Releaselog

NOVA Judgement Day-Intelligent Design on Trial HDTV XviD-MiRAGETV

Posted on 18.11.2007 at 07:53 in TV Shows by Mr. X

Intelligent design makes people stupid, Kevin Padian of UC Berkely says. The war on evolution, is the ever encroaching backwards thought method of the intelligent design conspiracy theorists, a grandiose mega-scale conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory behind creationism is that a magical man in the sky created everything. The goal of intelligent design is to re-Christianize American society, as Eugenie C Scott Nat’l Ctr for Science Education says. This special two-part NOVA series professionally re-creates the showdown between intelligent design and evolution in a courtroom in Dover, Pennsylvania with complete transcripts from the court case.

It all started when, in 2004, the Pennsylvania school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution called intelligent design. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school board’s actions filed a lawsuit in federal court. Then followed a six week trial, and this two-part NOVA documentary tries to cover it as completely and both-sided as possible. Check the NOVA ID homepage for lots more about the show. Many thanks to cool group MiRAGETV for ripping in great quality. Go ahead, disagree or agree in the comments, just keep it under control hopefully 8) . It would also help to shape your response if you download and watch the show first, and then you would be able to make a much more intelligent response.

624×352 29.97, mp3 48Hz 16BiT STEREO, 2×700MB
Samples: #1 , #2 , #3
NOVA.Judgement.Day-Intelligent.Design.on.Trial.HDTV.XviD-MiRAGETV-CD1 | Torrent
NOVA.Judgement.Day-Intelligent.Design.on.Trial.HDTV.XviD-MiRAGETV-CD2 | Torrent

* Comments(347)

Comments (347)

Feel free to post your NOVA Judgement Day-Intelligent Design on Trial HDTV XviD-MiRAGETV torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, megashares, sendspace, megaupload, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
  1. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 04:17

    @199 Darth Arcon

    Hey, different strokes for different folks I guess. So no i don’t take offense of your post. But I have to say I enjoyed reading your responses to them. You have a talent for pointing out the contradictions between their worldview and the way they live/(debate in this case). I highly respect you too, as well as for keeping an open mind, and we certainly compliment each other.

  2. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 04:53

    @Costa200

    “Also, how do you know you are following the right god? What if…”

    The real question isn’t about what/why/how others believe. The real question is if YOU believe in any god or not. Do you believe truth is knowable, or if God would communicate to His people? If not of any of those, then what other point are you trying to make, besides thinking that “question of doubt” refutes the faith and historicity of Christianity?

    What if.. what if…what if..

    who cares. it’s hypothetical, means nothing because it doesn’t correspond to reality. you’re living in never-never land.

  3. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 07:00

    @188 velo

    “Just a bit of fun for you flood suporters.”

    Just a bit of fun for you atheists.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ssKZavFZJE

    and flood sceptics

    http://christiananswers.net/creation/menu-catastrophe.html

  4. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 07:17

    @147 Velo

    it’d be very rare and almost a miracle to find it.

    Check out Dr. Don Batten’s explanation on the common ancestry of humans and apes:

    “The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

    1. Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (’homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
    2. Photo copyrighted.If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).
    3. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
    4. We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
    5. Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
    6. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

    Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

    Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error – averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

    What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

    7. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

    There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

    There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

    These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

    The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!”

    Do you know a doctor who has refuted this explanation?

  5. NettiWelho
    November 20th, 2007 | 07:17

    @203

    id like to know about your educational backround, if you believe those guys, theyre outright lying at you

  6. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 07:19

    @205

    prove it.

  7. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 07:27

    @110 Not Stupid

    ““Jesus” did not want to be portrayed as a god-type but was merely pointing out how we should live by the manual. YOUR bible says, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism and 1 Father of all. That can not be Jebus now can it?”

    Would you point out the verses that indicate it so?

    And unless you can prove me your claims, read what Henry Morris and Martin Clark has to say about the Trinity so that you may understand what it really means:

    The doctrine of the Trinity — that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God — is admittedly difficult to comprehend, and yet is the very foundation of Christian truth. Although skeptics may ridicule it as a mathematical impossibility, it is nevertheless a basic doctrine of Scripture as well as profoundly realistic in both universal experience and in the scientific understanding of the cosmos.

    Both Old and New Testaments teach the Unity and the Trinity of the Godhead. The idea that there is only one God, who created all things, is repeatedly emphasized in such Scriptures as Isaiah 45:18:

    “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; …I am the Lord; and there is none else.”

    A New Testament example is James 2:19:

    “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.”

    The three persons of the Godhead are, at the same time, noted in such Scriptures as Isaiah 48:16:

    “I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

    The speaker in this verse is obviously God, and yet He says He has been sent both by The Lord God (that is, the Father) and by His Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit).

    The New Testament doctrine of the Trinity is evident in such a verse as John 15:26, where the Lord Jesus said:

    “But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, He shall testify of me.”

    Then there is the baptismal formula:

    “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

    One name (God) — yet three names!

    JESUS — That Jesus, as the only-begotten Son of God, actually claimed to be God, equal with the Father, is clear from numerous Scriptures. For example, He said:

    “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).

    HOLY SPIRIT — Some cults falsely teach that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal divine influence of some kind, but the Bible teaches that He is a real person, just as are the Father and the Son. Jesus said:

    “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come” (John 16:13).

    TRI-UNITY — The teaching of the Bible concerning the Trinity might be summarized thus. God is a Tri-unity, with each Person of the Godhead equally and fully and eternally God. Each is necessary, and each is distinct, and yet all are one. The three Persons appear in a logical, causal order. The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. With reference to God’s creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality.

    We “see” God and His great salvation in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, then “experience” their reality by faith, through the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit.

    Though these relationships seem paradoxical, and to some completely impossible, they are profoundly realistic, and their truth is ingrained deep in man’s nature. Thus, men have always sensed first the truth that God must be “out there,” everywhere present and the First Cause of all things, but they have corrupted this intuitive knowledge of the Father into pantheism and ultimately into naturalism.

    Similarly, men have always felt the need to “see” God in terms of their own experience and understanding, but this knowledge that God must reveal Himself has been distorted into polytheism and idolatry. Men have thus continually erected “models” of God, sometimes in the form of graven images, sometimes even in the form of philosophical systems purporting to represent ultimate reality.

    Finally, men have always known that they should be able to have communion with their Creator and to experience His presence “within.” But this deep intuition of the Holy Spirit has been corrupted into various forms of false mysticism and fanaticism, and even into spiritism and demonism. Thus, the truth of God’s tri-unity is ingrained in man’s very nature, but he has often distorted it and substituted a false god in its place.”

    Unless you can show me how the above biblical interpretations are incorrect, I suggest you keep yours to yourself.

  8. NettiWelho
    November 20th, 2007 | 07:56

    @206

    You’ll find out when you to go highschool, its not my job to eduacate you about anything

  9. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 08:15

    @208

    yea your job is to learn from me.

    Therefore, heed this wise saying young grasshoppa:

    it is not one’s job to educate those wiser than themselves.

    Wah 18:7

  10. NettiWelho
    November 20th, 2007 | 08:22

    its not about wisdom, its about knowledge and capability to use it to understand the world we live in

    please get proper eduacation, praying for god wont help you feed your family

  11. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 09:02

    “praying for god wont help you feed your family”

    the Israelites would beg to differ in Exodus 16:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016%20;&version=45;

    In short, the Israelites come to the wilderness of Sin. They murmur for food, God promises bread from heaven.

  12. Who cares
    November 20th, 2007 | 10:05

    Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic. Things like bread folling from the sky is something that can be researched academically, but obviously is not. So that means there is only one conculsion: All the academica is spiked with atheists who produce nothing, but just wallow in their materialist filth. Don’t you think we should remove them? All those geologists who don’t believe in the flood. All those biologists and medical scientists who use evolutionary approaches fighting viruses, bacteria, parasites and cancer (and I tell you, it’s pretty much all of them).
    Their work, even though sucessful is not sanctioned by the scripture. What should we do with them?

  13. wah
    November 20th, 2007 | 10:46

    @212

    “Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic.”

    So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?

    “Don’t you think we should remove them?
    What should we do with them?”

    What do you think? You don’t need me to answer that for yourself.

  14. BOB
    November 20th, 2007 | 12:26

    “i’m young enough to be a teacher.

    it’s called not being anal and in a hurry. what am i, writing an essay here?”

    I sincerely hope you’re not a science teacher then. Probably shoudln’t be marking any lengthy reports either. I was refering to words like ladder vs. latter, which are spelt exactly the way you sound; unless you have a thick American accent – that’s hardly being anal.

    Why is it that almost all Creationists are from the US? It’s virtually non-existant in Europe, Australia and NZ. Suggestions in those regions were immediately laughed out.

    When was the last time “Creation Scientists” produced anything of value in terms of adding value to existing knowledge/technology?

    Also, once again to stress. You CANNOT validate your argument by posting evidence from biased sites. Would you accept my evidence for the benifits of eugenics if I linked to a skin-head web site?

  15. Who cares
    November 20th, 2007 | 12:54

    Wah:
    “So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”
    Well, if the work is not published in peer reviewed journals, there is no way to tell if the research was done properly. And considering that there are no peer reviewed publications on the Arc, the creation, flood geology or the young earth, this makes a pretty clear case of what the scientific community thinks of the bible. Every university with a biology faculty houses a department for evolutionary biology, but none has one for creation studies.
    Well, scientists won’t change their attitude (this has to do with their petty dependence on evidence), so what shall we do with them? I mean, this is a real problem. They are noisy and they impede our strive for a virtuous and God-fearing society.

  16. velo
    November 20th, 2007 | 13:18

    @214 Word! ;D

  17. velo
    November 20th, 2007 | 14:14

    @wah
    To have a rigid idea of how things should be and then try to force the puzzle to fit is not science and never will be.
    Religion is rigid, science is not, it changes by default if something is disproved. Religion evades the proof and tries to come up with excuses. Or just ignore it, and call parts of the bible allegorical. (when it rains god opens a window in the heavens.) I bet they actually believed he did back in the day, just like Thor made lightning with his hammer. But why don’t you… could it be because science proved it wrong?
    Your God is a god who hides in the holes of our knowledge, and the holes are shrinking.

  18. Redem
    November 20th, 2007 | 18:21

    “So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”

    When discussing thing outside of their area of expertise, yes.

    As for DNA similarity, not all DNA is expressed. A lot of it is things like retroviral DNA insertions, which are not a part of genotype, and which ARE a concrete indication of common ancestry. Your quote ignores this, as well as other things like the structural similarities between human and chimp DNA. For example the large section of telomeres in the middle of one of the human chromosomes that corresponds to where two ape chromosomes fused at one point in our ancestry. Again, this is damn good indication of common ancestry as telomeres have no business being in the middle of a chromosome, their only function is to control replication at the ends of the DNA strand.

    Your source looks all nice and sciencey, certainly enough so to dazzle anyone who knows little of genetics. Which is entirely the point really.

  19. Darth Arcon
    November 20th, 2007 | 20:51

    I can promise everybody that it does not matter where you get the info from, it is going to be biased in some way. You guys are trying to have wah get his backing from an “scientific” place, yet that same “scientific” place teaches evolution. At the same time, wah is trying to get you to get proof from just as valid “scientific” places, only they believe in ID. However, you believe that anybody who believes in ID must not believe in science. This is the problem with credibility. Both sides have plenty of credibility, yet each side maintains that their credibility is better. In a situation like this, credibility fails…

    Therefore, why dont some of you guys trying to disprove wah take a whack at my little “conundrum” I posted a little bit back. It requires no credibility, only thought. The only person who has attempted it (at least as far as I could tell…) was Costa, who gave me some really cheap answers. Im curious what happens when credibility fails and one has to return to his/her own logic for the answers…Im also curious to see if my logic has any holes in it…I dont doubt it does, but I think Im pretty close to the truth right now…

  20. Redem
    November 20th, 2007 | 21:29

    The difference is that wah was making claims about the scientific merits of the theory of evolution, using sources that even a passing scientific knowledge can demolish, and that a simple critical reading of will find to be littered with lies, fallacies, and quote mining. Ironic, considering they usually try to claim the moral high ground at the same time.

    As for your conundrum… I’ll go look for it… dunno how long I’ll be.

  21. velo
    November 20th, 2007 | 21:35

    @ 219 Darth Arcon

    point me to the right post please

  22. Redem
    November 20th, 2007 | 21:39

    “When evolutionists try to argue that their belief is true, they pretty much contradict themselves just by opening their mouth. According to evolution: There is no overall effect on the universe whether human beings believe in evolution or a fantasy. It doesnt change anything. Therefore, at the very least, why would you take the chance believing in evolution if there is even the slightest possibility that youre wrong. Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?”

    Is that what you meant? This.. badly formed version of pascals wager?

    LMAO

    False dichotomy is the least of the fallacies in this one. It is not a simple either or choice. I cannot choose to believe in something I think is wrong simply because it might be convenient to me if I was wrong. Apart from that there is the fact that if you ARE right, and I get “punished” for an eternity for making the best conclusion out of the available data, I would never choose to worship your deity anyway, he’s a knob.

  23. Not Stupid
    November 20th, 2007 | 22:51

    Well, I know now that “wah” is completely brainwashed and can not study beyond the “Bible” and what’s being fed to him. Latin is NOT the original language and I will not tell you what it is. And the “trinity” is heresy. As your “Jesus” said, “That all men should worship The Father alone.” I will let YOU, wah, search where that one is. Oh and by your “talk type” you must be catholic. Maybe in Jesuit school? I don’t want and won’t buy your LOAD of CRAP which are LIES and DECEIT.

    Either way, anyone who continues in this “tripe” is just wasting breath and “chewing on air”.

    /me officially done with this thread.

  24. Darth Arcon
    November 20th, 2007 | 23:29

    @velo
    #195

    @220
    Hmm, yet again you are not the one that can supposedly “demolish” his findings easily. Someone had to do that for you, and for that you need the credibility of that person. You cant just say the community can easily confront such things. If you do, then that implies the existence of a credible person that did it at some point. To avoid this, you need to use your own logic, and not count on these “supposed” figures like “90% of the scientific community believes this.” Where did that number come from? And even if that number is true, what percent of that 90% were force to believe it due to peer pressure? My point of all this isnt to have you go looking for sources, it is to avoid the need for credibility entirely…do it yourself…

    @222
    Yeah, kinda. That ending was just something I was thinking of at the time and kinda ended up in there. Mostly Im talking about morality. The point you make is a good one, but then again it is still somewhat thin. Your still forgetting that NOTHING matters in evolution. It doesnt matter what people believe in, we could all believe that we come from a spontaneous combustion out of random rocks. Heh, we could believe that pink unicorn and happy frog story from earlier! It doesnt matter if evolution is indeed true. About the choice, who cares what you think? Thats the point. It doesnt matter if your happy or depressed because of such choices, it makes no difference (in an evolutionist’s world, that is). As for your final comment, from MY perspective (in case you dont get it, this is a hypothetical), you have seen the correct evidence and didnt believe it because you are stubborn. In my book, that would be equivalent to a big, fat FU to God’s face…yeah, if I was God, you can be sure I wouldnt want that happening…

    @223
    Well, we cant force you to a decision. It is you that decides, and it is quite clear what your decision is, even though your still talking like you have credible backing…Thats all fine and dandy, but dont judge people because of their belief. I think that is rather rude to try and pretend like you know him. You have no idea who he is, or even if its a dude! Thanks for your time, regardless.

