beliefs have nothing to do with it. And as you surely know; basing ones beliefs on possible consequences is simply illogical.
On the later, I believe that most versions of “ the Christian God” do not exist, Other versions either are far to vague to even take seriously or assess the truth-value thereof, or are such that this “God” appears to nonsensical to even have any understanding of what it’s proponents are talking about.
Charlie said:
“You have tiptoed and avoided this question long enough.”
I am sorry that I haven’t given you the answers you want, but tough, I am not you, and thus do not think in the distorted ways you clearly do, at least when it comes to your cherished religious beliefs.
Charlie said,
December 17, 2010 at 2:09 am
ADParker:
>To answer your question, On the former: accepting the consequences, I accept >whatever consequences may follow from whatever may be the truth and reality. >I, of course, see no reason to believe your initial premises to be true of course, >and thus have no reason to expect your claimed consequences. But if true, >then the consequences are what they are, and by beliefs have nothing to do >with it. And as you surely know; basing ones beliefs on possible >consequences is simply illogical.
Excellent answer, ADParker. It seems to be an honest one, though it does still squirm a bit. “[ADParker] accept[s] whatever consequences may follow from whatever may be the truth and reality”
As for “basing ones beliefs on possible consequences is simply illogical”… Really? Okay. I find no trouble basing my belief that I should not speed on the freeway on the possible consequence that I may get a traffic ticket or get into an accident. Such beliefs do not fall into what you describe at all- I’m quite sure.
ADParker:
>On the later, I believe that most versions of “ the Christian God” do not exist, >Other versions either are far to vague to even take seriously or assess the >truth-value thereof, or are such that this “God” appears to nonsensical to even >have any understanding of what it’s proponents are talking about.
I recognize that there is confusion. I do think there is much less confusion than you believe, but no matter. In any case, I will assume that you do believe that my God does not exist.
No matter really. I was just wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of what it is you do believe. You do not believe a Creator/Designer exists. You do believe the Christian God does not exist. (Of course- with plenty of nuanced qualifications.)
From what I can tell, you do not believe one to exist because you have not been presented with enough evidence. It seems ludicrous to me that our Design is not self-evident, but hey, if you say it is not self-evident to you, then it must not be self-evident. No one can convince a man that he is awake if he is adamantly convinced that he is dreaming. (Yes, you can argue the same about me.)
It certainly isn’t self-evident to me that all of those evidences for micro-evolution extend to provide support for macro-evolution. So, if you are being honest, then somehow I must seem as blind to you as you seem to me. Very strange indeed.
What exactly *would* it take for you to concede that perhaps the ToE is flawed in its assertion that we owe our existence solely to materialistic causes? What sort of evidentiary or logical flaw would you need to see in the ToE in order to concede that the whole thing is unraveling? Obviously, if such a flaw in the ToE were to be discovered, would you simply look to another materialistic cause? What exactly would it take for you to consider that perhaps there is a non-materialistic cause?
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:03 am
Your opinion of him as a person is none of our business parker, please either address the objections, statements or answer questions asked. No one is interested in what you think of your interlocutors personally and it appears you are just using ridicule to dodge questions.
If all this sounds so old hat to you, I can assure you, your tactics for ridicule are an even bigger waste of time and perhaps this debate taxes your sensitivities but your rudeness and exaggerated opinion of yourself is even more hard to put up with.
This is why the debate goes on because it gets no where. You are believing in a philosophical ideology that trips over the same logical fallacy of assuming the consequent every time.
It is no more a science than astrology unless of course, you think acting all stuck up and being a prick is going to impress anyone.
It doesn’t.
As for queers, she asked, and I’m just tired of listening to the whining bitches complain riding on the coat tails of the civil rights movement when they don’t qualify for same.
It’s about not having it in our faces. Yeah I don’t tolerate faggots walking in a fuckin parade lookin like some quasi candidate for some protracted health cure and a cast member of the rocky horror picture show miming sexual acts calling it pride.
If THAT is what they are proud of,, FUCK THEM and if you don’t like it TOO FUCKIN BAD! Maybe you should learn tolerance because ALL WE HAVE EVER DONE REGARDING QUEERS
IS TOLERATE THEM AND WE ARE GETTING SICK OF IT.
It ain’t like you are any alternative you CHRISTA-PHOBIC LITTLE PUNK. You prove to be nothing but the great aggregation of the many brainwashed bitches whose affection for fags explains your devotion to evolution so don’t spin it as if you know a damn thing. You still haven’t refuted ANY of the objections stevebee has for your silly religion, NOT ONE. All you do is bitch about this canard that old rot, this tired rant blah blah blah. FUCK OFF shit head if this is nothing more than an indulgence for your arrogant self aggrandizing ass. The public has a legitimate reason to find gays disgusting and repugnant actually a long list of them. It isn’t bigotry when what they do puts lives at risk young boys at risk and our taxes have to pay for their depravity and debased sexual behavior.
One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.
* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting.
* Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior”.
* Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American
Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years.
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population.
* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus.
* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.
* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities”.
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals”.
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals.
* Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person”. For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us.
* Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.
* Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.
* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism.
* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.
* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.
* The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.
* Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.
* 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things.
* 50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals)
Homosexuals Prey on Children:
* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex.
* There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.
* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor.
* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age.
* Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality”.
* Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature.
Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.)
You want more go to the CDC website and the cia factbook. I have seen their one way tolerance and gave up supporting them, now all I do is give as many facts about their repugnant filthy lifestyle choice as much bad press the moment someone like whitmnan gives me the reputation to live up to. Faggots have justified my disdain of them, and their sexual bent
got it bitch.
