If the evidence for God is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced?

Posted on October 15, 2010 By

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), who is considered to be the first existentialist philosopher.

.

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that… My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.”

–New York University Professor of Philosophy, and leading atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel

———–

Recently, a reader posted a comment to this website which read “GOD IS NOT REAL” …with a string of obscenities appearing before and after these four words (which I have removed to maintain a PG rating). It does not take a trained psychologist to perceive that there is more than just bare logic shaping these atheistic views. If this person had arrived at atheism purely from logical reasoning, he would have calmly posted a response to the arguments posted on this website or would have simply chosen to ignore them. But this person is hardly alone. Why do so many people take offense at the idea that there is a God? Further, why are so many smart people unconvinced despite the wealth of evidence? And if the evidence is so strong, as this website contends, why isn’t it more commonly known? R.C. Sproul comments in his book If There Is a God, Why Are There Atheists?:

“The New Testament maintains that unbelief is generated not so much by intellectual causes as by moral and psychological ones. The problem is not that there is insufficient evidence to convince rational beings that there is a God, but that rational beings have a natural antipathy to the being of God. In a word, the nature of God (at least the Christian God) is repugnant to man and is not the focus of desire or wish-projection” [as Sigmund Freud suggested].

Why is the idea of God repugnant to so many people? Sproul continues:

“God’s presence is severely threatening to man. God manifests a threat to man’s moral standards, a threat to his quest for autonomy, and a threat to his desire for concealment. God’s revelation involves the intrusion and indeed invasion of the ‘other,’ the ‘different,’ the alien and strange to human circumstances. In a word, it represents the invasion of light into the darkness to which man is accustomed.”

The notion of God, put another way, is a threat to humanity’s desire to be free from burdensome moral constraints…to fashion one’s own morals and be the king of one’s castle — answerable to no one. Jean-Paul Sartre, the French existentialist philosopher, put it succinctly when he said, “all is permissible if God does not exist.” As a result of the revulsion that so many secular people feel toward the concept of God, there is a strong cultural current present (especially in academia and the media) to suppress or deny any knowledge of him. At first reading, this may sound like a fantastical conspiracy theory, but the claim becomes more plausible when one consults experts in psychology. Best-selling psychologist/author M. Scott Peck writes in his book The Road Less Travelled:

“[A] reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion.”

Peck continues:

“Another major reason that scientists are prone to throw out the baby with the bath water is that they do not see the baby. Many scientists simply do not look at the evidence of the reality of God. They suffer from a kind of tunnel vision, a psychologically self-imposed set of blinders which prevents them from turning their attention to the realm of the spirit.”

This “self-imposed set of blinders” is fashioned as a result of the “repugnance” that certain individuals feel toward the concept of God. And Peck is not the only psychologist to maintain that science can become a religion. Psychologist Charles Tart terms this religious belief system “scientism” in his book The End of Materialism:

“…but science is practiced by human beings, beings who, like the rest of us, are fallible, so [I present] ways of not knowing, ways in which essential science ossifies into scientism, a rigid belief system, and which genuine skepticism, an honest search for better truths, turns into pseudoskepticism, or debunking. As I’ve observed it in my career, and I think psychologist Abraham Maslow would have agreed, science can be practiced in a way that makes it an open-ended, personal-growth system for the practitioner or one of the most effective and prestigious neurotic defense mechanisms available.”

Examples of using science as an “effective and prestigious neurotic defense mechanism” are both abundant and transparent. One particularly poignant example is that of “directed panspermia”: With advances in molecular biology over the last several decades, it has become increasingly clear to scientists that the divide in complexity separating the simplest living thing (the self-replicating cell) from non-living matter is so vast as to be unbridgeable by random processes. Hence, Francis Crick, the Nobel Laureate well known as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, has stated in his book Life Itself:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Similarly, physicist and information theorist Hubert Yockey, who is the leading author of the primary text on the application of information theory to the origin of life, writes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology:

“Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated….it would be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarizing the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies made the same point in his book The Fifth Miracle:

“Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled.”

Even prominent theoretical biologist (and atheist) Stuart Kauffman admits:

“Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on the earth some 3.45 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows.”

(As an aside, please view this Scientific American article titled Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists But Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began.  Predictably, the article ends with a lame atheist attempt at damage control by asking the question “What created the divine creator?”…as if an eternally existing being—without beginning— would require a creator.) This may come as a surprise to many readers who were taught in school (some very recently) that scientists were confident that the simplest living things were the product of random processes at work in a “primordial soup” or “prebiotic soup” composed of certain crucial chemicals. But what should come as a much bigger surprise to the reader is how atheistic scientists such as Crick have tried to wriggle free of the theistic implications present in this vast divide in complexity which is unbridgeable by random processes: Crick (in Life Itself) and others such as the biologist Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) and the British chemist Leslie Orgel have endorsed the concept of “directed panspermia” which states that life was brought to earth by aliens from outer space. (This article reveals Crick’s support of the theory. Click here to view a video of Dawkins endorsing the idea in an interview). As the molecular biologist Michael Denton declares in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

“Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.”