  25. me
    November 21st, 2007 | 03:25

    And so the discusion continues. Boy this seems to have been a touchy subject. In an earlier post of mine (pg 1) “The trinity wasnt even considered untill 350AD made so by emperial decree of the pagan emperor Constantine.” As for the flood issue: Every time it rains it rains water once held on earth gone to the atmosphere by evaporation. If all H2O were released from the atmosphere at once it would only be enough to cover all land mass by 2 inches. The funny thing would be for someone to travel this in a ship 300 cubits long (whats a cubit) for 40 days without becoming beached. I would assume (unless your God gave it some hovercraft capabilities) Noah would have beached in a very short time.

    By the way I’m selling a statue on Staton Island if your interested. LOL

  26. wah
    November 21st, 2007 | 06:19

    @214 BOB

    “Why is it that almost all Creationists are from the US? It’s virtually non-existant in Europe, Australia and NZ. Suggestions in those regions were immediately laughed out.”

    You tell me. AFIK, popularity and notoriety doesn’t change absolute truth.
    ——–
    “When was the last time “Creation Scientists” produced anything of value in terms of adding value to existing knowledge/technology?”

    Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal. The fact is that those scientists were driven by the ‘theistic worldview’ to explore the world around them, even if they weren’t ‘bible-believing Christians’. But since these men generally believed that the heavens genuinely declare the glory of God (Ps. 19: 1), IMO, I believe that they possessed both the necessary conceptual framework and the spiritual incentive to boldly explore nature’s mysteries. Apparently, “creationism” wasn’t in common use until the late 19th century, but prior to that time, the Christian worldview (common in Europe at the time) supported the underlying ‘principles’ that made ’scientific inquiry’ possible and desirable and provided the basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish.

    Such principles can be loosely described as:
    [creation ex nihlio (that God created the orderly world around us, reflecting His rational nature)],
    or [Gen. 1:26-7 (that humankind was uniquely created in God's image, thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order],
    or [God's general revelation (God's creative actions discoverable in nature - "God's world")],
    or [the teachings of the New Testament and the wisdom literature of the Old Testament which both consistently exhorts God's people to exercise the virtues of discernment, reflection, and vigorous analysis.]
    These principles served as the backdrop for the emerging ‘experimental method/scientific inquiry’ (testability, verification/falsification).

    Charle’s Hummel says, “some of the philosophical presuppositions foundational to the study of science include these: the existence of an objectively real world, the comprehensibility of that world, the reliability of sense perception and human rationality, the orderliness and uniformity of nature, and the validity of mathematics and logic. I believe those are ‘rooted in Christian theism’s claims of an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has carefully ordered the universe and provided man with a mind that corresponds to the universe’s intelligibility. This Christian schema served as the intellectual breeding ground for modern science. It sustained science and enabled it to flourish.’

    Besides, it’s a pointless question for you to ask. That’s on the order of, “When was the last time “theists” produced anything of value in terms of adding value to the naturalists’ worldview?”

    ——
    “Would you accept my evidence for the benifits of eugenics if I linked to a skin-head web site?”

    They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. On the other hand, biased or not, I’ve presented you historical evidence that is actually related to the topic at hand. Even if it is not really credible and appears to be, that doesn’t relieve your obligation as a debater to refute it, which you really haven’t directly done. Oh, you misspelled “benifits”.

    ***************
    @215 Who Cares

    “And considering that there are no peer reviewed publications on the Arc, the creation, flood geology or the young earth,”

    Are you positively sure about that? And do you assume there’s only one creationist model?
    ——
    “this makes a pretty clear case of what the scientific community thinks of the bible”

    And for what reason do you believe that the scientific community rejects ID journals? its apparent lack of presence in mainstream journals? political controversy? misunderstandings about the theory itself? “popular opinion”? “new paradigm opposition?” and speaking of the mere “opposition of new paradigms”, it is only to be expected that they are rejected, even if there are evidence.

    So the real question is: Does the scientific community decide to publicize (or not) a peer-reviewed journal on the basis of its evidential merits, or simply because of the above?

    So is your opinion on ID or Christianity in general because you’ve actually tested the theory or historical evidence yourself and see if it holds up? or is it based upon its apparent lack of presence in mainstream journals, or by the “popular opinion” of the scientific community?
    ———
    “Every university with a biology faculty houses a department for evolutionary biology, but none has one for creation studies.”

    And your point?

    *************
    @217 Velo

    Science changes because our knowledge increases through research and methods. But the truth that God speaks by His creation and the ‘dynamic universe’ which God created for us to discover and learn will never change.

    ************
    @218 Redem

    “Your source looks all nice and sciencey, certainly enough so to dazzle anyone who knows little of genetics.”

    Have you ever considered that it was just a summary, and that the sources and references used in that summary have already taken into account of what you were talking about?
    ————-
    @222 Redem

    “for making the best conclusion out of the available data”

    the data in question is the world around you that God created for you to make a conclusion out of. So I take it you worship the created rather than the Creator?

    ***********
    @223 Not Stupid

    “Well, I know now that “wah” is completely brainwashed and can not study beyond the “Bible” and what’s being fed to him.”

    …and coming from someone who appears to be completely narrow-minded and unable to look from another’s perspective, let alone think outside the box.

    Moreover, you’re judging my beliefs based on what again? Your determination or lack of research?
    ————–
    “Latin is NOT the original language and I will not tell you what it is.”

    No shi_t sherlock holmes.
    ——————-
    “And the “trinity” is heresy. As your “Jesus” said, “That all men should worship The Father alone.” I will let YOU, wah, search where that one is.”

    You make the claim in Scripture. You back it up with verses.
    ——————-
    “Oh and by your “talk type” you must be catholic. Maybe in Jesuit school?”

    Guess again. You thought I was Catholic because it appeared to you that I knew more about Catholic history than I should, which contradicts your claim that I “can not study beyond the “Bible””.
    ——————-
    “I don’t want and won’t buy your LOAD of CRAP which are LIES and DECEIT.”

    I’m sorry. Did I ever offer you salvation?
    ——————–
    “Either way, anyone who continues in this “tripe” is just wasting breath and “chewing on air”.”

    Seems like you did that a little too well when you replied to my earlier responses. And it looks to me you do it much better than I.

    @225 me
    “The trinity wasnt even considered untill 350AD made so by emperial decree of the pagan emperor Constantine.”

    After 500 years I’m pretty sure protestants, who charged the catholic church for teaching biblical doctrine contradictory to the Word of God, would’ve checked to see if it is indeed what the Trinity claims to be.
    ———————-
    “As for the flood issue:”

    If you believe that God helped Noah, then what’s the problem?

  27. Redem
    November 21st, 2007 | 07:27

    Darth Archon, if you were god you wouldn’t be worth worshipping either.

    You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.

    Morality isn’t really gone they way you claim it is. It’s simply not an absolute. There is a difference. Nor is there a lack of meaning, simply a lack of a meaning imposed from outside. There is as much meaning from an evolutionary standpoint as there is from a gravitational one. The claim is meaningless when you consider that morality has nothing to do with science. You are conflating science with naturalism, and nihilism.

    Perhaps your world view is more.. comforting, more fulfilling or whatever… I don’t really care. I care if it’s right, and that is the only standards to which I hold it. I also compare it to the similar views expressed by the hundreds of other religious groups in the world, and there is nothing that makes yours stand out from the crowd.

  28. wah
    November 21st, 2007 | 07:52

    @227 Redem

    “You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.”

    Actually it’s the other way around. God ascribes his attributes or ‘desires’ onto humans. As Gen. 1:26-7 tells us God created us in His image. It is man’s fall (sin) that corrupted these attributes/desires within him. For example, we’re jealous out of hate (at least 99% of the time), while God is jealous out of love.

    “Morality play”

    Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?

  29. Who cares
    November 21st, 2007 | 08:19

    Wah:
    Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!
    Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.

    So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?

  30. Mr. X staff member
    November 21st, 2007 | 08:30

    My goodness we’ve reached page three. I think this is a milestone for my TV posts. I encourage more discussions.

  31. wah
    November 21st, 2007 | 09:41

    @229 Who Cares

    Well, I guess you’re not sure at all that there are no peer-reviewed journals. Why make a claim you’re not sure of? Oh, that’s right. It shows your lack of confidence.

    “Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!”

    As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?

    “Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID…”

    Are you absolutely sure you don’t need the lack of evidence to reject ID? Maybe what you need is the belief that intelligent design is an untestable religious theory that has no place competing with true empirically based scientific theories in the journals, or the simple lack of inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to you. Is the science that is commonly excluded from the journals excluded because it is not good science or because it is simply out-of-step with the “current teachings of science?”
    ——————-
    “…will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.”

    That wasn’t the case with the transition from geocentricism to heliocentrism. And let me make an educated guess: you’re a biologist?
    —————
    “So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?”

    Oh, now you’re accusing me of burning down abortion clinics? Who do you think you’re talking to? A fundamentalist? If you’re so butt hurt about ‘anti-scientists’ who fight on the front-line then you need to leave somewhere political to murmur to extreme zealots. I’m sure they’ll straighten you up pretty good. As for me, on some grounds, admittedly science is an enemy to God but for the most part, it’s an ally, serving to affirm God’s truth, by discovering and learning about the world that God’s given to us, through the scientific method.

    *****************
    @230 Mr. X

    How you’re doing Mr. X?

  32. BOB
    November 21st, 2007 | 10:53

    “Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal”

    None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians. And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid. I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.

    Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.

    Newton believed in alchemy.

    And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.

    Take that as you will.

  33. wah
    November 21st, 2007 | 12:24

    @232
    :lol:

    “None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”

    So? Are they still not scientists?

    “And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”

    Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.

    “I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”

    That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.

    “Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”

    Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.

    “Newton believed in alchemy.”

    I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?

    “And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”

    That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.

    “Take that as you will.”

    You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.

  34. wah
    November 21st, 2007 | 12:25

    @232 BOB
    :lol:

    “None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”

    So? Are they still not scientists?

    “And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”

    Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.

    “I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”

    That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.

    “Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”

    Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.

    “Newton believed in alchemy.”

    I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?

    “And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”

    That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.

    “Take that as you will.”

    You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.

  35. wah
    November 21st, 2007 | 12:28

    @232 BOB
    :lol:

    “None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”

    So? Are they still not scientists?

    “And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”

    Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.

    “I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”

    That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.

    “Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”

    Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the center of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.

    “Newton believed in alchemy.”

    I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?

    “And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”

    That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. Allow me to spin your view to how science appears to me: What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.

    “Take that as you will.”

    You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is soo loow below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.

  36. wah
    November 21st, 2007 | 12:31

    uhhh… oops. would someone mind deleting the first two comments I accidentally made, including this one?

  37. Who cares
    November 21st, 2007 | 15:49

    Wah:
    So God gave us the scientific method only to disprove his inspired word? Come on, who would sabotage himself in this manner? Why would he create a perfectly logic universe and then obscure it with outrageous stories? He is not doing a great job in showing himself. No wonder philosophy killed him like 150 years ago. Nobody likes a liar.

    You see, the pervasive thing with evolution is: It’s everywhere; in medicine, the natural sciences, humanities, even in those ‘i-am-better-than-you’ social sciences.
    All of the drugs you can buy against viruses, bacteria and parasites are based on it. Otherwise we could still cure pneumonia with penicillin.
    All drug testing is based on the presumption that the animals we test them on share most of our physiological traits by common evolutionary ancestry. Flu vaccine is freshly prepared every year to provide protection against the newly evolved influence strains of Asia.
    So changing the paradigm away from evolution to creationism is kinda impossible, considering any form of life on this planet.
    I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?

    Well, of course not, only a madman would think so.
    But not you, as you are clearly not a fundamentalist.
    You just believe that God can materialize water, flood the earth for over a month, make the water disappear without leaving any trace and replenish the biosphere with every animal we see today, ressurect all the drowned plants, give the pinguin, the boa and the koala directions how to reach their natural habitat (considering they start their journy at the middle east) and reinstitute mankind from a starting population population of 8.
    Yeah, that’s a rational stance.

  38. velo
    November 21st, 2007 | 16:50

    @237 Who cares

    I totally agree.

    Creationist believe that god created all living things in 6 days, fully evolved.

    But the bible clearly states that Noah gathered 2 of every KIND of animal on the ark (like if that would be a good argument for all the animals fitting on the ark).

    One type of cat, one type of bird, one type of pig, one type of goat, one type of dog, one type of bear, one type of moose, one type of monkey, one type of dinosaur etc. That means that after the flood, the animals didn’t only need to get back home on the other side of the earth. They would have had to EVOLVE into every type of cat, bird, pig, goat, dog, bear etc we have today. in 5500 years. WOW.

    As for the humans, there where 8 of them on the ark, they also evolved from one geographical race to 9.

    I’ve always wondered why God, who is perfect in every way, decides to kill everything and start over… a God who cant do mistakes.

    A god who is all-knowing would have known what was coming, actually he must have planed it. Did he then do it only because he enjoys killing on a scale that hitler could only dream of?

    A God who is such a prick does now deserve anyone’s worship.

    Luckily he doesn’t exist, unfortunately people believe he does, so it doesn’t really matter.

    If there ever will be a global catastrophe that wipes out all life on this planet I’m betting my cards on its because people cant agree on who’s invisible friend is the right one.

  39. Redem
    November 21st, 2007 | 20:49

    “Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?”

    Relative, rather than subjective. And it’s less a matter of belief than recognition of morality across history.

    “As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?”
    It’s not a matter of “could” such a being do it, but did such a being do it. The evidence says no.

    Newton and Copernicus are only recognised as scientists by a simplistic view of history. They were student of the universe, certainly, but not scientists as we use the term today. They’re given the title as an honourary term in recognition of their contribution to the development of science.

  40. Darth Arcon
    November 21st, 2007 | 23:37

    @Redem (227)
    You do realize that is still not a valid answer, right? What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.” Typical evolutionist perspective there. Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like? Sure, we can make an educated guess based on what little facts we do know from countless experiments, but it is still only a guess. We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks. Im not saying science didnt play a large part in that conclusion, what I AM saying is that where science stopped, human logic filled in the gaps.

    Now, this is but an example of how science cannot prove everything. So, when you turn around and say that what I stated is false simply because it cannot be scientifically proven, you are using this pre-conceived “fallback” to avoid the need to come up with a logical response. I dont want you to tell me, “Thats just the way it is.” Such a response betrays you own belief.

    If morality has meaning in evolution……..ya know what? It doesnt! The day morality has meaning in evolution is the day when (for lack of a creative idea that will never happen, sorry Im not very good at thinking of pink unicorn stories…) pigs fly. When looking at morality within an evolutionary perspective, it doesnt exist! According to evolution, we are nothing but mindless animals, so why dont we act like it? And dont tell me it is because we are civilized. What advantage does civilization play in the terms of evolution? Even if human being acted in a way that was only advantageous to themselves, they would still survive and, eventually with evolution being true, would evolve into yet another mindless animal who would continue the process.

    As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong? You are still, obviously, missing the point by saying such comments. IF you are right, the fact you are trying to “educate” me in your belief is pointless. It doesnt matter what you or I believe, eventually we will both end up dead in the ground (or cremated, but thats not the point…). You waist precious energy trying to disprove me, energy you could be using to pass your genetic material on so that you may be a more “fit” creature. You are betraying your existence by continuing to come back! Yet, here you are, still trying to put up the good fight. Explain that with science!

  41. Redem
    November 22nd, 2007 | 04:39

    “What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.””

    “If there’s no good evidence for it, there’s no good reason for accepting it.” is how I would have put it.
    A typical rational response.