ADParker said,
December 16, 2010 at 9:00 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Your opinion of him as a person is none of our business parker,”
Uh, I think my opinion IS my business Kent.
What the Hel post are you referring to anyway Kent?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“please either address the objections, statements or answer questions asked. No one is interested in what you think of your interlocutors personally and it appears you are just using ridicule to dodge questions.”
Oh fuck off Kent. You are the worst of that here, and you bloody well know it.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“If all this sounds so old hat to you, I can assure you, your tactics for ridicule are an even bigger waste of time and perhaps this debate taxes your sensitivities but your rudeness and exaggerated opinion of yourself is even more hard to put up with.”
My rudeness?! Oh that’s rich. coming from you.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It is no more a science than astrology unless of course, you think acting all stuck up and being a prick is going to impress anyone. “
Ha ha ha ha. Michael Behe would disagree. He openly admitted under oath that evolutionary biology IS science, but that Intelligent design could inly be said to be so if “science” was redefined in such a way that ID and astrology could also be included under that new revised definition.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It’s about not having it in our faces. Yeah I don’t tolerate faggots walking in a fuckin parade lookin like some quasi candidate for some protracted health cure and a cast member of the rocky horror picture show miming sexual acts calling it pride.”
Then you are a closed minded bigot. Fine, just so long as you don’t insist on removing their rights to do so.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“If THAT is what they are proud of,, FUCK THEM and if you don’t like it TOO FUCKIN BAD! Maybe you should learn tolerance because ALL WE HAVE EVER DONE REGARDING QUEERS
IS TOLERATE THEM AND WE ARE GETTING SICK OF IT.’
You are sick of tolerating the differences of others? Oh boo hoo.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It ain’t like you are any alternative you CHRISTA-PHOBIC LITTLE PUNK.”
How is one expected to parse that odd little sentence? And “Christa-phobic”? Huh? I think you are probably wrong to believe what you do, but I can tolerate you just fine. Up to the point where you try to undermine the rights etc. of others.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The public has a legitimate reason to find gays disgusting and repugnant actually a long list of them. It isn’t bigotry when what they do puts lives at risk young boys at risk and our taxes have to pay for their depravity and debased sexual behavior.”
WTF?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.”
‘One study’ Any reason why you are keeping the name of that study secret Kent? Don’t want us to see the flaws and gross errors in data collection therein perhaps?
But you have no idea do you Kent? Because you just copied this from one of the apologetics online, yet again, without doing any research into the validity or quality of it’s assertions, didn’t you? (Yes I checked.)
And what is the correlating statistic with heterosexuals? Without that your precious stat is useless.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.”
One study? the same study or a second one we cant assess for its quality? Once again you can’t answer because you unquestionably copied this from a site that made this assertion and offered nothing more. And you just lapped it up.
It is easy to do statistical studies you see; and incredibly easy to do it wrong. There is a saying in statistics “You can prove anything with Statistics” – it is a warning, not a boast.
Sounds most implausible to me. But so what? It is invariably only religious folk who have such hang-ups about sexuality.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting.”
Many heterosexual ones too. And what of it? You complaining that homosexuals have more fun, and tend to be less uptight that religious people driven into pathological fear of their own natural sexual urges?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior”.
Same for many heterosexuals in my past medical experience.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American
Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years.”
Good thing too, because it isn’t. Pregnancy is still included under “having a foreign body in your system” though.
Why the Hel did you include that irrelevant bit of trivia?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population.”
Another highly dubious statistic. I’m pretty sure that “sexual orientation” is not included in paperwork of the vast majority of hospital admissions. So where the Hel could one EVEN GET such statistics to begin with?
And that 1-2% is only self-identifying homosexuals – I suspect you would be surprised by the actual figure. Just saying.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus.”
Again I seriously doubt much of this
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.”
I have heard quite different statistics as well. That’s statistics for you.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.”
Sounds like a very select poll doesn’t it? I wonder what the poll base was.
1,000 they say. Wow, that’s like one every week for almost twenty years!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.’
Ha ha ha. Yeah right. Did you even read this crap you copied? I mean come on, seriously?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities”.
Really? Sounds like another bigot bullshitting to me. Again; how many murder court cases include reference to sexual orientation , do you think?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals.
This one might actually have some validity to it. It can’t be easy being such an oppressed minority, in the unique fashion they are.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us.”
Don’t forget the affects of religion driven “abstinence only” programs and actions against condoms and the education on their use and value. That has played a major part in the spread of the disease the world over.
AIDs of course is a human disease, not a homosexual one. Male homosexuals are especially prone however, because males are far more prone to carry and pass on the disease. That of course makes homosexual females the least affected by this condition.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.”
Wow! That innumeracy is a bitch isn’t it? Someone has no understanding of statistics at all, if they this this means anything. If you had actually written this I would be compelled to call you a moron.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism.”
What a simply incredible non sequitur.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.”
Traffic accidents?! Man, whoever wrote this drivel is sure stretching isn’t he? Ha!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex.”
I seriously doubt that statistic.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“* There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.”
{Sigh} Not exclusively homosexual, and fought against on numerous fronts by many homosexual rights groups.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“got it bitch.”
Got it fucktard.
You will uncritically believe any old bullshit that appears supports you bigoted prejudices.