By endorsing directed panspermia, individuals such as Crick and Dawkins have done more than embarrass themselves, as Denton above insinuates: They have laid bare for all to see the perceptual filter steering their atheistic beliefs, which is religious in nature, as Peck maintains. This becomes especially apparent when one considers that, even if it could be demonstrated that aliens brought the first living organisms to earth, it provides no final answer as to how the first living things emerged from unintelligent, random processes. Rather, it just conveniently kicks the can down the road in order to avoid a question which is inconvenient to the religious belief system of scientism. Even if directed panspermia were true, one is still left with the unanswered question: How did alien life emerge from random processes?

As this article from Scientific American magazine points out, “It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10 to the 127th power years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids.” And protein folding is only the first step in creating life from lifeless chemicals. Further, random processes would need a heck of a lot longer to fold proteins than would a supercomputer programmed to do so. But, the problem is, the universe is only about 15 billion years old. In short, it is important for the reader to understand that atheistic conclusions do not result from scientific research. Rather, they precede scientific research and restrict any notion of God before examination of data or facts. This is the case even when the result is a ridiculous, non-scientific, quasi-religious concept such as directed panspermia. But directed panspermia is hardly the only display of the scientistic (not to be confused with “scientific”) religious belief system at work in the scientific community. In The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, Oxford University and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Professor of Biology Lynn Margulis (winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) discusses the persistence of neo-Darwinian theory, despite its deteriorating scientific basis, with journalist Susan Mazur:

Margulis: “If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.”

Mazur: “So a certain dishonesty set in?”

Margulis: “No. It was not dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

Mazur: “But a whole industry grew up.”

Margulis: “Yes, but people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”

Here again the reader can clearly see that atheistic conclusions which purportedly arise from scientific research, such as neo-Darwinism, can hardly be characterized as the logical result of an objective examination of facts. Rather, they precede the examination of facts and reflect the religious beliefs of a scientist’s “tribal group.” This can be the case even when such theories have a basis which has been eroded by advances in scientific understanding. The late great Harvard University paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould commented that:

“Unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”

In what “cultural contexts” are atheist biologists rooted, causing them to perpetrate “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling?” For one, in the cultural context that the material world is the most basic, fundamental plane of existence (a worldview known as “materialism” or “naturalism”). The Harvard University geneticist Richard C. Lewontin commented in 1997 that, in reference to defending Darwinism in a debate:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In a similar light, Nancy Pearcey notes in her essay How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down:

“The media paints the evolution controversy in terms of science versus religion. But it is much more accurate to say it is worldview versus worldview, philosophy versus philosophy…” “Interestingly, a few evolutionists do acknowledge the point. Michael Ruse made a famous admission at the 1993 symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ‘Evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism,’ he said—that is, it is a philosophy, not just facts. He went on: ‘Evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.’ Ruse’s colleagues responded with shocked silence and afterward one of them, Arthur Shapiro, wrote a commentary titled, ‘Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?'” “But, ironically, in the process, Shapiro himself conceded that ‘there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science,’ He went on: ‘Darwinism is a philosophical preference, if by that we mean we choose to discuss the material universe in terms of material processes accessible by material operations.'”

So entrenched is this cultural context, that it persists despite the fact it has been utterly discredited by modern physics, as demonstrated in my post entitled God Is Real…Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism. —————– The ideological (as opposed to logical) opposition to the concept of divine creation pervasive in academia was expressed succinctly by George Wald, a Nobel Prize winner in medicine and physiology, when he said:

“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”

Similarly, Robert Jastrow, the astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, discusses how many atheist physicists react to the scientific proof that the universe had a beginning (thereby ruling out the atheist preference for an uncreated, eternally existing universe):

“Theologians are generally delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when the evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.”

Does the aliens-brought-life-to-earth explanation for the origin of life endorsed by atheist biologist Richard Dawkins not satisfy you? Well then, perhaps you will be satisfied by the explanation given by prominent atheist biologist Michael Ruse: A MAGICAL CRYSTAL PIGGYBACK RIDE! Sound bizarre? Click on the link and watch the video. More bad news for atheism: Richard Dawkins (atheist biologist and author of The God Delusion) has admitted that “a serious case can be made for a deistic God” in a debate with Oxford University mathematician John Lennox. Click here to learn more or go to YouTube and view the debate. Please also listen to this 5 part audio by psychologist Paul Vitz about the psychology of atheism. Read this article about scientists and religion. Click the following link if you want to discover Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God. Click here to review an illustration of the repugnance felt by many in academia for the idea of God and link to a documentary that provides more detail. This article discusses a paper written by two atheist physicists entitled Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. What exactly is “disturbing” to the atheist authors? Their research points towards the existence of God (an “unknown agent” who “intervened in the evolution [of the universe] for reasons of its own,” in their words). Predictably, the article makes a lame attempt at atheist damage control by stating, “But creationists should not rejoice: even a god such as this can’t explain how things got so strange.”