    “Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like?”
    That you even use a term like “scientifically proven” display a lack of understanding of science. Nothing is proven to an absolute sense in science, to the extent that things are “proven”, the structure of an atom has been. That scientists are willing to specify the limits of their knowledge is a damn cite better than the religious community is.

    The structure of an atom can be derived from the behaviours of subatomic particles, and from the behaviour of atoms. Both of which have been studied in minute detail over the years by the best particle physicists in the business.
    Their conclusions, and the continual mounting evidence for their current model, amounts to a hell of a lot better than a mere “educated guess”.
    An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence. The conclusions of the scientific community goes far beyond that.

    “We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks.”

    Again with the highschool science education. Those diagrams are massive simplifications used to help young students grasp extremely difficult concepts like the structure of atoms. As their education progresses they learn more and more and more complex models are presented to them. Like particles as quantum probability waves, for example. Or DNA as mapping proteins, rather than being a “blueprint” for an organism.

    Do not confuse high school science teaching with the real thing.

    And what you describe as “human logic” is the human understanding of the rules of the universe. We recognise them, we don’t invent.

    You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available. They also are based on the opinions of people who really have no basis for them, priests compiling their oral traditions from bronze age Judea. They’re also internally inconsistent, with multiple accounts differing in some of the details. Mutually incompatible accounts.
    Then there is the “arguments” that are raised time and again by creationists to support their cause. Ones regarding the second law of thermodynamics are a person bugbear of mine. Many of them are plain and simply either lies or are based on a total distortion of the science and evidence.

    The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality, unless you are really just trying to abuse strawmen?

    “As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong?”
    I care.

    And I do not subscribe to nihilism. You present a false dichotomy of either nihilism or fundamentalism. I choose neither.

    My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.

  42. wah
    November 22nd, 2007 | 05:11

    @237 Who Cares

    “So God gave us the scientific method only to disprove his inspired word?”

    And where does that say in Scripture?
    —————
    “Come on, who would sabotage himself in this manner? Why would he create a perfectly logic universe and then obscure it with outrageous stories?”

    I don’t see anything wrong that. Science need not be an enemy of faith, because science deals only with natural cause and effect: not *disproving* the supernatural, but merely ignoring it.
    —————
    “He is not doing a great job in showing himself. No wonder philosophy killed him like 150 years ago.”

    One of my Christian acquaintances has a BS in philosophy, who happens to be the leader for the College & Career Fellowship. Last time I checked he’s still a Christian. I think it’s safe to say God is still alive and well these days, don’cha think?
    —————
    “Nobody likes a liar.”

    That’s an outrageous claim. Could you back that up with Scripture?
    —————-
    “You see, the pervasive thing with evolution is: It’s everywhere; in medicine, the natural sciences, humanities, even in those ‘i-am-better-than-you’ social sciences.
    All of the drugs you can buy against viruses, bacteria and parasites are based on it. Otherwise we could still cure pneumonia with penicillin…..I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?”

    That’s all cool, and, admittedly, that’s one of the reasons why I believe that evolution should not be entirely kicked out. I’ll be honest, I completely SUCK in a wide range of scientific fields (biology and what not) but when it comes to Geology, I’m not all that smart at it but its a different thing for me. So all I can take out of evolution is that I believe that those who follow the theory believe that everything around us has evolved out of something else, hence the title: Evolution. I believe that God has created us in such a complex way, so we’d be interested in learning things, finding things out, researching stuff about ourselves and about this world. Basically I believe that God delights in things like when we study out his creativity. Thats the okay side to evolution in my opinion. Whats not okay is that just like everything else in this world, evolution can take our minds and hearts off God when we go too far.
    —————
    “All drug testing is based on the presumption that the animals we test them on share most of our physiological traits by common evolutionary ancestry. Flu vaccine is freshly prepared every year to provide protection against the newly evolved influence strains of Asia.
    So changing the paradigm away from evolution to creationism is kinda impossible, considering any form of life on this planet.”

    You’re absolutely right! All is well, even if people like Dr. Josef Mengele further the advancement of medicine.
    —————
    “…I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?”

    Personally, I don’t see any problem in teaching evolution as long as it is taught as a *theory*, nothing more. Students need to understand that theories change.

    In college, when I studied evolution, I recall a professor saying how laughably misguided the Lamarkian theory of evolution is (the idea that organisms can pass on traits they develop to their offspring, e.g. if I work out a lot, my kids will be born with bigger muscles). Then I got to graduate school and found that serious biologists no longer believe in Darwinian evolution, and that Lamark is the next big thing (but now they call it paedoevolution.) Scientific theories are fads that come and go.

    I will look at from your perspective and admit that evolution is part of the basic biological science cirriculum, of course, but also that the natural world that biology and the other scientific disciplines describe IS part of God’s revelation to man and Christians not only can, but must, learn from if they are to avoid gnosticism–a heresy some parts of the Christian conservative movement are perilously very close to.

    Still, there are many more productive ways to spend our time than in debating evolution. Even when it comes to education, schools are teaching things far more harmful than evolution. (Most of you, for example, would be shocked to hear what schools there in New England teach as part of sex ed.)
    —————-
    “You just believe that God can materialize water, flood the earth for over a….reinstitute mankind from a starting population population of 8.”

    That’s not hard to believe if you’re a Biblical theist who believes in the power of God here. If God is capable of creation ex-nihilo then stretching the laws of physics shouldn’t be too hard for God, now is it?
    ———–
    “Yeah, that’s a rational stance.”

    Rationality is not the only way to perceive reality, let alone know things.

    Evolution has been widely accepted by the scientific community at large for the better part of the last half century. In the spirit of exploring a basic theological question, the problem Christians, and more and more scientists, have with teaching evolution in school, is that, as a theory it is becoming less tenable with every new discovery. In light of this as we already know, many Christians and scientists, have been advocating the introduction of the ID theory. In fact, many in the political and scientific sphere having been lining up against these new forays into the ID curriculum on the grounds that it is “anti-science” and religious. Of course, the problem with this is that theory of evolution is on life-support itself and ID is at least as scientific as evolution (and I say a great deal more so) and the ID curriculum in no way teaches about God, or Christianity, or any other religion or religious activity. The reason so many people are so vehemently against the introduction of ID is that there are now two different faces to the scientific community: the impartial face, that gathers evidence and postulates theories based on research and repeatable experiments. The other face is that of science as dogma, where scientists have taken on a world-view and they are desperate to make the evidence fit the Christian doctrine. As far as wiping out evolution? If it is unsupportable, as it is becoming more and more clear that it is, then there is nothing that can be learned from it, and it should be swept onto the trash-heap of history.

    *******************************

    @238 Velo

    “Creationist believe that god created all living things in 6 days, fully evolved.”

    How any Creationist can believe that God is capable of creation ex-nihilo but not stretch the laws of science is beyond me.
    —————
    “But the bible clearly states that Noah gathered 2 of every KIND of animal on the ark (like if that would be a good argument for all the animals fitting on the ark). One type of cat, one type of bird, one type of pig, one type of goat, one type of dog, one type of bear, one type of moose, one type of monkey, one type of dinosaur etc.”

    Babies? Like I said before, you could always take the babies. They’re smaller. You could also only take two dogs, not a dog of every KIND. Dogs do change and still remain dogs. Let me also point out that if God can find a way to flood the Earth I think he can work out these small details.
    —————
    “That means that after the flood, the animals didn’t only need to get back home on the other side of the earth. They would have had to EVOLVE into every type of cat, bird, pig, goat, dog, bear etc we have today.”

    God created the universe just 6 chapters earlier. He caused a flood that will destroy virtually all life on the planet in the last chapter. He’s about to repopulate the Earth again. However, your big hang up is over farm animals…it seems rather reasonable that God creating life could also perform miracles.
    ————–
    “in 5500 years. WOW. As for the humans, there where 8 of them on the ark, they also evolved from one geographical race to 9.”

    The fact that you base most of your entire argument on “5500 years” logic, basically rules out your entire argument at the least because you’re not talking to a Young-Earth Creationist here. In fact, I would lean more heavily on the Day-age creationism. And even if I was a young-earth creationist, I would simply argue that if God can create the universe, organize the cosmos, design DNA and well everything else, I’m sure He can figure SOMETHING out. I would ask you what makes you think that Satan couldn’t of distorted nature to lie about God? But it’s just hypothetical. God very well could have used evolution to create all things as we know it. The bible said God created everything in 6 days but who knows exactly how long a day was? It doesn’t necessarily mean 24 hours for all we know it could be millions of years. Some Christians read it literary and others figuratively. Nevertheless, it’s still speculation. But since science wasn’t invented those days, it was most likely written as an historical event. Some say it is to be read poetically. I would suggest that the answer comes down to what you think constitutes faithful reading of God’s Word. If you believe all Scripture must be read literally (which is to say, take it a face value and ignore the entire cultural modes in which the Scripture writers communicated), then you should believe the earth was created in six days; but you should also go ahead and pluck out your eye for causing you to sin. To say, or ignorantly presuppose like you have, that all scripture must be read literally is quite dangerous and frankly ignores the way the Holy Spirit used the different literary expressions his people used to communicate. To argue that not taking Genesis 1 and 2 literally means not taking Jesus literally is a logical fallacy of cosmic proportions. Jesus himself did not intend to be taken at face value every time he spoke. He was too smart for that. His teaching abounds with poetry, allegory, hyperbole and a plethora of other literary devices that would be simply ridiculous if taken ‘literally.’ Genesis 1 and 2 are works of poetry that are unmatched in the ancient world just because of their sheer beauty and poetic structure. They were meant to teach something to God’s people. God is the supreme and only Creator and sustainer of that creation. Man is his most prized creation. The Sabbath is the day in which man honors God by ceasing his work and remembering the created order, with God being at its pinnacle. That is the point of Genesis 1 and 2. Get your ‘facts’ str8 before you make false accusations!

    Besides and more importantly, all of these seem like rather petty obstacles when compared to creating and organizing the cosmos from scratch.
    ————
    “I’ve always wondered why God, who is perfect in every way, decides to kill everything and start over… a God who cant do mistakes.”

    God understands better then we can and ever will be. That’s why He’s perfect and we’re not.
    ————
    “A god who is all-knowing would have known what was coming, actually he must have planed it. Did he then do it only because he enjoys killing on a scale that hitler could only dream of?”

    What you are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn’t exist. Such assertion is illogical from the start. So what you are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. You want to use illogic to prove God doesn’t exist instead of logic. It doesn’t work and the “paradox” is self-refuting and invalid.

    ***************************

    @239 Redem

    “Relative, rather than subjective.”

    Relative as in your morals do not depend on your neighbor’s? Nonetheless, do you personally live by them?
    —————–
    “And it’s less a matter of belief than recognition of morality across history.”

    So, more or less, you do recognize that throughout history and across the globe that morals have simply changed and are merely different between societies and cultures, physically defined more by demographic regions than most other factors. But what about the effects of relative morality from different periods of history and their societal/cultural influences? To simply put it, do we even need a trans-cultural basis for moral values? If that’s the case, then you must admit that practices such as Dr. Josef Mengele’s human experiments to further the study of medicine during the Jewish Holocaust, the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands), or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms, are all morally unobjectionable.
    —————
    “Newton and Copernicus….”

    That is such a ‘cop-out’ statement.

  43. wah
    November 22nd, 2007 | 05:12

    @ Velo and Who Cares

    The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin. Yet your evolutionary belief absolutely requires death for it’s advancement. But if human death were not God’s judgment on sin, as ‘theistic evolutionists’ would have to maintain, what then did Christ die for? By you clinging to evolutionary dogma, both of you would have to admit that Jesus lied when He claimed to die for your sins. Consequently, the atonement is robbed of all meaning, while the Gospel is hollowed to an empty shell. In your vain attempts to deny Scripture with evolutionary theory, you only wind up shutting yourselves up from God’s Good News, as you remain dead in your sins.

    IMHO, the Word of God is law, not theory. While evolution is theory, not law. As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.

  44. Redem
    November 22nd, 2007 | 06:35

    “Relative as in your morals do not depend on your neighbor’s? Nonetheless, do you personally live by them?”

    Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.

    And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?

    If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine.

    “If that’s the case, then you must admit that practices such as Dr. Josef Mengele’s human experiments to further the study of medicine during the Jewish Holocaust, the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands), or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms, are all morally unobjectionable.”

    Nope.
    There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever. All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.
    Something absolutists rarely understand,or at least rarely seem to remember.

    “That is such a ‘cop-out’ statement.”

    As I said, I care about being correct. And my statement was correct. Those men were not scientists. Science, as we use the term today, postdates those men by a large margin. They were natural philosophers.
    Nowhere did I say that creationists have not contributed to science. I was merely undermining your attempted appeal to authority :)

    “The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin.”

    Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.

    “As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.”

    There are few laws in biology, such terms have mostly been phased out of science, except as an historical anachronism. When it is used it is to describe an aspect of the universe, such as the laws of gravity being little more than a few formulae for calculating the effects of gravitation on bodies of mass. Of course they’re little more than broad generalisations that only work to a useful degree of accuracy in working out orbits and such. And even then they’re a bit iffy.

    A theory in science is an explanation of observed phenomenon, a much broader and more expansive beast than a mere law. Theories are the goal towards which scientists work.

    So, you need to clarify what you mean. Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Because direct and repeated observations of it in laboratories worldwide would seem good enough for that. Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it? That’s a tall order to ask, on a par with asking us to prove the entire history of every molecule on earth, right back to baryogenesis.

    As far as anything can be proven outside of mathematics, the theory of evolution has been. Long since.

  45. Redem
    November 22nd, 2007 | 06:47

    “Personally, I don’t see any problem in teaching evolution as long as it is taught as a *theory*, nothing more. Students need to understand that theories change.”

    last I checked the title of the chapter was “The theory of evolution”. What more clues do you think kids need?

    Of course, they also need be taught what a scientific theory is ;)

    “In college, when I studied evolution, I recall a professor saying how laughably misguided the Lamarkian theory of evolution is (the idea that organisms can pass on traits they develop to their offspring, e.g. if I work out a lot, my kids will be born with bigger muscles). Then I got to graduate school and found that serious biologists no longer believe in Darwinian evolution, and that Lamark is the next big thing (but now they call it paedoevolution.) Scientific theories are fads that come and go.”

    This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.

    As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.

    http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-109206.html

  46. Who cares
    November 22nd, 2007 | 10:12

    Wah.
    May I destill the wisedom of your annoyingly long posting:
    Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.

    Wah, do you know what an ‘electric monk’ is? Are you one?

  47. wah
    November 22nd, 2007 | 11:56

    “Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.

    And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?

    If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine…”

    Both. For the latter, say their morals don’t agree with yours (they do something you think is immoral) as well as your morals don’t agree with their’s (you do something they think is immoral).

    “There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever.”

    Apparently, since their morals don’t agree with yours you simply don’t live by their’s because they’re immoral. To whom do you think it’s immoral for?

    “All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.”

    Do you think there should be one?

    “Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.”

    AFAIK, and I could be very well be wrong, there is only one literal interpretation for that particular context because it contains a twofold meaning: spiritual and physical death and they both result from sin. Unless there are other interpretations, I’d like to hear them.

    “Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it?”

    I mean scientific law in the sense that evolution is more of a (natural) law than a theory, that it is what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered, and that it should be akin to a belief in gravity as both have been observed. By observation, where we can say some living populations of God’s creatures evolve over time.

    “This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.

    As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.”