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Kent. If I thought after reading this blog there was something here worthy of debate I would indeed join in. However you demonstrate clearly that you are some kind of fundamentalist religious nut of the kind that I would want nothing to do with in any shape or form. Your logic is twisted and your preconceptions and opinions clearly shaped by a desert tribal myth from several thousand years ago has no place in the society we live in today as does almost every other superstitious act from that era. It appears there’s one that just won’t go away because it hides where no one can detect it. An absence of evidence is evidence for absence I’m afraid, science or not, that’s just common sense. Take yourself back a few thousand years. How long would you sit and wait for some prey to come along to provide dinner for your clan based on the assumption that someone saw a big animal walk by? You wouldn’t be there longer than 7 mealtimes’ that’s for sure (the established cut off point when people move from peaceful existence to barbarous acts based on the automatic instincts of survival) , so why would any sane person believe in some forever invisible personal god who despite his insistence of omnipotence and omniscience, seems to be the complete opposite of those attributes. You can kid yourself there’s such a thing but you’ll never see a shred of evidence outside of your own head and our entire lives don’t forget in every other sense are governed by observable evidence from the minute your feet hit the floor in the morning until you return to bed in the evening. I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would abandon that basic reasoning despite at times in my life wondering what it’s all about and trying feebly to subscribe some kind of fictitious puppeteer. I’m not closed to the idea of god- (moreover an architect but a force of some description not an old guy with a beard) but not some chap who gets involved in petty squabbles in the middle east some centuries past whilst appearing to ignore entire continents, content it seems to let thousands perish daily from the lack of food which was put here in abundance for us all to eat – apparently.
The bible doesn’t raise our consciousness one iota over and above what was already being talked about by philosophers well before it’s inception. If you never read the bible and only read the works of the Greeks you would only see the bible as a re-hash of contemporary thinking combined with a new take on existing myths and fairy tales. We also see here as we saw then, the converted trying to squash reason and enquiry lest it invalidate their closely held worldview, tossing their preconceived world into the dustbin. No, science doesn’t prove anything, it simply makes models which explain observable facts. When I look at these models and even have a go myself I’m seeing that the explanations satisfy my mind and they also fit in with what we have to take for granted like the laws of physics that govern not just our world but every world we can detect and are forced to exist within. There’s never been a supernatural component required to make these observations and also not one has been discovered during these enquiries. You have to ask yourself as I already posed the question, how long am I going to wait or look for something that has no physical substance/presence (other than the actions from a person who believes without evidence that such a thing exists) before I make a conclusion based on that situation? Not only my own findings but the work of literally thousands upon thousands of people who have sought both to prove and disprove a god, of ANY kind, never mind the Jeudo-Christian-Islamic version currently doing the rounds. It took the work of men to spread the word of god to all the places where humans had distributed themselves, I’m asking myself why is that? We had to wait until men invented ships strong enough to cope with the winds and water of the high seas and also to invent navigation systems good enough to work across longitude to even arrive at a destination to spread said word. Is this the way god works? Does this omniscient being deliver his word by which all humans must abide to achieve their ultimate goal by dropping it in one single place where illiteracy was higher than many other places on the planet and then waiting until men gained enough knowledge to then take this out to all the others? Some people on this planet still do not know about the god of the bible, this means that even today, god is allowing people to die without the chance of salvation. Many religious leaders still state that all those who lived and died without knowing god are now in hell. Hardly seems fair but then again when you set out the rules, they are after all, the rules. Without going any further into whatever the bible says or purports, this is not the word of a true god for me. It’s hardly above even a very fair, astute, virtuous human. The obviously human traits we see god has are not even found in lower animals who clearly display altruism, by that I mean that my own dog is more benevolent and loving than any god who instructs people to kill others for working on a particular day where it’s not permitted for some bizarre and completely incongruous reason.
I’m not going to argue with people who are not in possession of the facts regarding the counter argument and therefore cannot properly understand it. How can anyone from a scientific standpoint even begin to address: ‘how did birds suddenly just make a nest in a tree” When nesting was something animals were doing millions of years before a single bird walked the planet, created or not. “What animal mated with insects to give them eyes?” When eyes were part of the common ancestor another few hundred million years previous. Nope I’ve never seem that animal but I have seen fossils and I have seen research that explains how eyes must have been present for them to survive where none are visible that is sufficient to create a consensus of opinion amongst experts in a given field. Interestingly enough, some of the first observed fossilised eyes are compound, a perfect precursor for Steve insect eyes which the CA would have lead to in due course. “How did an organism know…” Across Steve’s videos and in discourse it’s clear that he somehow thinks that there is an intelligent guiding force that is also suggested by NS and that the animals we currently see are at their goal or destination form. Another total misconception that has no place nor does it appear in any writing, models or consensus in TOE. “Why did some animals no go on to develop better this/that” Yet again we have a fundamental failure of understanding in the hypothesis of TOE. Again it is clearly set out in Darwins work and triumphantly built upon in the modern theory why this happens. Yes there are some outstanding issues regarding punctuation and other ideas which I’m no doubt will come to light in time but this ‘problem’ has clear models and explanations and it needn’t be even brought up as something that refutes the theory, since the theory both initially discussed it, enlarged upon it and is open to further discourse as is the scientific approach. If Steve or anyone agreeing with him there could first demonstrate a clear understanding of the postulates of TOE I might consider engagement on the subject but at the moment it’s abundantly clear that neither Steve, Charlie or Kent the fundamentalist bigot (to use his derogatory approach which he must deserve taking into account his record of personal attacks and tirades ).
So rather than go off on one about this and that, assertion, assumption, incorrect belief and downright rubbish (I see Kent even showed the Dawkins video that had been chopped up to make him look like he couldn’t answer a question – I mean come on, this is just fraudulent garbage-refuted years ago!!) Let’s see an argument from facts as they are, explanations as they are currently understood and hypotheses that stand as far as can be shown as opposed to this misrepresentation and deceit. I’m yet to see a good honest debate with a creationist because they have nothing but faith and end up lying for jesus at the first hurdle. It’s all downhill from there.