    I don’t remember exactly how it’s spelled, somewhere along the lines of paleoevolution or….something. I’m not at all referring to the view that the process of evolutionary theories accumulate data over time to reveal better understanding for us about the entire history of Evolution. My point is these evolutionary fads come in and out in community ‘cliques’, as if they are wishy-washy in ‘choosing’ or ‘believing’ which interpretation of the whole of evolution makes the most sense. Kind of like, a ’scientific evolutionary biology’ trend.

    @Who Cares

    “Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.”

    Only true if you’re trying to explain away theology about God to a theist. And that’s exactly what you were trying to do. In your attempt to do just that in an area which you obviously lack in, your words became meaningless.

    Here’s a phrase that sums up your entire point: “I don’t know what I’m really talking about.”

  48. wah
    November 22nd, 2007 | 12:28

    @Who Cares

    And you know what is true in Scripture?

    “For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]” Rom 1:20

    “No one understands [no one intelligently discerns or comprehends]; no one seeks out God” Rom 3:11

  49. Who cares
    November 22nd, 2007 | 14:47

    Wah
    Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
    Marvellous indeed!

  50. Redem
    November 22nd, 2007 | 20:19

    “Both. For the latter, say their morals don’t agree with yours (they do something you think is immoral) as well as your morals don’t agree with their’s (you do something they think is immoral).”

    Depends on the situation. There are no hard and fast rules.

    “Apparently, since their morals don’t agree with yours you simply don’t live by their’s because they’re immoral. To whom do you think it’s immoral for?”
    Immoral by my moral values, the only ones I live by. I think I made that clear in my post.

    “Do you think there should be one?”

    Irrelevant question. The question is, is there one?

    “AFAIK, and I could be very well be wrong, there is only one literal interpretation for that particular context because it contains a twofold meaning: spiritual and physical death and they both result from sin. Unless there are other interpretations, I’d like to hear them.”

    Ignoring allegorical interpretations, it could be viewed as the garden of eden not being a natural phenomenon, but a spiritual one. With the expulsion from the garden being the expulsion to the physical world from the spiritual one. This coming from the phrase “made in god’s image”. Obviously god doesn’t have a physical form, so it’s not the physical we’re talking about there, but the soul.

    “I mean scientific law in the sense that evolution is more of a (natural) law than a theory, that it is what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered, and that it should be akin to a belief in gravity as both have been observed. By observation, where we can say some living populations of God’s creatures evolve over time.”

    It is a natural law, but there can be no scientific law for the reasons I already explained. There are theories of gravity as well as laws, both are different things. Laws are simple descriptions, and the theory of evolution, like every other theory, will never be a law. There can be laws and theories about the same subject, but they’re not the same. There is no.. continuum of reliability between laws and theories.

    Check it yourself. The various laws in science text books, Hooke’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Laws of Motion, all are short, simple descriptions of an aspect of nature. Look at theories, they’re overarching explanations, incorporating other theories and laws in them.

    Now, if you want us to evolve a living group of creatures over time, why is the historical record of the evolution of dogs not good enough? Or of other domesticated animals for that matter.
    Or of the plants we use, which is even more dramatic. Or more recently the studies with fruit flies and mice and bacteria and such in laboratories.

    We HAVE seen it in action.

    “My point is these evolutionary fads come in and out in community ‘cliques’, as if they are wishy-washy in ‘choosing’ or ‘believing’ which interpretation of the whole of evolution makes the most sense. Kind of like, a ’scientific evolutionary biology’ trend.”

    I’m still not seeing any fads, there are areas of the research that explode at times, like when a new theory is proposed, like punctuated equilibrium.

    For paleoevolution I get 5 pages of google results. Hardly the “next big thing”, or even the last big thing for that matter. From the looks of it the term is simply used to discuss the evolution of historical creatures, i.e. those in the fossil record. As the name would suggest.

  51. wah
    November 22nd, 2007 | 23:30

    “Depends on the situation. There are no hard and fast rules.”

    Think of any law in your local area, city, state/province or country that someone else may disagree on its morality.

    “Immoral by my moral values, the only ones I live by. I think I made that clear in my post.”

    So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?

    “Irrelevant question. The question is, is there one?”

    So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?

    “it could be viewed as the garden of eden not being a natural phenomenon, but a spiritual one. With the expulsion from the garden being the expulsion to the physical world from the spiritual one. This coming from the phrase “made in god’s image”. Obviously god doesn’t have a physical form, so it’s not the physical we’re talking about there, but the soul.”

    I agree, to a certain extent that it possesses a spiritual, non-corporeal reality to it. It could be viewed as well as a supernatural phenomenon simply because the manifestation of a physical reality is a direct result from God’s personal and intimate interaction with His corporeal creation.

    “It is a natural law, but there can be no scientific law for the reasons I already explained. There are theories of gravity as well as laws, both are different things. Laws are simple descriptions, and the theory of evolution, like every other theory, will never be a law. There can be laws and theories about the same subject, but they’re not the same. There is no.. continuum of reliability between laws and theories.

    Check it yourself. The various laws in science text books, Hooke’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Laws of Motion, all are short, simple descriptions of an aspect of nature. Look at theories, they’re overarching explanations, incorporating other theories and laws in them.”

    So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?

    “Now, if you want us to evolve a living group of creatures over time, why is the historical record of the evolution of dogs not good enough? Or of other domesticated animals for that matter.
    Or of the plants we use, which is even more dramatic. Or more recently the studies with fruit flies and mice and bacteria and such in laboratories.

    We HAVE seen it in action.”

    I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.

    “I’m still not seeing any fads, there are areas of the research that explode at times, like when a new theory is proposed, like punctuated equilibrium.”

    I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.

  52. Darth Arcon
    November 23rd, 2007 | 02:01

    Redem, you are still avoiding the issue. Your post in response to mine (which is actually the only one I read, Im a little short on time right now…) is blowing what I said WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.

    Almost your entire response was a bogus use of words which sole purpose it to distort what you are actually saying. Why are you incapable of staying on subject? Stop attacking every single word I say. Your missing the point, which is rather sad. If you cant read my…apparently “highschool” explanation, and get what I intended to say, that is rather pathetic…

    Now, to maintain the subject integrity…

    Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.”

    “An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence.”

    HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent. Maybe I should have used the term “educated opinion”. While they both mean the same thing (and yes, they do both mean the same thing), the word “opinion” seems to be more clear. An “educated opinion” is when you cannot come to a solid conclusion, and therefore, need to pool what knowledge you DO have together and connect the dots using your good ole’ brain…It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false. Actually, thats all Im gunna say bout that cause this is just an unnecessary tangent…

    “You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available.”

    Yeah, go ahead and tell yourself that…Yet again, you seem a master at skewing other people’s words for your own ends…You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”. Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…

    “The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality”

    You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument. First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans. Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?! Besides, both paths (morality vs immorality) come to the same conclusion, your survival. For the longest time, immorality ruled. Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!

    “My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.”

    Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.

  53. wah
    November 23rd, 2007 | 03:53

    @250 Who Cares

    “Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
    Marvellous indeed!”

    I don’t think you seem to understand my point of view. Obviously, I’ve made an attempt to see your side but instead attack my beliefs simply because it is different from yours. I believe that science is not the ‘be-all-end-all’ of explaining everything and all things as opposed to it being one of the many ways to understand things.

    From a scientific-biological POV, it is logically impossible to rationally *comprehend* things concerning spirituality, moral/absolute truth (in the sense that it doesn’t recognizes its existence), religious theology, history, dynamic human interpersonal relationships, artistic forms of literature, vocal/instrumental music, etc. Things of that nature are simply beyond its reach/grasp. For any science-biologists to attempt to apprehend such things is doomed to failure.

    Likewise, Scripture does not teach you differential calculus, Internet web surfing, automotive construction, things of that nature. So for a Biblical theist to try to apprehend them from a theological perspective is simply silly.

    Are there other ways to understand reality other than Scriptural and biological views? I certainly believe so. There’s mythological ways, historical ways, literary ways, economical and political ways, financial ways, etc. You get my point.

    Can I understand reality from a scientific-biological and Scriptural-spiritual POV? Yes. It appears to me that you’ve either failed to open your mind to a new perspective of understanding reality as we know it to be OR, instead, insisted upon to stay within your comfort zone to believe, no, just consider, that the reality we live in cannot be apprehended from a perspective simply foreign to your way of thinking.

    Consider the following biblical verses that show us that even though God revealed Himself to us through our reality (or rather the ‘one’ He put us in), we have failed to become ’spiritually aware’ due to the hardness of our hearts.

    “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.” Romans 1:19

    “Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.” Romans 1:21-23

  54. wah
    November 23rd, 2007 | 04:37

    @ Redem

    “Now, to maintain the subject integrity…

    Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””

    I think you may be having difficulty understanding morality outside of the scientific-evolutionary perspective. That there are ways to understand morality other than evolutionary-biology. I think you should try to see it from Darth’s POV, if you possibly can.

    @ Darth Arcon

    “Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”

    I agree! ;)

    Redem, it could be that the way you live isn’t in character to what you believe. You value your morals highly. But that value certainly comes from yourself, whom I think is more valuable than an ape. Sure apes are valuable but not as we are. I just think if you attribute yourself as evolutionary-biological creatures comparable to an ape, then your values are ultimately brought down to that of them, despite how valuable you believe yourself to be or how much you value being right over wrong.

  55. wah
    November 23rd, 2007 | 05:03

    @Who cares

    I forgot to mention that in Romans 1:19; 21-23, Paul was addressing the Gentiles with a natural revelation view. The Greeks held natural philosophy that ‘generally’ rejected religious explanations for natural phenomena, favoring physical explanations instead, but it’s arguable that they may have included theological elements)

  56. Redem
    November 23rd, 2007 | 05:46

    “So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?”

    Not what I said. I said, I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t. You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.

    “So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?”

    No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.

    “So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?”

    No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
    F=GmM/(r^2)

    It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.

    Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.

    Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.

    And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”

    Pointless.

    True, but still pointless.

    “I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.”
    Direct observations from apes to humans, no. We use the fossil record and genetic and anatomical and biochemical and behavioural evidences to infer that based on the knowledge that things do evolve.
    And trust me, the theory of evolution is far better supported than any current theory of gravity.

    Although, to be fair, there are a couple of theories of gravity and none really work all that well. Loop quantum gravity’s looking good at the moment, but who knows? We haven’t even found the graviton yet.

    “I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.”
    Not as I understand it. Or as wiki understands it.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Punctuatedequilibrium.png

    Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.

  57. wah
    November 23rd, 2007 | 06:51

    @257 Redem

    “I said,”

    AFAIKS, you never said.

    “I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t.”

    IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?

    “You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.”

    Only when the only arbiter is your opinion? So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?

    “No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.”

    What about accountability?

    “No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
    F=GmM/(r^2)

    It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.

    Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.”

    I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?

    “Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.”

    I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.

    “And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”

    Pointless.

    True, but still pointless.”

    In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??

    “Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.”

    Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?

  58. Redem
    November 23rd, 2007 | 07:32

    “You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.”

    The point I was making is that simplistic models taught to students are not representative of the actual science done by scientists. It’s a simplified story for kids to help them learn. Attacking a simplified model of evolution is not making your argument any better.

    Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence. But if you are going to sit here and say that the universe doesn’t really work in a way that science can study, and that we’re just deluding ourselves when we study it as if it were rational… You have a hell of a job supporting that claim. The sheer effectiveness of science is testament to the efficacy of the scientific method and “human logic”.

    “Why are you incapable of staying on subject?”
    It’s called a comparison ;)

    “Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool.”

    Oh I can recognise the difference, I just insist on making it plain, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. My use of language is overly precise for that reason.

    ““Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””

    I did not say science can support everything. Scientific evidence is empirical by it’s nature, and can only support anything that is of the “natural” world. Abstractions are not. However, evolution is of the natural world, and can be supported, which is the topic under discussion.
    Besides, morality can be studied, if not in the usual “hard science” kinda way. Psychology, one of the soft sciences, deals with that. Socio-biology, I think, to be specific.

    “HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent.”
    No, an attempt to accurately define the term. Definitions are important to any debate.
    If you disagree with it present a better one, or point out te problems with the one I used.

    “It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false.”
    Yes. But the best conclusion made with all the avilable evidence is still the best conclusion made with all the available evidence.
    Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
    A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.

    “You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”.”

    Actually I said if there wasn’t evidence it wasn’t science. A very different thing. And a very proper statement to make.

    “Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…”
    I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
    a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
    b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
    c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.

    This is not so much a fallback as the initial stages of studying any claim. Assessing the evidence.

    “You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument.”

    I get your point, but you seem to be so locked into a black and white world fo false dichotomies that you fail to comprehend my responses.

    “First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans.”

    Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
    It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
    Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.

    I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.

    “Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?!”

    As a side effect of something else which is advantageous.

    “For the longest time, immorality ruled.”

    Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.

    “Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…”

    I do not recall saying this. In fact, nothing like this.

    “And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!”

    Evolution has no more or less morality than any other force of nature. If your claim is that evolution cannot account for morality, this is false. Morality is simply self interest afterall.

    If it’s something else, make it clear so we can discuss it.

    “Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”

    Hardly an error in logic.

    Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.

  59. Redem
    November 23rd, 2007 | 07:59

    “That there are ways to understand morality other than evolutionary-biology. I think you should try to see it from Darth’s POV, if you possibly can.”

    I know. I am simply dealing with his denial that morality is possible from an evolutionary stand point.

    “Redem, it could be that the way you live isn’t in character to what you believe. You value your morals highly. But that value certainly comes from yourself, whom I think is more valuable than an ape. Sure apes are valuable but not as we are. I just think if you attribute yourself as evolutionary-biological creatures comparable to an ape, then your values are ultimately brought down to that of them, despite how valuable you believe yourself to be or how much you value being right over wrong.”

    The problem comes from the lack of understanding of my view.

    Just because I think that morality is a socio-biological construct, does not mean that I must therefore declare it valueless and must then ignore it. It simply means that I do not ascribe a supernatural origin for it. It is still valuable to me for a number of reasons. It’s enabled humanity to reach a point where my life can be comfortable, and almost entirely safe. Where I can spare the time from base survival to think on things and ponder the nature of reality. Where I can talk to people thousands of miles away and treat them as equals, not competitors. On a more personal level it means I can trust my friends and family, and society at large, not to screw me over and leave me bleeding in the dust. It means life is good. Why would I need ot reject this because there is no absolute objective source for it?
    It is also the point that morality is something that is ingrained in me, not something I can simply choose to ignore, even if I was inclined to follow your reasoning. It would be like choosing not to care about my nation, just because there is no reasonable justifiable reason for blind patriotism. I still care about historical injustices to my antion and my people, even though I consciously forgive Britain for it, I am still an Irishman through and through, and our history sometimes makes my blood burn.

    I do not need to deny my humanity because I think we are the result of our ancestors struggle for survival and offspring.

  60. Redem
    November 23rd, 2007 | 08:29

    “IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?”
    Those are external terms, not internal ones. If you see what I mean.

    They cannot be applied from inside the situation under discussion. At least, not without changeing their meaning.

    “So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?”
    It cannot be done, it’s not a matter of a vote on the subject.

    “What about accountability?”
    What about it?

    “I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?”
    On that level it is not really all that interesting. The theory though, that’s an area for study. The results of which will be life changeing for us all.

    “I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.”
    Adaption is based on luck, to a degree. No matter how well suited an organism is to survive, it can still be removed by a stray rock falling off a cliff. But evolution is not a matter for luck in and off itself. Luck applies to the individuals involved, not the overall process.

    “In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??”
    In an archaic sense that scientific laws are meant to be the “natural laws of the unvierse”. How it works, that kinda thing. Yes, it would sorta fit. But modern terminology has moved on, and wouldn’t fit with that today.

    “Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?”
    Cover up? Errr… no?

    It was based on the idea that competition could drop for a time, and allowing rapid and wide ranging changes, before biodiversity caught up with itself and the usual competition began the efficiency drives.

    Things like mass extinctions, even local ones. Or a new mutation that allows one species to become a “super-predator” and hunt everything into extinction, and then starve, opening up a huge array of niches for other species to evolve into without competition from occupants already in the niche. Or a new mutation that allowed the utilisation of a previously unused energy source.
    Things of that nature.
    Basically, in periods of lowered competition efficiency is less important, and diversity increases rapidly. When competition increases again, that diversity is often culled back severely.

  61. lifeisnow
    November 23rd, 2007 | 08:52

    You can’t discuss with people who are not willing to accept the simple truth, that life is over when you’re dead.

    One thing is for sure: autosuggestion works great.

  62. wah
    November 23rd, 2007 | 09:45

    @259 Redem

    “Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
    It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
    Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.

    I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.”

    That’s an interesting viewpoint. However, IMO, I think what distinguishes us from primates and all other life on Earth is we are conscientiously aware of our immoral acts. We all have the primal instincts to survive and reproduce but while our immoral acts are driven by our logical/rational/thinking and emotional parts of the brain, their immoral acts are driven by the physical/involuntary/impulsive parts of their brain. Although they appear to commit immoral acts from their emotional and logical parts of the brain, their behavior is only conditioned in whatever environment they are in, even if they pass their behavioral patterns to the next generation. Basically, they don’t universally know right from wrong because they merely act on what was programmed into their brains or whatever ‘ethics’ was raised or conditioned into their behavior. Simply put, they are not consciously aware of moral ‘trends’ or ‘fads’. Rather, they act on the basis of what works best for them in a given situation, according to pre-programmed instincts or conditioned environment. Wild or domestic.

    “Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.”

    It may appear to you that way but it seems to me that by God’s standard, at least according to Scripture, sin ‘ruled’ ever since ‘Man’s Fall’. So it is not only by modern standards but also by God’s standard that immorality has ruled for a long time, in fact far too long. First, God punished the Israelites for their disobedience before anyone else. There was no other way for the Israelites, or mankind for that matter, to receive God’s timely message of redemption without His direct intervention into a world that was already rampant with immorality. Although the issue of God’s accountability is a whole different matter, while God doesn’t condone the immoral acts that the Israelites committed to their neighbors on behalf of His instructions to do so, God used them for a greater higher purpose; which is to show them the rewards and consequences of their obedience and disobedience to God, the consequences of their neighbors’ rebellion to Him and how He relationally deals with His own people personally, directly and intimately. Ultimately, one of the major themes of the entire OT serve as an example of how God deals with all mankind through time and space from an individual to a ‘cosmic’ level. FYI, according to the OT stories, all of the Israelite’s neighbors’ ‘harsh treatment’ by the Israelites were a direct result of either committing idolatry against God or in co-rebellion with particular disobedient Israelites themselves.

  63. lol
    November 23rd, 2007 | 10:56

    #203 if recording was aviable back then I’m sure we’d have a lot more to show about what the stupid religious did to people in the middle age and even before.

    so showing off an obviously christian made movie about communists saying all atheists are communists is really low and stupid. oh wait your IQ must not be over 90 to believe that there is somebody somewhere that threw us up on heart long ago… I forgot my bad.

    I’m not atheist, I just don’t believe there is somebody that “lead” our lives and all the crap that happen to mankind is because of redemption. go say to the kids in Africa that die from famine and other wild diseases that it’s because of some god they don’t even know will. They die because of human stupidity and greed. that includes you stupid religious.

  64. lol
    November 23rd, 2007 | 10:56

    I forgot warez is against your religion.. what are you doing here?

  65. wah
    November 23rd, 2007 | 13:05

    “Those are external terms, not internal ones. If you see what I mean.

    They cannot be applied from inside the situation under discussion. At least, not without changeing their meaning.”

    Maybe I’m not making myself clear, so allow me to rephrase my original question: Are you at all sure to any degree that it’s wrong? If so, how sure are you? Sure enough that’s it’s wrong just for you or for two people or more (including yourself)?

    “It cannot be done, it’s not a matter of a vote on the subject.”

    I object. You were given a conscience to know right from wrong and the authority to discern it objectively. For instance, at what age do you think constitutes legal drinking?

    “What about it?”

    I believe people should be held accountable to someone for their immoral actions. Wouldn’t you call on your neighbor if they did something so horrible you couldn’t ignore?

    “In an archaic sense that scientific laws are meant to be the “natural laws of the unvierse”. How it works, that kinda thing. Yes, it would sorta fit. But modern terminology has moved on, and wouldn’t fit with that today.”

    Hmm.. I’m not too sure about that reasoning. Really. I understand of what a scientific (or natural) law is and what a theory is. Personally, I’d rather lean on evolution being a theory as opposed to being a natural law (like gravity). As I (and S.J Gould) pointed out: “our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

    The most famous evolutionist of recent years, Stephen J. Gould as we know him wrote in 1977:
    ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’ (Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.)

    In 1980:
    ‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’ (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980.)

    AFIK, nothing has changed since then.

    According to my research, no scientist has even been able to explain the process by which evolution brought about even a single common biological system, such as the eye.

    “Cover up? Errr… no?

    It was based on the idea that competition could drop for a time, and allowing rapid and wide ranging changes, before biodiversity caught up with itself and the usual competition began the efficiency drives.

    Things like mass extinctions, even local ones. Or a new mutation that allows one species to become a “super-predator” and hunt everything into extinction, and then starve, opening up a huge array of niches for other species to evolve into without competition from occupants already in the niche. Or a new mutation that allowed the utilisation of a previously unused energy source.
    Things of that nature.
    Basically, in periods of lowered competition efficiency is less important, and diversity increases rapidly. When competition increases again, that diversity is often culled back severely.”

    That raises my left eyebrow to bring up an excellent point. Gould formulated the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium for a reason: the complete lack of evidence for intermediaries. Gould is one of the best known and most renowned paleontologists of the last century, and one of the most ardent and most well-respected evolutionary theorists. He was absolutely committed to evolution. But even he could see that there was a complete lack of evidence for the gradual evolution of life over time. Thus he promoted Punctuated Equilibrium, which claims that there are bursts of change interspersed amongst long periods of stagnation. (Of course, this just goes to show that evolutionists aren’t going to allow evidence to controvert their theory; they build into the theory immunity from evidence. You see, the theory was tweaked so that the lack of evidence would actually become evidence! Isn’t that nice?) The point is: the evidence of intermediaries is more likely than wholly lacking. I recon that even the best evolutionist of the last century recognized it. ;)

    “Just because I think that morality is a socio-biological construct, does not mean that I must therefore declare it valueless and must then ignore it.”

    I think you mean socio-cultural relativism.

    “It simply means that I do not ascribe a supernatural origin for it.”

    Then to what or whom should you ascribe morality to, let alone provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values?

    “It’s enabled humanity to reach a point where my life can be comfortable, and almost entirely safe. Where I can spare the time from base survival to think on things and ponder the nature of reality. Where I can talk to people thousands of miles away and treat them as equals, not competitors. On a more personal level it means I can trust my friends and family, and society at large, not to screw me over and leave me bleeding in the dust. It means life is good.”

    WOW. You’re not one of those people who give long speeches at thanksgiving dinners are ya? LOL. Anyways, amen to that brother.;) I understand that you’re likely thankful for that. But shouldn’t you thank God for all that too?

    “Why would I need ot reject this…It would be like choosing not to care about my nation…”

    I think it’s good that you’re thankful for all the good in life and I am too, at least, or I hope so that, you recognize there are other people in this world worse off than you are, way worse. I don’t see any reason to reject that too, at least IMO what God has given to us…

    “…there is no absolute objective source…there is no reasonable justifiable reason for blind patriotism.”

    Maybe because you’re looking for it from a scientific-biological perspective. You should consider looking for a *different* alternative.

    “It is also the point that morality is something that is ingrained in me,”

    Scripture shows us “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.” (Romans 1:19) “They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] [e]decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [f]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]” Romans 2:15

    “…not something I can simply choose to ignore, even if I was inclined to follow your reasoning….even though I consciously forgive Britain for it,”

    That’s very good for you. I wouldn’t either. But not everyone as you’ve clearly seen from my above examples willfully chooses to be conscientious, consciously or subconsciously, even to those who follow my reasoning! Scripture affirms that “Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.” Romans 1:21 “And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,” Roman 1:28 “[They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless” Romans 1:31

    “I still care about historical injustices to my antion and my people,”

    …but I also feel it’d be absurd for you, for anyone including me, to live with that kind of [thankful] attitude (not that it’s bad) as though it’s perfectly all right for…….African soldiers to slaughter innocent children. Personally, I can’t live as though it is all right for…sex traffickers to kidnap 13-year-old girls from Mexico City or Thai pre-teens sold into prostitution rings. Can you live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners? Surely you can’t live as though it’s all right for dictators like the late Saddam Hussein to exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in me cries out to say these acts are wrong — really wrong. What about you? More importantly, what about them, the ‘guilty’ ones? Well, I don’t know… Should we deem them ‘guilty’ at all, let alone call their actions wrong? I would certainly hold them accountable to ’someone’ for their immoral actions if I could. In fact, I believe even if we *could* call on anyone’s morals to be surely wrong, then in my heart I’ve held them accountable to me for their misconduct. But that could all be speculation, which I feel uneasy in.

    “I do not need to deny my humanity because I think we are the result of our ancestors struggle for survival and offspring.”

    If you’re fine and dandy with just that reason alone, then I’m compelled to say that the looking glass of evolutionary biology is not the only avenue to embrace our humanity. I suppose what divides us is that I firmly believe that the value, meaning and purpose of humanity can be better understood from a Christian worldview as opposed to believing that evolutionary-biology is a just false view of the significance of humanity.

  66. wah
    November 23rd, 2007 | 13:22

    @lol

    “I’m not atheist.”

    Of course not, you’re just a bigot.

    “I forgot warez is against your religion..

    Personally, only if it’s morally stealing. Isn’t it against YOUR own conscience?

    “what are you doing here?”
    Politely asking a hypocritical troll to ’shoo! shoo!’

  67. Who cares
    November 23rd, 2007 | 17:17

    Yo, wah.
    I have to apologize. After thorough internet search I finally found the christian reseach I argued before didn’t exist.
    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/applied-creation-science.php
    I bow my head in shame.

  68. wah
    November 24th, 2007 | 00:58

    @268 Who Cares

    LOL. That’s a good laugh. Somehow that website seems awfully familiar. I think I visited it a long time ago with the exact same news headings, only changed is the date and maybe the letter. That webpage is obviously made to be a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone, period, unless their extreme fundamentalists. Who cares.

    You’ve got to find a better day-job seriously. What point you’re trying to get at besides being an ass? Next thing we’ll find breaking news: Christians are doing human experiments to biologically and surgically remove sin out of the human soul. :lol:

  69. Redem
    November 24th, 2007 | 02:44

    “Simply put, they are not consciously aware of moral ‘trends’ or ‘fads’. Rather, they act on the basis of what works best for them in a given situation, according to pre-programmed instincts or conditioned environment. Wild or domestic.”

    And humans are different how? We do the same as they do.

    “FYI, according to the OT stories, all of the Israelite’s neighbors’ ‘harsh treatment’ by the Israelites were a direct result of either committing idolatry against God or in co-rebellion with particular disobedient Israelites themselves.”
    Which would be considered immoral by today’s standards, hence proving my point.

    “Are you at all sure to any degree that it’s wrong? If so, how sure are you? Sure enough that’s it’s wrong just for you or for two people or more (including yourself)?”
    I am sure that it is wrong by my standards of right and wrong. Which are based off both the teachings of the society I live in, and my personal thoughts on the nature of morality. The golden rule, and all that.

    “I object. You were given a conscience to know right from wrong and the authority to discern it objectively. For instance, at what age do you think constitutes legal drinking?”
    Assuming you’re right on being given a conscience. Which I do not agree with.

    But to answer your question, 18 is the legal age here.

    If you meant to ask what I think the legal age should be, I dunno, I started drinking at 16, did me no harm. I also disagree with the entire idea of a legal age for drinking really. It’s not a simple question, when are people physically and mentally capable to handling alcohol? It depends on the person, and no simple age limit is really fair to everyone.

    “I believe people should be held accountable to someone for their immoral actions. Wouldn’t you call on your neighbor if they did something so horrible you couldn’t ignore?”
    We call it the state, where I come from. It doesn’t need a supernatural arbiter.

    “As I (and S.J Gould) pointed out: “our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.””
    He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution. Smacks a little close to quote mining for my tastes.

    “The most famous evolutionist of recent years, Stephen J. Gould”
    Most quote mined, certainly.

    “AFIK, nothing has changed since then.”
    It’s only been 30 years, why would anything have changed? :p

    Apart from filling in a lot of the transitional species, of course.

    “According to my research, no scientist has even been able to explain the process by which evolution brought about even a single common biological system, such as the eye.”
    Oh come on now. This one was answered by Darwin over a hundred years ago. Every stage in the development of the eye can be observed.

    “Gould formulated the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium for a reason:”
    He didn’t think the evidence supported slow steady changes, but instead suggested rapid changes and periods of stability.

    “(Of course, this just goes to show that evolutionists aren’t going to allow evidence to controvert their theory; they build into the theory immunity from evidence. You see, the theory was tweaked so that the lack of evidence would actually become evidence! Isn’t that nice?”
    You almost make it sound like improving a theory to account for the evidence is a bad thing. ;)

    Well I suppose it is, from the religious point of view.

    “I think you mean socio-cultural relativism.”
    Nope.

    “Then to what or whom should you ascribe morality to, let alone provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values?”
    Evolution.

    “WOW. You’re not one of those people who give long speeches at thanksgiving dinners are ya? LOL. Anyways, amen to that brother.;) I understand that you’re likely thankful for that. But shouldn’t you thank God for all that too?”
    If I believed in him i might do, but I don’t. :p
    And no, I don’t make speeches. I hate spekaing in front of people. Although, when I do, I try to make the best of it.

    “Maybe because you’re looking for it from a scientific-biological perspective. You should consider looking for a *different* alternative.”
    Been there, done that. It was intellectually unsatisfying, and never really made sense, especially compared to some far better answers. For more logical answer, anyway. On the basis of Ockham’s razor, anyway.

    “Personally, I can’t live as though it is all right for…sex traffickers to kidnap 13-year-old girls from Mexico City or Thai pre-teens sold into prostitution rings. Can you live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners? Surely you can’t live as though it’s all right for dictators like the late Saddam Hussein to exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in me cries out to say these acts are wrong — really wrong. What about you? More importantly, what about them, the ‘guilty’ ones? Well, I don’t know… Should we deem them ‘guilty’ at all, let alone call their actions wrong? I would certainly hold them accountable to ’someone’ for their immoral actions if I could. In fact, I believe even if we *could* call on anyone’s morals to be surely wrong, then in my heart I’ve held them accountable to me for their misconduct. But that could all be speculation, which I feel uneasy in.”

    Again, I repeat. I do not think these things are right, or even allowable. And I would hold them accountable to the law. I simply do not thinkt here is any sort of absolute basis for these things, or an objective source for them. I shed no tears when such people are jailed/overthrown etc..
    Just because I do not thinkt here is an objective basis for declaring them immoral, does not mean I must declare them tolerable.