Science won’t prove it necessarily but common sense and the observable explanations based on facts within the understood laws will trump blind assertion and zero evidence everytime.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm
You wrote an awful lot but said very little. It was rife with empty assertions that have no basis except in your own biased point of view. It included absolutely no direct challenge to any of Steve’s questions. But it most definitely redirected to the old ‘you believe as do my stated list of opponents, so therefore anything you say must be wrong’. (I actually do try to follow your statements for their value, though, and not because of what you generally state that you believe.)
Let me ask you just one question- it is the one thing that you did say that had some value. Do you truly believe what you said in this next quote:
“An absence of evidence is evidence for absence I’m afraid, science or not, that’s just common sense.”
Is that not only common sense, but something that you would stand on as a valuable factual assertion? (I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I want to know how strongly you feel about that assertion.)
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 4:40 pm
er… that’s because in the first line I point out why a direct challenge would be futile, hence no challenge.
It’s not an assertion. If you have no evidence then you don’t have anything to bring to the table, zero is zero by any definition. If you want to debunk scientific models, you need evidence to refute it and repeatable constructs to demonstrate that. Where is the assertion?
My post was a mere observation mainly but where are the ‘rife assertions’? List them and I’ll address them.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Nice try. (Your deflection and redirection was obvious.)
I did directly ask you just one question. I wonder if you can address that?
John Matrix said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm
F.Whitman said:
Kent. If I thought after reading this blog there was something here worthy of debate I would indeed join in. However you demonstrate clearly that you are some kind of fundamentalist religious nut of the kind that I would want nothing to do with in any shape or form.
JM Says:
Well there Whitty…..what do we have in your opening two sentences?
1. Nothing worthy of debate.
2. Name calling(fundamentalist religious nut).
So WTF are you doing here? Showing us how whitty you are?
Define: fundamentalist religious nut for us.
I’ll define an anti-Christian bigot for you Whitman…….it’s YOU.
AND…If you want nothing to do with him, you are going to like me just as much. so GFY.
F.Whitman says:
Your logic is twisted and your preconceptions and opinions clearly shaped by a desert tribal myth from several thousand years ago has no place in the society we live in today as does almost every other superstitious act from that era. It appears there’s one that just won’t go away because it hides where no one can detect it. An absence of evidence is evidence for absence I’m afraid, science or not, that’s just common sense. Take yourself back a few thousand years. How long would you sit and wait for some prey to come along to provide dinner for your clan based on the assumption that someone saw a big animal walk by?
JM replies:
This is a very narrow minded, uninformed, nonspiritual, ignorant, and bigoted view of scripture and those people who believe in them as inspired by our Creator. Your comments are not insightful, they are incite-full. It’s ignorant people like you that are behind all kinds of censorship and the chilling effects that goes with it.
F. Whitman says:
You wouldn’t be there longer than 7 mealtimes’ that’s for sure (the established cut off point when people move from peaceful existence to barbarous acts based on the automatic instincts of survival) , so why would any sane person believe in some forever invisible personal god who despite his insistence of omnipotence and omniscience, seems to be the complete opposite of those attributes.
JM replies:
is that a question Whitty? If you read Kent’s comments you would know how utterly stupid your first statement in your above quote is. Instinct to survive is one thing, but that does not always equate to barbarous acts, unless you consider self defence a barbarous act…..and all cowards do think like you Whitty. So don’t include Kent in your BS. And who are you to question the attributes of God when it’s clear you have no clue what those attributes are let alone the obvious fact you don’t even believe in God.
You should have kept your big mouth shut Whitty.
F. Whitty says:
You can kid yourself there’s such a thing but you’ll never see a shred of evidence outside of your own head and our entire lives don’t forget in every other sense are governed by observable evidence from the minute your feet hit the floor in the morning until you return to bed in the evening.
JM: replies:
Evidence for the Designer/Creator is everywhere Whitty. You are in denial and under a strong delusion that prevents you from seeing it.
F. Whitty continues:
I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would abandon that basic reasoning despite at times in my life wondering what it’s all about and trying feebly to subscribe some kind of fictitious puppeteer.
JM replies:
There ya go Whitty….throwing more insults and painting large portions of the population with your shit stained brush strokes.
Provide your proof and your evidence (that you rely on) to support your belief that there is no God.
I can’t wait….this should be good.
F.Whitty says:
I’m not closed to the idea of god- (moreover an architect but a force of some description not an old guy with a beard) but not some chap who gets involved in petty squabbles in the middle east some centuries past whilst appearing to ignore entire continents, content it seems to let thousands perish daily from the lack of food which was put here in abundance for us all to eat – apparently.
JM replies:
Yes, I heard that before Whitty…..”Let me make God in my image” vs. letting God be God. And blaming God for man’s inhumanity to man causing death and destruction is exactly that Whitty…..that’s your image of God that YOU create in your own mind. I don’t know one person who claims to be a believer that follows a God of your description Whitty. You’ve been influenced by too many fairy tales Whitty.
F. Whitty says:
The bible doesn’t raise our consciousness one iota over and above what was already being talked about by philosophers well before it’s inception.
JM replies:
Prove it. Ya see Moron….you can’t prove it because you do not have the knowledge and wisdom to examine the consciousness of every person on earth who claims to have received the spiritual rebirth from God and you can’t fully know one person’s conscious mind, never mind all the other people who claim belief in the God of the Bible.