    “If you’re fine and dandy with just that reason alone, then I’m compelled to say that the looking glass of evolutionary biology is not the only avenue to embrace our humanity. I suppose what divides us is that I firmly believe that the value, meaning and purpose of humanity can be better understood from a Christian worldview as opposed to believing that evolutionary-biology is a just false view of the significance of humanity.”
    It is not that I prefer the evolutionary model so much as I think it is the correct one. I do not require my “value” to be derived from some external source.

  70. Darth Arcon
    November 24th, 2007 | 09:28

    @Redem

    “Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence…”

    I never said science was awful and we shouldnt use it just because it may end up proving myself wrong. Far from it, I love science! BUT, human logic plays a VERY large part in the results. Without logic, science ends up just displaying simple facts. For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!

    “I did not say science can support everything…”

    Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…

    “Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
    A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.”

    First off, what I said was just a way to show human logic was necessary in science. Second, what you just said has a lot more meaning then what you think it does. No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong. Look at it this way, though: There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…..analyzing the situation further, an earlier comment made was that you cannot prove a negative wrong (I think that is what I remember). IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…makes you think…It is all based on perspectives, I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible! It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview. Yet, if the entire purpose of that evidence is to change the person’s worldview…that doesnt work, does it? You modify the evidence to agree with your worldview, but the evidence is there to change your worldview…hmm…I am overanalyzing this…Im going to stop now…

    “I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
    a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
    b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
    c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”

    Very well.
    a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)
    b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)
    c)I cant do that, mainly because history is not one of my strong points. I guess my purpose is only to get you through “a” and “b”. Getting you through “c” is better left in the hands of people more capable of doing so than I

    “Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
    It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
    Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.”

    Modern apes have a social system, not necessarily morality. Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill. You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.

    Plus, you need to realize that morality is not “black and white”. You also need to account for little things like why a person feels a sense of guilt if they do something wrong. If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever. That ape continues on the way it had. That human is either caught and sentenced to life in prison, or has to live out the rest of its life knowing that it took the life of another individual. Even if taking the person’s life was necessary to its survival, the killer would still feel guilty. If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist. Am I saying that because of the result of a dichonomy? No. I am saying that because guilt has no place in an evolutionist’s morality. It is a feeling that would have never developed because it serves no purpose. Evolution is adapting to changing conditions (which apparently also means the creature changed into a different species, though that isnt the conclusion Id come to). If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?

    “Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.”

    That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right? You know for a fact that your correctness (I think there is a word for this, but I cant remember…) here does not help you. Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…

  71. wah
    November 24th, 2007 | 10:53

    “And humans are different how? We do the same as they do.”
    Except we can look back at our history of moral trends.

    “Which would be considered immoral by today’s standards, hence proving my point.”
    And my point was that the ‘immoral treatment’ as you’re referring to occurred according to God’s justification but then again Christians live by the new NT. And to extrapolate upon that point, how do you feel the changing various ‘ideas’ of slavery, from ancient to modern? I think western civilization made slavery look bad.

    “I am sure that it is wrong by my standards of right and wrong. Which are based off both the teachings of the society I live in, and my personal thoughts on the nature of morality. The golden rule, and all that.”
    Compared to ancient times, today’s standard is not much higher than you think it is. Much of the immorality back then still happens today, some in hiding (illegal), some in the open (legal), some merely in different forms. Nonetheless, our standards do not live up to the standard of perfection. If perfection exists, then I believe that is where the absolute objective source for moral truth lies. Is there evidence for it? Of course not! Our consciences bears witness of the (right and) wrong of our human moral condition. If we look at it from an observatory view, there are no absolute basis for morals.

    “18 is the legal age here”
    21.

    “I started drinking at 16″
    First time I drinked I finished my 13oz cup of Old English before my veteran friends in 25 seconds +-.

    “We call it the state, where I come from.”
    Well there’s your arbiter. As far as your city goes, the law has assigned an objective moral value basis, for the time being, on everyone within city limits.

    “It doesn’t need a supernatural arbiter.”
    Maybe your state, even mine, doesn’t. But the world does.

    “He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution. Smacks a little close to quote mining for my tastes.”
    I don’t think he was making a case for evolution as a scientific law.

    “This one was answered by Darwin over a hundred years ago.”
    Only if you consider him as a scientist. But not by today’s standard.

    “You almost make it sound like improving a theory to account for the evidence is a bad thing. ”
    I believe his theory was a ‘face-lift’ of gradualism. As wiki points it, it’s simply a [i]form[/i] of gradualism, from an ecological sense of biological continuity.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions

    “Well I suppose it is, from the religious point of view.”
    Wow. Appreciate the open-mindedness. Such a rarity these days.

    “Nope.”
    Really? Then how would you compare morality in a socio-biological construct as opposed to morality in a socio-cultural relativism.

    “Evolution.”
    The way I see it, we need a trans–cultural basis for moral values or else we’ll end up with socio-cultural relativism.

    “Been there, done that. It was intellectually unsatisfying, especially compared to some far better answers. and never really made sense, For more logical answer, anyway. On the basis of Ockham’s razor, anyway.”
    hmm. Jesus, in Matthew 13:13, comments: “This is the reason that I speak to them in parables: because [d]having the power of seeing, they do not see; and [e]having the power of hearing, they do not hear, nor do they grasp and understand.

    “I simply do not thinkt here is any sort of absolute basis for these things, or an objective source for them.”
    Even though you don’t think there is any, do you want to know why there should be one?

    “I shed no tears when such people are jailed/overthrown etc..”
    Me neither. Nevertheless, as you and I are, they’re still human and should be valuable. And I’m not just speaking about those people, but on behalf of all humanity, since they (and we) collectively reflect the depraved condition of humanity as a whole.

    “I do not thinkt here is an objective basis for declaring them immoral”
    But, hypothetically, if every single person on this earth delighted in murder, rape, torture or sexual perversities [and I prefer not to get specific for sensitive reasons], don’t you think there should be one?

    “Just because I do not thinkt here is an objective basis for declaring them immoral, does not mean I must declare them tolerable.”
    Just because you don’t see any reason or evidence to suggest or believe there is an absolute/objective source for declaring them immoral, does not mean it is non-existent.

  72. wah
    November 24th, 2007 | 12:04

    “I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
    c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”

    As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?

  73. wah
    November 24th, 2007 | 13:01

    @250 Who Cares
    “Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
    Marvellous indeed!”

    That’s absurd! That’s like saying you can’t prove that the President Bush lives in the White House by looking into the White House. It is looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof. The fulfilled prophecies and the consistency of its messages through various historical events of the Bible prove it to be the Word of God. They provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin.

  74. karlito31
    November 24th, 2007 | 14:35

    Very interesting documentary. It paints almost disturbing picture of today’s America.
    I was not aware that their educational system is that much lacking.
    Anyway, or, at least, courts are still doing their job.

  75. costa200
    November 24th, 2007 | 15:55

    “the inability for evolution to explain morality”

    How about the inability to just research before saying something that is simply not true? Tell me, if i explain you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?

    Because if i do it and you continue using it 5 minutes later i’m not even going to bother because that would just demonstrate an argument like this cannot move foward since you creationists have some sort of selective blindness and use the same arguments over and over after being proven wrong.

    The information on this must be some 40 years old but still you keep on going. It’s ridiculous really.

    Yes or no, will you stop using this argument if i can demonstrate how “morality” rises in an evolutionary frame?

  76. wah
    November 24th, 2007 | 16:48

    @COsta200
    so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?

  77. costa200
    November 24th, 2007 | 18:52

    @ Wah

    “missing links”:

    http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks.html

    Press “start here”.

    What next? You are going to ask for missing links between missing links… hehehe.

    Seriously now. If you creationists actually studied up on the fossils found you would know that we have the stuff between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptil, reptil and mammals, reptil and birds… Regarding plants we have the the whole kingdom’s evolutionary development pretty much exposed too, from algae to Angiosperms…

    What the hell more do you want? Seriously, that argument about missing links has been completely destroyed decades ago and you still bring it over the table? Modern science has no new questions to answer by creationists, it is you who keep making the same questions over and over again like its something new that needs to be adressed. This is the internet age. Google it up godamnit, how hard can it be?

    And i see you evaded my question. If i explain to you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?

  78. Darth Arcon
    November 24th, 2007 | 23:05

    Of course, us zealous creationists use the same stuff over and over. Yet, I see you evolutionists use the same stuff as well. For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used. Why is this? It is all a matter of perspectives.

    From my perspective, I look at that argument as a thin attack on what I believe, so I go ahead and show why it is lacking. You view it as absolute evidence to prove your belief true. Since that is your mindset going into the debate, any lack of insight I show you will automatically be regarded as a lunatic’s mindless rambles…It can also happen in the opposite manner, where I am the one attacking and you are the one pointing out the lacking.

    Because it is true, it doesnt matter what you tell me as to why evolution lacks morality, I WILL find something wrong with it (from my perspective). And it doesnt matter what I tell you as to how to explain a limitless being creating a limit on itself, you WILL find something wrong with it.

    This fact remains in any debate, when both parties believe they are right. The original intent of the debate is to “enlighten” the other side with whatever facts they find. I knew from the beginning that this was impossible, yet I persisted. Call it a “fool’s hope”, if you will.

    Go ahead, try to enlighten me with your findings, Costa. But I am really starting to lose interest in this debate. A debate trying to convince some unbiased person, yet an unbias person doesnt exist. There is a conundrum in merely debating that both of us cant really explain.

    Ill come back on, read whatever your response is to this. Ill probably even post a response, but I cannot see a point in continuing to debate without a possible goal in sight. I am curious to see what you have to disprove my morality claim, though. I will be coming back, at least once.

    A short answer to your question, Costa: yes, if your findings disprove my morality claim AND I cannot give a logical response to debunk it, I will drop it. I highly doubt this is possible, though. I am a bias person, after all. Chances are, I will see error in your logic (at least, from my perspective)…

  79. Rest of the World
    November 25th, 2007 | 02:36

    Can’t the narrow minded fundamental christian Americans have their own board, so the rest of the board doesn’t get annoyed?

    Thank god that there are also normal people living in the US.

  80. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 06:34

    @costa200

    First of all, I do not appreciate your overall tone of language, ok? (Romans 2:15). While I’m not any more better than you are, you should know that you just broke two of God’s commandment (Romans 1:19-21): Using God’s name in vain ( and murder (at least according to Matthew 5:20-22). (Romans 7:12-13)

    Second, it was Darth Arcon, not me, who was arguing against how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame. In fact, IMO, evolutionary biology can logically explain morality, but not able to find ‘moral truth’ due to the ‘observatory view’ of which evolutionary-biology uses.

    3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.

    4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

    5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.

    6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Hardly scientific proof.

    Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..”

  81. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 06:36

    Finally, I believe in transitional species because we’ve found them for other species but we haven’t found all of them. It’s like a picture puzzle missing the most important pieces. But without them, the picture, although we know it’s there and real and merely missing the pieces, is really incomplete, it’s not really a whole picture. As we all know, the biggest problem in the theory of evolution is the big gap in the fossil record. IOW, when archaeologists dig up these bones, they find the transitional forms that help one animal transform to another animal. And if you can’t find those bones you can’t prove evolution ever happened in that sense (not that I doubt the existence of the whole of evolution.) That’s what you call the missing link. And there can’t be just one – there would have to be thousands and thousands of transitional forms. And until all pieces are actually found:

    A. evolution is just pure speculation, but a very good one that makes a lot of sense, I admit.

    B. such theory will never be fully solidified.

    What I think we disagree at this point is that for you it’s just matter of “when” as opposed to me it’s a matter of “if” the pieces will be found.

    Moreover, one thing that limits the intelligence of apes is their inability to reason, to invent, or to appreciate the sound of music. You see you don’t get orangutans forming themselves into an orchestra. You don’t get themselves forming into a court system to meet out justice for the other creatures. IMHO, this isn’t the case where they’re prehistoric man less evolved than us but it’s because he’s another species.

  82. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 06:39

    We’ve all seen in high school the pictures from apes to humans. But those are just pictures. And we know that humans and apes have similar hands and feet and facial expressions that we both can do physically but is that proof that humans evolved from apes? No, not at all.

  83. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 06:45

    Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes. God the Creator of the world and the universe (Romans 1:20), is our common designer. He simply used the same blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes.

    The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof. In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” for this case. But, IMHO, the transitional links probably don’t really exist, they’re just in the minds of the scientists who want to justify their theory.

    And we’re all continually told that primates are our ‘relatives’ but airliners will refuse to let them on board to fly with us alongside in the cabin. Personally, I would like to fly alongside with primates (preferably a monkey or chimpanzee) because they’re so cute sitting beside you just chilling, as long as they’re in a relaxed mood, but the airliner workers tell me that they need to be transported to a cargo hold instead, even though universities teach me that we’re all related to primates. The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.

  84. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 06:47

    Also, a note to the moderator and website master: I find it unconstitutional that we are censored to use the word “co_ckpit” on this board. As I had to insert the underscore between “o” and “c”.

  85. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 06:55

    Oh wait, nevermind, the internet is international so there’s no “constitutional rights” or “censorship” laws, is there? Seriously, I’m not sure if that kind of jurisdiction belongs on the web.

  86. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 07:47

    Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, has these comments about the “origin of species” in “the descent of man”. If there are any ladies in here, listen to what he has to say about women: “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands”(Chapter 19, 1871 edition “Descent” v2, 327)

    Did you hear that? He’s saying ‘man has EVOLVED to a higher eminence over women in basically anything he decides to do’. Whether it requires reason, imagination, or deep thought. IMHO, Darwinian evolution, at its core, it not only male chauvinistic, but it’s also very racist: Charles Darwin wants us to believe that black people are less evolved than whites. Of course that’s arguable but it’s a sad fact that it’s still a controversial debate even till now, which it shouldn’t be an issue at all. Nevertheless it still is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man%2C_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex#The_race_debate

    If I can’t convince you how unscientific evolution is, perhaps these following experts can:

    1. Noble Prize Winner Ernst B. Chain said in reference to the theory of evolution, “I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”

    2. Sir Arthur Keith, the physical anatomist and anthropologist who wrote the forward to Darwin’s Origin of Species 100th Anniversary Edition said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

    3. Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher said, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.” Although he was Christian, he’s no better than you using a non-Christian source to make a case against Christianity.

    “Man has said, ‘I will believe in anything as long as it’s not in the bible.’” Unfortunately, that is so true.

    Give me an example of a transition species. I’d like to hear it because I’m just curious, not because I’m doubting it.

    According to evolutionists, we ultimately came from a single-cell organism? Probably came from the ocean. Do you think we came from a fish? or a bird? This is where both atheist and theists have a problem: the beginning. (Genesis 1:1) (Romans 1:19-20)

  87. costa200
    November 25th, 2007 | 11:46

    @279 Darth Arcon

    Of course you can always deny evidence based on your beliefs. You can and i can and that is clear. Although i do my best to give every proof a fair chance to hold water i’m clearly biased due to my science embebed education and skeptical on principle mindset. I won’t, for example, accept metaphysical explanations. Then again, if someone is allowed to use magical events to avoid problems in what would be a scientific discussion you could never get anything done. You see, a science discussion is, by definition, void of any supernatural explanation. That is because the supernatural mumbo jumbo cannot be tested/falsified and any side of the debate using it would not be able to actually demonstrate it.

    But the bias i might have would not be a problem since the scientific community as a whole would have to be in some sort of major conspiracy to drop creationism in favour of evolution. Fact is, thousands of scientists argue for evolution even though many of them are also theists. You see, evolution doesn’t say there is not god. In fact, many religious organizations have embraced evolution as fact due to simply the amount of evidence and the importance of the 21st century science.

    Can you explain why the weight of people that would want nothing more than to become wildly famous (many scientists have this dream since childhood) shifted away from creationism? When someone who could acutally prove something that endangered the theory would get a whole load of prizes and recognition, why doesn’t a single one rise up?

    Why are all the “creationist scientists” so weak that bright highschool kids could point out the mistakes they are making? I sometimes do the curious exercise of explaining “modern” creationist arguments to my pupils and the brighter ones actually manage to debunk them. And these are highschool kids. What do you think specialists think about the evidence provided by creationists?

    Anyway, on with the show. Let us look at how morality is hugely important for evolution and why i’m not a raving lunatic atheist that rapes, steals and murders because i can…

    First of all, morality is subjective and that is clear if you look at humans, for example. I guess you wouldn’t deny this would you? There are different codes of law and conduct according to the mindset of the population. Muslims cut the hands of thieves while westerners think that is barbaric and so on.

    So, this seems to indicate that morality shifts according to circunstances even to this day. But let’s look at what morality really is. How does our brain decides what is morally correct?

    There are several levels of morality. The first level is related to kin. And this one is VERY easy to explain in an evolution frame. You would agree that our brain has a certain amount of rules we use for kin that are not used for non-kin personas. And we accept in society that kin come first than others. And genetically it would be favourable to do so. You see, survival of the fittest doesn’t mean the egoistic bastard who takes it all. It means the one who leaves behind his genes in the population. The fittest is the one with the larger offspring. This explains why some animal mothers (and some fathers) in nature care for their children. Why clan based animals work together and why they seem altruistic at times. What they are doing is to care for their genes. If you do harm to your familly and you don’t leave your genes then the altruistic familly will spread THEIR genes and you won’t.

    Scientifically, gene flux is decided on two levels. First, the individual is selected, hence unfavourable genes get eliminated while others are not. But, this is not the only selection going on. The main failure of people who use the “morality argument” is that they seem oblivious that not only individuals are selected (where a clear tendency for egoism could be drawn) but also populations are selected. A population that does not function properly, for some reason, tends to get eliminated. If the percentage of egoistic people in the population rises to a critical level that it stops working for mutual survival (if it is required by the enviroment, because if it is not, i.e. if there are enough resources to go around so you don’t have to cooperate, you can be selfish) that population is going to be eliminated and the ecological space will be used by a population where the percentage of altruistic individuals remained high enough for the performance to be better.

    In a human example, if you have two tribes and in one members spend their time fighting (murders, injuries), stealing (which in turn tends to things being stolen back), raping (wich leads to injuries, fights…) and so one. And in the other one you have a strict conduct like:

    I am the Lord thy God
    Thou shalt have no other gods before me
    Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
    Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
    Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
    (THESE are used to give credibility)

    Honor thy Father and Mother
    Thou shalt not murder*
    Thou shalt not commit adultery
    Thou shalt not steal
    Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house
    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife

    (and THESE are very usefull for a wandering tribe that needs to work together)

    But let us talk about the other levels beyond kin (those are the most interesting since kin is so easy to explain).

    After kin you get solidarity with your neighbours. Wich basically is probably an extention of kin since if they are close to you then you are going to marry and live together. When in the bible there is that “love thy neighbour” it was literaly the neighbour, not the whole species together.

    The third level of morality is about the species itself. Morally, you, and most people, would rather save a human than a dog. So there must be something connecting us that is not so much kin related. Help a stranger? Why?

    That’s when the weakest of gene selection comes in. Helping an individual of your own species you are actually helping over 90% of the genes you have in common with him. This actually pales in comparison with kin (that’s why humans usually only helps strangers when themselves,kin and neighbours would not get too harmed by that help).

    But all of this could just be drivel because nature is cruel and it’s the “law of the jungle” out there right?

    But it is not so. Many animals cooperate.

    Moral behavior is little more than behaving in ways that are beneficial to the group rather than merely to yourself. Group-living animals, and primates in particular, can teach us a great deal about how such behaviors could be selected for and evolve without requiring a moral puppetmaster in the sky. In many primate societies close social bonds formed by individuals serve to regulate social behavior. These social bonds are strengthened through grooming, food sharing and reconciliation behavior after a conflict. While competition and conflict are a normal part of group living it is often surprising to learn how rare it is, especially considering the amount of attention such conflict receives in the academic and popular press.

    Fedigan (1993) found in one study that white-faced capuchins (the cute New World monkeys who carried the deadly virus in Outbreak) displayed 1,078 cooperative behaviors and only 136 aggressive ones. Likewise, Sussman et al. (2003) found that ring-tailed lemurs spent about twenty-five minutes per day in direct cooperation and less than one minute in aggression. Sussman and Garber (2004) followed up on these findings by analyzing seventy-eight studies covering twenty-five genera and forty-nine species of non-human primates. They determined that prosimians, monkeys and apes would spend the vast majority of their social lives in cooperative interactions. The study also showed that the amount of social aggression was statistically insignificant. The levels of aggression ranged from zero in colobus monkeys to a high of 0.92% in spider monkeys (a species that spent 22.0% of their time in cooperation).

    The authors concluded by stating, “We hypothesize that affiliation is the major governing principle of primate sociality and that aggression and competition represent important but secondary features of daily primate social interaction” (Sussman and Garber 2004:178).

    Sources:

    Fedigan L. (1993). Sex differences and intersexual relations in adult white-faced capuchins. International Journal of Primatology 14: 853-77.

    Sussman RW and Chapman AR (2004). The nature and evolution of sociality: Introduction. In: The Origins and Nature of Sociality. Ed. by RW Sussman and AR Chapman. Aldine De Gruyter: New York, pp. 3-19.

    Sussman RW, Andrianasolondraibe O, Soma T, Ichino S. (2003). Social behavior and aggression among ringtailed lemurs. Folia Primatologica 74: 168-72.

    How then can theists justify that nature is cruel and immoral necessitating a moral force from beyond the natural world?

    Humans are not special in the aspect of morality. Just like in many other examples, some people only think we are special because they choose to ignore scientific work and prove what they are saying by waving a book that was put together by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

    Now i ask you Arcon, where in this matter isn’t modern science able to explain the observable? I think i covered most of the possible questions but please do speak your mind.

    @ Wah

    “First of all, I do not appreciate your overall tone of language, ok? (Romans 2:15). While I’m not any more better than you are, you should know that you just broke two of God’s commandment (Romans 1:19-21): Using God’s name in vain ( and murder (at least according to Matthew 5:20-22). (Romans 7:12-13)”

    About my “tone” of language i would say that i do not feel the need to be condescendant with you guys and i’m not going to soft down just because i may hurt your feelings. About braking commandments i really do not care one bit as, and this may be a shock to you, the bible is just paper and doesn’t even hold judicial power anywere. That bad habit of thinking your rules apply to everyone and keep quoting with biblical reference annoys the hell out people. I actually know what mean by those references of self righteousness by mathew but imagine i didn’t. It serves no purpose and only makes you look like a bible thumper really.

    “Second, it was Darth Arcon, not me, who was arguing against how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame.”

    Sorry, this board sucks for long arguments and i checked the poster number wrong.

    “not able to find ‘moral truth’ due to the ‘observatory view’ of which evolutionary-biology uses.”

    Moral truth? You cannot explain what doesn’t exist. The simple fact humanity disagrees on almost all moral guidelines (except for a few wich are biologically very important) should have given you enough of a hint that there is no such thing.

    “3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.”

    If you look closely you will find that your post contradicts itself. First you say it’s a chimpanzee then you say it’s a common ancestor… By definition, if it is an ancestor it is not the modern being. And yes, it is probably a common ancestor and so what? For you that may be something noteworthy but it is in our family tree with is like 99,9% similar to the chimpanzee.

    “4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.”

    Who found out it was not a real thing? Scientists or creationists? Where all the missing links on that page not fully documented with full skulls and complete skeletons?

    “5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.”

    It was a deliberate hoax and was debunked shortly after it was presented. And again, who denounced the hoax? Scientists or creationists?

    “6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Hardly scientific proof.”

    Have you actually held a Neanderthal’s skull in your hands? Have you examine it yourself? I have. In the skull alone you have dozens of anatomical diferences between it and a modern human. As for the rest of the skeleton there are countless other anatomical markers. None of which is consistent with arthritis. What is the source (since i do not believe you’ve examine one yourself) you are using?

    “Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..””

    What do you think he means by “extreme rarity”. What is he comparing? Non transitional and transitional. If you actually knew what that quote means you would understand that you are quoting him completely out of context. Gould is an evolutionist and he, like others have found that numerically it is much more likely for one to find non transitional fossils. And that is completely so. The whole argument boils down to the relative speed at which evolution happens (Punctured Equilibrium). Now you go ask Gould if there are no transitional forms. You are using one of the lowest form of argument that is to quote someone out of context and without really knowing what the quote means.

    Speciation happens mostly in small populations where mutations get the best chance to accumulate. That is why you may find 100 non transitionals for every transitional. But what does matter is that one transitional makes a gapping whole in your view of things. It is not by repeating that “missing links” stuff over and over again that you will make it so.

    ” And there can’t be just one – there would have to be thousands and thousands of transitional forms.”

    This sentence just demonstrates a lack of knowlage in the field. Do you know how hard it is for something to fossilize? If a speciation happens in 10 000 years it looks like leap in the fossil record. Humans for example. Paleontologists (not archaeologists like you said)in the future will see people with 3 molar teeth (Homo Sapiens) and then humans with 2 molar teeth (Homo Somethingelse). In the meanwhile we, a transitional form with a very bad third molar will nowhere to be found because geologically it was just a glimpse between the 3 and the 2 molar teeth forms.

    Due to an amazing effort transitional forms have been found for every major group but that doesn’t satisfy you because, until you see every single being that ever lived in front of you, you refuse to connect the dots.

    Apparently your god created all the dots just to fool us into believeing in something other than the genesis account…

    “And we know that humans and apes have similar hands and feet and facial expressions that we both can do physically but is that proof that humans evolved from apes? ”

    Biochemically we are identical. And if you want i will explain in detail why hybridization experiments with DNA are reliable and why numbers fluctuate between 96% and 99% of similarity between Chimpazees and humans, since there seems to be some doubt (like 96% and 99% actually make a difference). And i tell you that it is only confusing to people that know zero about how the tests are made. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with creationists.

    It is not a matter of similar facial features. It goes much deeper than that. We can trace mutations in a tree from orangotangs to gorilas to chimps and finally humans. And these mutations tell about history of the tree. To disprove evolution would be easy. Just find a mutation that says chimps are descended from Homo Sapiens (us). But no mutation have been found to say this. All of them point to us having a common descent and so this consistency clearly gives reason to use it as a tool.

    ” The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” for this case. But, IMHO, the transitional links probably don’t really exist, they’re just in the minds of the scientists who want to justify their theory.”

    Holy cow… I’ve just pointed you to a page where you could see the bones yourself and keep repeating they don’t exist?

    OK…

    Check these:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

    Now, if that list isn’t enough to shut you up about the non existance of “missing links” i cannot do anything more for you… Clearly they do exist, have been found and documented and its existance is only ignored by those who choose to ignore it.

    “Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, has these comments about the “origin of species” in “the descent of man”.”

    Yes he was a chauvinistic racist 19th century fellow and his works are not the modern science standard. But have you read the bible? With what ground do you criticize Darwin when the book you keep quoting is a manual for a chauvinistic society?

    “If I can’t convince you how unscientific evolution is, perhaps these following experts can:”

    Experts? LOL… Damn, you even got a journalist… I surrender… I surrender… Oh wait:

    ERNST BORIS CHAIN was a medical doctor who won the nobel in 1945. What irony that as co-founder of antibiotics he just provided a way to actually see evolution in progress as bacteria evolve to fight antibiotics.

    Sir Arthur Keith WAS a CO-CONSPIRATOR of the Piltdown Man, a deliberate hoax. Is this your expert? I LOOOLED hard at this, sorry. The way you contradict yourself after having “denouced” the hoax before leaves me with nothing to answer. But i bet you took that from some fundie website, so just goes to warn you of the quality of their work.

    “Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher”, well then a journalist AND philosopher… Pffff ROFL…

    “According to evolutionists, we ultimately came from a single-cell organism? Probably came from the ocean. Do you think we came from a fish? or a bird? This is where both atheist and theists have a problem: the beginning.”

    From ancestral fish no doubt. But you are not going to ask for something between a fish and human are you? I sure hope not because i would have to write about the whole amphibian, reptil and mammal filogenetic branches…

    And no, evolution has no trouble with the beguining. Evolution Theory doesn’t cover the beguining, although many fundie sites argue that it does. The beguining of life itself is a whole new argument.

  88. wah
    November 25th, 2007 | 19:14

    “About braking commandments i really do not care one bit as, and this may be a shock to you, the bible is just paper and doesn’t even hold judicial power anywere.”
    Well if you didn’t really care then you wouldn’t have mentioned it at all now wouldja?

    “That bad habit of thinking your rules apply to everyone”
    It doesn’t. God’s does. (Romans 3:19-20)

    “keep quoting with biblical reference annoys the hell out people”
    Then they’re doing it’s job, unless you want to hear the Gospel?

    “I actually know what mean by those references of self righteousness”
    So do you consider yourself a good person??

    “Moral truth? You cannot explain what doesn’t exist.”
    The commandments aren’t moral truth. it shows it. Romans 3:23

    “The simple fact humanity disagrees on almost all moral guidelines”
    Humanity knows we can’t live up to God’s standards so we make up our own standards,(Romans 1:25) thinking we are good enough and that it makes us right before God. (Isaiah 64:5)

    “If you look closely you will find that your post contradicts itself”
    it’s just a Chimpanzee. A couple of scientists (or whatever) placed Lucy as the common ancestor. THAT in itself contradicts the science community’s opinion of Lucy. That’s like, “Oh well, I guess we all agree it’s just a monkey. HEY YOU TWO! take Lucy here and label it as our common ancestor.”

    “but it is in our family tree with is like 99,9%”
    I think you watched too many “planet of the apes” movies.

    “Who found out it was not a real thing? Scientists or creationists?”
    A man will lie to himself and others but his adversary will expose his true colors.

    “Where all the missing links on that page not fully documented with full skulls and complete skeletons?”
    Costa200 the tooth came from a pig.

    “And again, who denounced the hoax? Scientists or creationists?”
    Psst.. JSYK, *whisper* it was a prank…

    ““Neanderthal Man””
    Arthritis is commonly found in early Neanderthal populations. So it’s only natural that the skeleton is arthritis. duoy.

    “You are using one of the lowest form of argument that is to quote someone out of context and without really knowing what the quote means.”
    Nope. Gould simply pointed out that in paleontology trans-forms are rare. You seem to fail to grasp my point is that mutations into transitional forms are too rare for apes to evolve into humans.

    “Due to an amazing effort transitional forms have been found for every major group but that doesn’t satisfy you because, until you see every single being that ever lived in front of you, you refuse to connect the dots.”
    You can’t connect something that doesn’t exist, especially when you’re looking down the barrel of a ’smoking gun’.

    “Apparently your god created all the dots just to fool us into believeing in something other than the genesis account…”
    Whatever reason you may think that God put it there for (and what others may speculate about, for instance: for us to thank Him for us to explore and play with His creation, or to test our faith, or purposely put it there and remove the last pieces, or maybe Satan put the bones there to deviate our focus from Christ to lies and God took the ’smoking gun’ away), He is not going to allow the ‘last missing link’ to be found, one way or another. EVER.