F.Whitty says:
If you never read the bible and only read the works of the Greeks you would only see the bible as a re-hash of contemporary thinking combined with a new take on existing myths and fairy tales. We also see here as we saw then, the converted trying to squash reason and enquiry lest it invalidate their closely held worldview, tossing their preconceived world into the dustbin.
JM relies:
Who’s trying to squash reason Whitty……if you Read Kent’s comments it’s clear that it is the evolutionists who squash reason and have invalidated the Creationist world view in our public schools and they do it claiming that a belief in Creation world view and Creation Science view is a religious belief when in fact having a belief in Creation has nothing to do with religion. If it does, then by the same standard used to arrive at that conclusion, if one applies those to the evolutionist’s model, then evolution wins that label hands down because you have to believe a lot of bizarre shit and ignore a lot of evidence for ID while believing in things you can’t see and never will because 100 million years no one wrote about what was going on.
F. Whitty says:
You have to ask yourself ……………………….how long am I going to wait or look for something that has no physical substance/presence (other than the actions from a person who believes without evidence that such a thing exists) before I make a conclusion based on that situation?
JM replies:
Your question fits in perfectly with my response above….and you could apply that to your own belief in something that has no physical substance to prove it. Ya can’t just say we are here with all the rest of the life on earth so we all must have evolved over hundreds of millions of years through numbers of good consecutive mutations that surpasses the number of electrons in the known universe to the trillionth power. Do the math pal……it never happened. The only thing that mutated and devolved was the spirit that once united man with God and that is what the plan of redemption is about. Man must learn to Love his creator and be like him, or man will die a permanent spiritual death. We as believers are not interested in forcing anyone to believe as we do. We simply carry the message and you decide who your teacher and master is going to be…….and when you understand that the very fact you have a choice is PROOF that God exists, then HE will teach you. We as believers examine all things through the Spirit that God has put within us. We are not brainwashed by man’s teachings, it is the man without the Spirit of God who is bound to man’s teachings.
F.Whitty says:
Some people on this planet still do not know about the god of the bible, this means that even today, god is allowing people to die without the chance of salvation. Many religious leaders still state that all those who lived and died without knowing god are now in hell.
JM replies:
How do you know this? DO you speak for God who has written the knowledge of Himself and His laws in the heart of every man? If a man never hears the Gospel Message from the Bible, yet lives a life of faith by allowing his heart, mind, and deeds to be governed divine characteristics which he attributes to a higher spiritual power than himself…such attributes like humility, patience, compassion, selflessness…then who are you to say that person will be denied. It’s ironic that you put limitations on a God you don’t even believe in. Lastly, some religious leaders may say all those who died not knowing God are in hell, but in reality, it is those who died who heard the word of God and REJECTED it that are in HELL. Salvation if by GRACE through FAITH in God. In practical terms, faith is placed in God’s Word and in His Divine Attributes. Believers are asked to PUT ON the new nature and IMMITATE Christ’s character and nature. Some think that means you become a girly man faggot with no spine who would never speak an unkind word or rebuke a fool using insults and ridicule. But the Jesus I know confronted evil men everywhere he went….including lawyers, judges, prosecutors, soldiers, and religious leaders of his day…and he did it boldly.
F.Whitty says:
Hardly seems fair but then again when you set out the rules, they are after all, the rules.
JM replies:
Salvation is not the result of man keeping rules. Christianity is not a system of laws and rules. As a believer, I am set free from the law to live my life governed by the Spirit.
F.Whitty says:
Without going any further into whatever the bible says or purports, this is not the word of a true god for me. It’s hardly above even a very fair, astute, virtuous human. The obviously human traits we see god has are not even found in lower animals who clearly display altruism, by that I mean that my own dog is more benevolent and loving than any god who instructs people to kill others for working on a particular day where it’s not permitted for some bizarre and completely incongruous reason.
JM replies:
Whitty, you make God into something you don’t like, then you tell us why you don’t like the God you understand.
Everyone conducts themselves according to the God they understand Whitty…..that means you too.
One’s God is that which one obeys Whitty. You’ve been fed a lot of lies about believers, God, and THE FAITH, and you believed them.
F. Whitty says:
I’m not going to argue with people who are not in possession of the facts regarding the counter argument and therefore cannot properly understand it…………(bla…bla…bla….snip …snip….I removed this part of the quote Whitty…..because it ain’t worth commenting on) So rather than go off on one about this and that, assertion, assumption, incorrect belief and downright rubbish (bla….bla…bla….I removed this crap too Whitty) Let’s see an argument from facts as they are, explanations as they are currently understood and hypotheses that stand as far as can be shown as opposed to this misrepresentation and deceit. I’m yet to see a good honest debate with a creationist because they have nothing but faith and end up lying for Jesus at the first hurdle. It’s all downhill from there.
JM replies: You came to the right place if you want an education on creation or a good debate. In fact, it appears you missed the intelligent arguments, reasonable explanations, explanations concerning the evidences, etc.. I guess it went right over your self arrogating evolutionist mutated head.
Why not make one or two points instead of giving us your vitriolic word smithing insults that actually make you look like an arrogant self promoting hypocrite and an asshole?
If You want intelligent conversation then why come on here and write a long winder diatribe that is nothing more than your spin on God and an open assault on Kent as well as a lot of people who call themselves believers, Christins, and Creationists?
Why not make one or two intelligent concisely and clearly stated points Whitty? Start with your strongest argument…your best proof for believing in the atheistic philosophy embedded with cult teachings of evolutionism.
All I ask is for your best argument for why you think evolution makes more sense. Then wait to have your self arrogating smug intellectual ass handed to you.
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 1:16 pm
2 paragraphs up I missed the last words –
bigot…(…) Are not in possession of the full facts about TOE as they are widely understood in scientific terms. Instead they come across with the usual twisted nonsense peddled by the likes of Answers in Genesis that does not even come close to what is actually postulated. Can you imagine debating someone who insisted things went up in the air when dropped in a serious debate about gravity? Therein lies the problem.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 3:53 pm
What is actually going on, FW?
My personal- and biblical position- is that there are no actively (unrepentant) homosexual Christians that currently enjoy a valid hope of Salvation. There may be affeminite (sp?) Christians; there may be ex-homosexual Christians; there may even be struggling homosexual Christians that all currently enjoy a valid hope of Salvation.
But those that are actively and unrepentantly sinning in their lives (homosexuality being only one of the most hated sins, but there are many others, too) are not displaying the fruits of Salvation, and therefore are proof in and of themselves that they have not attained it.
Jesus’ blood covers ALL sins. We are called regardless to love all these people anyhow, but we cannot accept their ongoing unrepentant activity. We are called to love them enough to let them know the Truth- which is that they must turn from that sin. The trouble is not as much with the sin itself. But it is with the in-your-face lack of repentance. Some people will have a sin that they are struggling with and yet at least try to keep that activity from influencing others- they know it is wrong and try to avoid it. The unrepentant homosexual flaunts it and attempts to enable and encourage others into it. This is what the Christian cannot accept.
(Besides the fact that it makes me personally physically uncomfortable to be in the presence of flamboyant behavior. Where is the tolerance for my personal intolerance?)
Anyhow. What of it? On what moral grounds do you stand on to say that the homosexual can continue his behavior with no intention of repenting?
(You chose to talk about religion… let’s side track for just a bit here)
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 4:54 pm
This only applies if you buy into the myth.
I also wasn’t aware that sin now had a rating system with some worse than others. Where did this come from because it’s certainly not in the bible.
Again you confuse homosexuality with someone willingly doing something that is contrary to whatever rule is popular in whatever country you happen to be born into and whatever religion is the biggest and best in that country. Homosexuality came first, the biblical rules came after. Homosexuality is rife among the entire animal kingdom particularly dolphins with whom we share much in genetic resemblance. Homosexuality is a default position, it’s what they are, like you are straight, they are gay and they do not choose it, if so, when did you chose to be straight? – I already asked this question.
I don’t buy into any religious dogma and so my position on gays is as it is with any other organism that wishes to engage in a sexual act with something of the same sex. Let them get on with it, live and let live, turn the other cheek and treat those how you wish to be treated, this is their reality they deserve to be allowed to do what they feel is them, their personal position in life. I’m antitheist and look at how our positions differ and look at what we are always told about loving Christians…
You need to ask yourself why you think like this. Examine your thought process and at the be will be religious ‘education’ or insrtruction. That is why you think that way and why no one I know or associate with thinks like that – partly because I live in a heavily secular country where religion is all but dead – amen to that.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:33 pm
(side tracked in religion/tolerance per FW bringing it up)
FW:
>Homosexuality came first, the biblical rules came after. Homosexuality is rife among the >entire animal kingdom particularly dolphins with whom we share much in genetic >resemblance. Homosexuality is a default position, it’s what they are, like you are >straight, they are gay and they do not choose it, if so, when did you chose to be >straight?
Per you, then FW, homosexuality is… A default position. And they did not choose it. Perhaps they were genetically predisposed to it, and born with it. It sounds an awful lot like they simply cannot help but just be that way.
Per you, I did not choose to be straight, I just am in my default position. So be it.
Maybe that’s my excuse, too. I am just in a default position- one that I did not choose. Where is the tolerance for my position? That I was born with an ‘intolerance’ for people that continue in such depravity? (My intolerance stops short of physically forcing them into submission- just in speaking out against their unbridled disregard for my sensitivities.)
FW:
>I don’t buy into any religious dogma and so my position on gays … Let them get on with >it, live and let live, turn the other cheek and treat those how you wish to be treated…
Fine. You must have been ‘born’ with such a belief also, then. So you have no choice. It’s just the way that you are. Live and let live. That applies to everyone, right? Child-molesters too, perhaps? Rapists, killers. Right along with your good moral crowd and teachers and all-around good people.
It’s just the way they were born and they really had no choice. They were ‘born’ with whatever proclivity they happen to enjoy. Live and let live. Except when it is the Christian…
What about me? What if my idea of ‘living’ is not to see examples of the homosexual lifestyle displayed everywhere in popular media in front of me and my family? What if my idea of ‘living’ is not to be forced into letting someone rent a property from me that I felt was living in unrepentant sin? What if my idea of living does not include being forced to subject my kids to ‘tolerance’ education that strives to brainwash my children into accepting something that is unclean?
Where DO you get your authority?
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:43 pm
(side tracked in religion/tolerance per FW bringing it up*)
FW:
>Homosexuality came first, the biblical rules came after. Homosexuality is rife >among the entire animal kingdom particularly dolphins with whom we share >much in genetic resemblance. Homosexuality is a default position, it’s what >they are, like you are straight, they are gay and they do not choose it, if so, >when did you chose to be straight?
Per you, then FW, homosexuality is… A default position. And they did not choose it. Perhaps they were genetically predisposed to it, and born with it. It sounds an awful lot like they simply cannot help but just be that way.
Per you, I did not choose to be straight, I just am in my default position. So be it.