    “Biochemically we are identical.”
    So? The similarities in the DNA in both apes and humans are the same as most of the elements of dirt can be found in humans, more or less. (Genesis 2:7)

    “And i tell you that it is only confusing to people that know zero about how the tests are made.”
    99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% is not enough and doesn’t really prove anything. It’s still all in your head.

    “It is not a matter of similar facial features.”
    Correct. It’s a matter of ACTUAL PROOF. :)

    “All of them point to us having a common descent and so this consistency clearly gives reason to use it as a tool.”
    That tool is from Satan! :D You better get outta that hole before you dig a trench too deep.

    “the non existance of “missing links” i cannot do anything more for you… Clearly they do exist, have been found and documented and its existance is only ignored by those who choose to ignore it.”
    I never argued against that, just the one for the apes and humans. Re-read first sentence of post 282.

    “With what ground do you criticize Darwin”
    LOL. Genesis 1:27 God never placed man higher than woman like the way of the father of evolution did, except in role play.

    ” when the book you keep quoting is a manual for a chauvinistic society?”
    That’s a blatant lie, unless you can point to some verses to show me that God made men higher than woman like Darwin did.

    “What irony that as co-founder of antibiotics he just provided a way to actually see evolution in progress as bacteria evolve to fight antibiotics.”
    He was referring to the ‘missing link’ theory, not the general theory. Thus your point is moot.

    “Is this your expert?”
    Yep. An expert who showed how much of a joke Evolutionary Theory really is to the science community.

    “I LOOOLED hard at this”
    That was my whole point. :D It’s suppose to be funny! I wasn’t trying to refute the entire theory of evolution just to show how shallow it is. :)

    “The way you contradict yourself after having “denouced” the hoax before leaves me with nothing to answer.”
    lol. You mean how I used evolution’s adversarial sources to make an absurdity of the mistakes and lies surrounding evolution?

    “well then a journalist AND philosopher… Pffff ROFL…”
    well then, even the journalist and philosophers community think lowly of evolution. The whole point of saying…”to convince you how unscientific evolution is” is to say that it’s soooo unscientific that’s IT’S A JOKE! you get it!? ROFL

    “I sure hope not because i would have to write about the whole amphibian, reptil and mammal filogenetic branches…”
    So briefly explain it to me in 500 words or less as if you’re talking to me in person in the busy streets of New York.

    “Evolution Theory doesn’t cover the beguining”
    If evolutionists took themselves seriously, it should. Then it’ll get bashed by bible thumpers like me. J/K. LOL.
    oh wait: the big bang theory/singular point theory. But that’s just another theory where the proof is all in their head. Yet another unrepeatable event that science tries to prove as fact but can only theorize. And to so show how futile evolutionists attempt to refute Christianity with the final missing link is, even if it was found, God still created humans. All you need is a re-interpretation of a couple of verses that show God created man from dirt and breathing life into him over many years from a single-cell organism to humans. Voila!

    You ever wonder why facists movements always take religion, culture, ethics, race, economics, politics, and law over science?

    “Many animals cooperate.”
    LOL. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.

    “You see, a science discussion is, by definition, void of any supernatural explanation.”
    And that’s the reason why science is so narrow-minded. It cannot explain the unexplainable, so it simply ignores it or claims, “Anything that cannot be logically apprehend by me, is either untrue or non-existent or (as Redem puts it) irrelevant or (as you put it) mumbo jumbo.

    “Can you explain why the weight of people that would want nothing more than to become wildly famous (many scientists have this dream since childhood) shifted away from creationism? When someone who could acutally prove something that endangered the theory would get a whole load of prizes and recognition, why doesn’t a single one rise up?”
    People take the debate between creationism and evolutionism too seriously. Really what it is, both are like rival cousins who mock each other.
    Evolutionists have their monkey and creationists have the magical man in the sky.

    “Why are all the “creationist scientists” so weak that bright highschool kids could point out the mistakes they are making?”
    Now you know why I don’t dabble in ID.

    “explaining “modern” creationist arguments to my pupils and the brighter ones actually manage to debunk them”
    PSST. arguments? hardly. They debunk them because of your inability and ignorance to put some actual meaningful thought into theist theology.

    “What do you think specialists think about the evidence provided by creationists?”
    LOL. and what do you think creationists think about the evidence provided by evolutionists? a total debauchery I tells ya. It’s so unscientific it’s a joke. deja vu.

    “why i’m not a raving lunatic atheist that rapes, steals and murders because i can”
    hmmm. have you ever stole once in your life before? what about murder, in the sense that Jesus said Matthew 5:22?

    “First of all, morality is subjective and that is clear if you look at humans, for example. I guess you wouldn’t deny this would you? There are different codes of law and conduct according to the mindset of the population. Muslims cut the hands of thieves while westerners think that is barbaric and so on.

    So, this seems to indicate that morality shifts according to circunstances even to this day.”
    Relative morality exists and this is precisely why: Romans 1:28-31. And this is why absolute morality also exists (Romans 1:19-20) but doesn’t exist in the minds of relativists because of this: Romans 1:21-22, 25.

    “But let’s look at what morality really is.”
    ROFL.

    “How does our brain decides what is morally correct?”
    Here’s a simpler answer: Romans 2:15

    God Almighty Himself gave us morality. It is He who we must look up to to provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values. Since He is the original one who bestowed upon us His attributes or morality, it is He who we must give thanks! 1 Chronicles 16:8, Psalm 119:7; 136:1, Isaiah 12:4

    It’s so simple. From your eyes, you don’t see absolute morality because you’re looking at it from a scientific viewpoint. An absolute moral basis is beyond the reach and grasp of science, let alone the scientific method. Because of this, you are blind. Matthew 15:14, Psalm 81:12

    “I think i covered most of the possible questions but please do speak your mind.”
    I know you’re speaking to Arcon. But that was a very insightful for morality from evolutionary perspective. And also the exact reason why science (or evolution in your case) is unable to “find” absolute morality within its complex logic, rational and scientific methods. If humans want to find relative morality, then you can find it in his environment and history. That’s where science comes in to examine from the outside and sees the moral situation: thus relative morality! However, there’s no absolute morality based on scientific research, so there must be no absolute morality! Wait a minute. Just because it can’t be found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But it DOES! Absolute morality comes from God. Since that concept is beyond the grasp of science, man has either denied it, willfully rejected it, or ignored it simply because it comes from God, or a supernatural arbiter (as Redem puts it). Why? Romans 2:12-13, Romans 3:18, Romans 2:12-14 tells us that the Holy Spirit, testifying of God’s perfect moral standards, convicts man of his sin before Almighty God Himself. Man, aware of his condemnation to hell, subconsciously reverts back to his way of thinking for a more, beneficial/advantageous morality, relative morality, in order to make himself right before God. Yet the law brings death for even man fails by his own standard but sooner or later points to everlasting life by repentance and sorrow.

  89. Tim
    November 26th, 2007 | 04:07

    How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..

  90. Redem
    November 26th, 2007 | 05:18

    “How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”

    By opening our eyes and looking at how things really work, rather than mere wishful thinking?

  91. wah
    November 26th, 2007 | 05:44

    “How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”

    This is how people look around and not see it”
    Romans 1:19, 21-23, 25
    2 Corinthians 4:4
    Ephesians 4:18

  92. wah
    November 26th, 2007 | 05:47

    So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

  93. Redem
    November 26th, 2007 | 05:51

    “For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!”
    Science did indeed paly a aprt in that. We know that solid stuff does not simply pass through other solid stuff. We know that the solid stuff we shot at the gold did pass through it without impacting ont he gold itself, therefore we know that matter has empty space in it. And we know from repetition just how much empty space that is based on how much of the solid stuff goes through. That tells us just how small the solid part is compared to the empty space.
    I would call that some pretty good science, which has been borne out by later experimentation in particle physics. If you’re implying it’s flawed thinking… then you think the role of science is simply to state “The sun rises int he east” and not try to explain why?

    “Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…”
    It can support anything that is quantifiable by emeprical evidence. Not everything falls into that catagory.

    Certainly anything in the natural world.

    “No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong.”
    There has never been ANY evidence to prove evolution wrong.

    “There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…”
    This is because it is not a scientific theory and is unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible to prove it wrong because no matter what evidence you might found “God designed it that way” trumps all.

    Unless it’s possible to prove something wrong, failing to do so is not particularly impressive.

    “IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…”
    Rabbits in devaronian rocks would be a start. Or showing that it is impossible for something to have evolved. One “irreducibly complex” organism would be nice. Every attempt so far has been met with sterling work from scientists showing how it could have evolved.

    “I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible!”
    Rhetoric, force, emotional manipulation, torture, getting to the kids so their ideas die, mockery, etc…
    All things Christians have been eager to indulge in over the years. ALl in the name of, Jesus, of course.

    “It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview.”
    nah. Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.

    “a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)”
    The fact that I, personally, am trying to convince you is a matter of psychology, not evolution. Thus far I have only delt with this on an evolutionary scale. Are you also asking about the more personal reasons for it?

    “b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)”
    Non Sequitur. Does not deal with point b in the slightest.

    “Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill.”
    Well, nor does that always occur in human societies, especially the more “primitive” ones.

    “You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.”
    Crime is sometimes punished. Only in more recent times is it a near certainty, going back only a few hundred years we get to the point where our actions are little different to that of other apes. So again, how are we different from they?

    “If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever.”
    This is not universally true, however. And I knnow of no studies that have been done on apes to tell if your assumption that they do not care is true.

    “If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist.”
    I don’t see why. Guilt is a useful policing tool for the social contract. Why is it not possible?

    “If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?”
    We’re a lot more vicious than more apes.

    :D

    That might be why we need it ;)

    More seriously, though. We have not established that guilt is anything unique to humans. Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is. Guilt is merely a social construct. It is the lower of self worth, more than anything.

    “That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right?”
    Psychology. I would not be myself if I didn’t try to be correct. It’s as natural to me as breathing.

    “Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…”
    If it was a major expenditure of energy I might do that, but it isn’t. I use more energy watching movies probably. Certainly takes longer. But the why doesn’t matter, it can merely be a byproduct of stubborness and a distaste for things which are incorrect, which are advantages in other situations.

  94. Redem
    November 26th, 2007 | 06:11

    “And my point was that the ‘immoral treatment’ as you’re referring to occurred according to God’s justification”
    Genocide is immoral by todays standards. Or does it simply become moral because god told them to?
    A case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?

    “And to extrapolate upon that point, how do you feel the changing various ‘ideas’ of slavery, from ancient to modern? I think western civilization made slavery look bad.”
    Ask me that again after you see it from the slave’s point of view.

    “If we look at it from an observatory view, there are no absolute basis for morals.”
    We agree on this then.

    “Maybe your state, even mine, doesn’t. But the world does.”
    Based on what? If we establish that states don’t need it. Nations don’t need it. Then why the world? Why not simply go the same way as the city/nation?
    And have people setting it. International law, for example.

    “I don’t think he was making a case for evolution as a scientific law.”
    No. So?

    “Only if you consider him as a scientist. But not by today’s standard.”
    Nice try, but modern science predates Darwin. And he presented his theory in the accepted manner.

    “I believe his theory was a ‘face-lift’ of gradualism. As wiki points it, it’s simply a [i]form[/i] of gradualism, from an ecological sense of biological continuity.”
    In the sense that they both represent a continuum of evolution, they are similar. But they are opposed in terms of how that continuum progresses.

    “Really? Then how would you compare morality in a socio-biological construct as opposed to morality in a socio-cultural relativism.”
    I wouldn’t compare them.

    Not entirely sure what you’re asking me here.

    “Jesus, in Matthew 13:13, comments: “This is the reason that I speak to them in parables: because [d]having the power of seeing, they do not see; and [e]having the power of hearing, they do not hear, nor do they grasp and understand.”
    I don’t consider him to be a decent moral guide. Let alone likely to have existed ;)

    “Even though you don’t think there is any, do you want to know why there should be one?”
    I would like to know why you think that you thinking something “should” matters. The universe rarely cares that I think I should win the lottery *Sigh*

    “since they (and we) collectively reflect the depraved condition of humanity as a whole.”
    I don’t consider us depraved. We’re better people now than we ahve ever been before, and getting better all the time.

    “But, hypothetically, if every single person on this earth delighted in murder, rape, torture or sexual perversities [and I prefer not to get specific for sensitive reasons], don’t you think there should be one?”
    No. I don’t.

    Assuming you mean what I think you mean, here. Are you asking if I would like there to be an objective source for morality, if people were totally immoral?

    Doesn’t really make a lot of sense.

    “Just because you don’t see any reason or evidence to suggest or believe there is an absolute/objective source for declaring them immoral, does not mean it is non-existent.”
    I know that. But it does mean that I have good reason to not think one exists.

  95. Redem
    November 26th, 2007 | 06:14

    “So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.”

    Makes sense to me, but I shall clarify.

    I mean that we might assume that a funnily shaped rock formation was designed to look like a phallus just because it resembles one, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t simply the result of erosion by air and water.

  96. wah
    November 26th, 2007 | 06:27

    I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.

  97. wah
    November 26th, 2007 | 06:29

    “Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.”
    unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.

    “how are we different from they?”
    Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things, appreciate the sound of music, band together in an orchestra, create a court system to bring out justice for others. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.

    “Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is.’
    you’re right. it doesn’t. But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.

  98. Redem
    November 26th, 2007 | 06:42

    “As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?”
    Both.

    Keeping in mind that as I said earlier, the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.

    “so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?”

    Which one? We make more gaps every time we find a transitional fossil. ;_;

    “For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used.”

    What’s this conuntrum, and your response? I’ve never heard either fo them…

    Unless you mean the “Are you saying god couldn’t have made a world where life evolved”? Is that the one?

    “3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.”
    This claim is false. I know of no experts who do this, other than creationists. And Lucy is but one of many examples of Australopithecus afarensis, of which we have about 120 distinct individuals, not counting bone fragments.

    “4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.”
    At the time the scientists who recorded the tooth made clear that he was unsure if it was a hominid tooth, or the tooth of another extinct ape. For a popular magasine an artist made a drawing of what he imagined a halfman-halfape creature would look like. Later scientists showed it belonged to an extinct species related to modern pigs.
    No one has ever made much of it except creationists.

    “5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.”
    Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.

    “6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.”
    We have over 500 distinct neanderthal specimens, again not counting minor fragments and individual bones. They are not “Old men with arthritis”.

    We have thousands of pre-human hominid specimens. Just a “tiny” bit more complete than you are trying to imply here.

    “Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..””
    This dude is THE most quote mined person in history, gotta be.

    Here is a fuller quote.

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

    “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”

    Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never “seen” in the rocks.

    Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

    For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]”

    He’s, again, making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution.

  99. Redem
    November 26th, 2007 | 06:44

    To allow Gould himself to reply…

    ” [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

    Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am — for I have become a major target of these practices.

    I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record — geologically “sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) — reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

    Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

    – Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.”

    He is not happy with this sorta thing. :(

  100. Redem
    November 26th, 2007 | 06:52

    “I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.”
    Possibly, but to understand nature I choose to study nature. Not accept the “wisdom” of bronzeage tribal priests as indisputable.

    “unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.”
    Example please.

    “Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things”
    Again only different in complexity. Apes do both of these.

    “appreciate the sound of music”
    As far as I know many animals like music, and few people can really be said to “appreciate” music at a higher level than that.

    “band together in an orchestra”
    A unique human trait, which proves…?

    “create a court system to bring out justice for others.”
    Only differing by complexity. Such things happen in large societies only, and are not “human” traits, but those of civilization.

    “But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.”
    Unless he doesn’t exist, and such things happened on their own.

    Their existence proves nothing.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All

Leave a reply