Maybe that’s my excuse, too. I am just in a default position- one that I did not choose. Where is the tolerance for my position? That I was born with an ‘intolerance’ for people that continue in such depravity? (My intolerance stops short of physically forcing them into submission- just in speaking out against their unbridled disregard for my sensitivities.)
FW:
>I don’t buy into any religious dogma and so my position on gays … Let them >get on with it, live and let live, turn the other cheek and treat those how you >wish to be treated…
Fine. You must have been ‘born’ with such a belief also, then. So you have no choice. It’s just the way that you are. Live and let live. That applies to everyone, right? Child-molesters too, perhaps? Rapists, killers. We won’t forget the good moral crowd also- teachers and preachers and secular moralists and all-around good people.
It’s just the way they were born and they really had no choice. They were ‘born’ with whatever proclivity they happen to enjoy/encumber. Live and let live. Except when it is the Christian…
What about me, the Christian? What if my idea of ‘living’ is not to see examples of the homosexual lifestyle displayed everywhere in popular media in front of me and my family? What if my idea of ‘living’ is not to be forced into letting someone rent a property from me that I felt was living in unrepentant sin? What if my idea of living does not include being forced to subject my kids to ‘tolerance’ education that strives to brainwash my children into accepting something that is unclean?
My main two questions back to you:
Where DO you get your authority? How do you justify that authority?
* On FW bringing up religion in a fresh thread: “Kent. If I thought after reading this blog there was something here worthy of debate I would indeed join in. However you demonstrate clearly that you are some kind of fundamentalist religious nut of the kind that I would want nothing to do with in any shape or form.”
(Let’s do get back to dealing with the FACTS about evolution, shall we? I don’t want this to head south into a discussion about faith. That is really something to be dealt with separately after all. (Sort of how the Evolution camp doesn’t think that Origin of Life should be lumped together…) )
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 1:41 pm
kent says:
“I chose it when I saw my parents sexual dynamic as a child. Homosexuality is an acquired taste and if you want to argue it is genetic, then I will offer the same for my bigotry saying, I can’t help it I hate faggots you see,,,
I was born that way too, so it isn’t my fault.
When did you chose to be
such fucking idiot”
So by your daft and frankly childish logic, that would mean that every person raised by 2 people of the same sex (even in families where people have been widowed etc) , would be automatically homosexual. Do you have any evidence for these ass-plucked statements?
I have many gay friends and in discussion here and across the internet I can say with complete confidence that not one of them EVER ‘chose’ to be gay, or ‘acquired the taste’ as you put it. Homosexuality is in built into you from the moment you are conceived. I don’t know if it’s genetic-it probably is, or where it actually stems from, I only know that people don’t wake up one day and think, “I know, I’ll be gay”. It’s inherent like hair colour or the gait of your walk. Your ill-thought out garbage defies what is actually the case and why I asked when YOU chose to be straight, since you say it’s a choice but not it appears if you see your mum and dad cuddling by the TV, then it’s learnt despite the fact that your born with either male or female sex organs and chemical governors in your body to regulate the state – should they be working ‘properly’.
Oh and you were a born homosexual hater? Well that’s interesting in itself and I bet you have no idea about the actual implications of this preposterous comment do you? Do you hate black people too? I guess anyone the the bible says you should hate or scorn, you follow through right? I’m guessing though that you draw the line at whoring out your daughter or any other biblical references that are not really acceptable today, correct? Do you cherry pick your morals from the grotesque litany we find in the bible so they fit in with society today and you’re not jailed for what was par for the course 2500 years ago. I’m also hoping you don’t treat your wife as a baby factory who’s real place in life is as an uneducated, kitchen dwelling sex slave at your beck and call. My how things move on and how some people don’t…
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 1:45 pm
anyone the – = anything that
John Matrix said,
December 16, 2010 at 2:24 pm
F.Whitman:
You are partially right in your statements about Homos. Many Homos didn’t choose that lifestyle because they were forced into it.
Ya see wise guy…….Homos can’t “reproduce” so they “recruit.” They RECRUIT by MOLESTING children, and those children are ASS RAPED and introduced to the lifestyle. You know I’m right if you know as many Homo’s as you intimate above.
So let’s shut up about silly girly man faggots and get back on topic……ok?
ADParker said,
December 16, 2010 at 10:30 pm
‘Good’ to see that your gross bigoted wilful ignorance isn’t limited to evolution.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 16, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Whitman, THAT IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF CRAP I HAVE EVER HEARD. NOT EVEN WORTH MORE RESPONSE THAN WHAT IVE SAID ALREADY
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 16, 2010 at 3:17 pm
[IMG]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/junesoft/sexwithbeasts.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/junesoft/cdc.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/junesoft/mrsa.jpg[/IMG]
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 16, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The Facts Dumb Ass
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm
John Matrix said
“So let’s shut up about silly girly man faggots and get back on topic……ok?”
Well if you’re so concerned about policing this page regards homosexual content, you might want to have a word with your man Kent who has spammed it with a tirade of homophobic rhetorical garbage. Mine pales in comparison and has at least a degree of truth to it unlike you preposterous claims. You need to stop listening to people who hate gays and go and discover for yourself what is actually going on.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 4:16 pm
(I replied mistakenly to your 1:16pm post. That reply belonged here.)
John Matrix said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I don’t hate gays. I hate what they do to themselves and children.
I know what they do.
So don’t bother second guessing what I know by telling me to get informed.
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Kent said:
“THAT IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF CRAP I HAVE EVER HEARD. NOT EVEN WORTH MORE RESPONSE THAN WHAT IVE SAID ALREADY”
Hmmm, resorting to caps lock so early in the debate, unusual but expected.
The reason you can’t respond is because you’d self-refute in such spectacular style that it would make you look like a fool and your religious apologist mates would disown you.
If not, prove otherwise and step up. At the moment no evidence of an argument is an argument of no evidence but I guess you already know that…
F.Whitman said,
December 16, 2010 at 4:32 pm
John Matrix Said”
Ya see wise guy…….Homos can’t “reproduce” so they “recruit.” They RECRUIT by MOLESTING children, and those children are ASS RAPED and introduced to the lifestyle. You know I’m right if you know as many Homo’s as you intimate above.”
I don’t often get called right and wise on a creationist site (sorry Steve but unless you state your position and give evidence about what you assert, this is just another creationist site-suggesting a creator/maker/designer/prime mover) Where this post fails is where you appear to believe for whatever reason that homosexuals are some kind of self contained, self governing organism with a combined mentality across their group with not only a distinct MO but also a goal that must be achieved.
I don’t know what planet your living on or maybe you haven’t reached high school yet and have only received a piss poor bigoted religious education and not actually been out there in the big wide world but I should point out this presumption is wholly false.
Kent. those picture clippings you posted, what were they supposed to mean? I’m getting the Chicken Licken vibe here where because you see a headline with homosexual in it, you think the sky is going to cave in and the planet taken over by gays. Rest assured it’s only your inane fear of homosexual’s and it not actually going to happen. I notice they were all Christian sources too. Would it be rude of me to suggest how ironic it would be that when you grow up and have children that your first born son be gay? Nothing like a good Christian honour killing though is there to ‘correct’ the problem even if he is your child. Now there’s some sweeping generalisations, seeing as you guys love them so much!
John Matrix said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Why do YOU think that anyone who is against the GAY agenda is doing it out of fear?
And so what if people are doing it out of fear. IF YOU KNEW the GAY AGENDA you would have that same HEALTHY self preserving FEAR too.
All fears ain’t phobias just because some fags say so and the GAY loving PC media says so.
I was born this way. It’s a healthy reaction the same as anyone’s reaction to eating a piece of rotting road kill. It makes people PUKE so they don’t eat it and get sick. And that’s what I do when I see two gays on TV kissing and holding hands…..I gag and I PUKE…and that’s their fault not mine…..I WAS BORN THIS WAY.
ADParker said,
December 17, 2010 at 12:26 am
John Matrix said:
“Why do YOU think that anyone who is against the GAY agenda is doing it out of fear?”
Imagined GAY agenda.
Fear and indoctrinated and ingrained hate. Inspired by an ignorant ancient set of texts, which decries homosexuality as an ‘abomination’ based on gross ignorance of what homosexuality truly is, assuming it to be some kind of “life choice.” Which ut clearly is not. Honestly, in this day and age (or many past) who would choose to be a homosexual?!
John Matrix said:
“And so what if people are doing it out of fear. IF YOU KNEW the GAY AGENDA you would have that same HEALTHY self preserving FEAR too.”
But you DON’T know the gay agenda John. All you know is the lies devised by bigoted religious wingnuts, of the puritanical bent.
Much like the American “Atheist war on Christmas” made up solely by ignorant Christian apologists in order to try to make their particular religion dominant – rendering this in truth essentially a ‘war’ of their Christian doctrine on everybody else.
John Matrix said:
“All fears ain’t phobias just because some fags say so and the GAY loving PC media says so.”
The insulting bigotry in your chosen words only undermines you case.
If you don’t like gays John, then don’t sleep with them.
And this ridiculous agenda of trying to tie homosexuality with paedophilia, is an old but disgustingly dishonest one. Paedophilia, it is fairly well known, has little to nothing to do with sexual orientation. As small children are less sexually distinct, it matters little to the paedophile what the gender of their victim might be.
It IS telling however that such bigots have felt the need to tie paedophilia to homosexuality. It strongly suggests that even they recognise (on some level) that there is not nearly enough in homosexuality itself to justify their extreme bigoted hate. This being the prime reason for the unwarranted false correlation.
John Matrix said:
“I was born this way.”
No, you were born with your sexual orientation. Hate is leaned, not innate. And call it what you will, it IS hate you are espousing.
John Matrix said:
“It’s a healthy reaction the same as anyone’s reaction to eating a piece of rotting road kill.”
1. It is NOT a healthy reaction at all.
2. It is a reaction to falsehoods that you have been fed (and subsequently seek to reconfirm through selected reading etc.)
John Matrix said:
” It makes people PUKE so they don’t eat it and get sick. And that’s what I do when I see two gays on TV kissing and holding hands…..I gag and I PUKE…”
And just think how ridiculously pathetic that really is! So the Hel what if two people are kissing! two lips coming together! Big freakin’ deal!
And Holding Hands! Seriously?! Can you not see how far you have been indoctrinated (as if through a Skinner box) if seeing two men holding hand makes you vomit?!
One wonders if this holds true when you see a father and son, or two brothers holding hands. Or two males (or females?) of whom you have no clue as to their personal relationship.
John Matrix said:
“and that’s their fault not mine…..I WAS BORN THIS WAY.”
No, you were probably raised to HATE in this way. Racists, sexists, jingoists, Anti-Semitics etc… are often TRAINED the same way.
On a personal note, my step-father was raised to be something of a racist. It took a while, but I (and others, not claiming it was me alone) slowly helped him get over the bigotry. The Hate is not innate. That is just an excuse to avoid dealing with it.