332 comments


  1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Wil says:

    Wow Scott:

    I just finished reading all these posts. How do you put up with all the abuse? To me most people aren’t searching for the truth – they are just trying to reaffirm what they already believe in and we must be careful not to fall into that category.

    I wholly support and congratulate you on your perseverance.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 33 ) says:

      Wil:

      Bingo…these atheists are just trying to reaffirm what they already believe.

      Would it surprize you to learn that I actually GREATLY ENJOY the abuse? No, I am not some sort of sick masochist. I enjoy the abuse because of the role that it plays in demonstrating one of my key points: Atheits hold their beliefs primarily for ideological, as opposed to logical reasons.

      Atheists are fond of depicting their belief system as rigidly rationalist. It is common to see atheists make comments such as “I believe atheism because of the facts.”

      But if a person holds a belief for coldly logical reasons, why would he/she need to spew out angry rhetoric and insults to defend that belief? Insults and angry rhetoric are what a person turns to when the logical basis for their belief is lacking.

      So whenever an atheist starts calling me names and spewing out angry rhetoric, his comments also communicate the unspoken subtext of, “I have run out of logical support for my views and I am steaming mad about this.”

      And if there are any atheists reading this comment, all I have to say is KEEP IT UP…you are playing right into my hand every time you insult me and resort to angry rhetoric (not to mention 5 page long, rambling diatribes) in order to defend your views.

      Scott


  2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Malin says:

    So people are in darkness you say? In what sense? In the sense of not knowing? Not knowing what exactly? God presumably. If so, your claim amounts to ‘god exists and people don’t know about it’. That’s hardly an interesting argument, it’s an unsubstantiated metaphor.

    Also – if you’d bothered to read any Sartre, you’d know that he had an ethical system in place and talked a lot about responsibility. He said that actions have no a priori moral problems but we are never the less responsible for them (see opening remarks in ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’).
    So atheists value privacy and desire to do nasty things. That’s my motivation, eh? Well that’s quite an assertion, but lucky for me, not a single speck of a datum has been provided to back it up.

    Now it’s my turn: people who are religious were almost invariably raised religious. People who are of a certain religion are almost invariably raised in that religion – the religious upbringing causes people to be religious. So you’re just religious because you were raised that way. Care to give me a counter example? How about a statistically significant counterexample (p > 0.05)? No, I didn’t think so.

    Why are smart people still religious? Well, on average they’re not. According to studies (Howell 1927, Poythress 1975, Terman 1959, et c. et alia ad nausium) religious people tend not to be as smart as the non-religious. There are three possibilities: (a) religion makes you stupid, (b) something else makes you both stupid and religious and (c) stupidity makes you religious. If you don’t find (a) or (b) plausible then you are left with (c).

    So people are religious because they were brought up that way, and possibly because they’re not so bright.

    As to scientists not knowing the origins of life, they freely admit it. It’s no embarrassment to me that I don’t know how many stars are in Orion’s belt. In fact Dawkins mentioned that he didn’t know how life got started in the beginning of the Selfish Gene.
    As to Dawkins endorsing the aliens view – he simply said that it may be the case. How could we prove otherwise? If we travel planets then so can other creatures, if there are any.

    As to science being a religion – it’s more smoke, mirrors and metaphor. There is no god of science, there is no holy scripture, there are no moral mandates. Science is a religion as much as a cheese factory is a sports centre.

    The rest of this is simply a series of name-drops and unargued quotes, with the exception of a few light comments about there not being enough time to have complex molecules evolve. Dawkins has covered this in articles for biologists – the molecules simply don’t need infinite time to evolve. Evolution allows rapid adjustments. Your calculations are simply wrong, and if you don’t believe me then you can look at the calculations of the biologists who are into this sort of thing.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 33 ) says:

      “God exists and people don’t know about it” is an “unsubtantiated metaphor”? Well, you can either respond to the substantiation that I provide in my other essays (I recommend that you start with Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God, and What It All Boils Down To and, Why Do I Have to Believe In God to Be Good?) or you can just make this assertion while simultaneously ignoring my arguments. This one essay where you are posting your comment was not intended to be my entire argument.

      Sartre had an ethical system in place? He believed that we have moral responsibility? Good. My question for you (and for Sartre, if he were still alive) would be: Where did this ethical system come from?

      Please read my essay titled Why Do I Have to Believe in God to Be Good? where I discuss how all attempts to provide naturalistic or evolutionary explanations for morality must necessarily fail.

      I am not really saying that “atheists value privacy and desire to do nasty things.” I am saying that ALL of us have evil within us and an inborn desire to do selfish things. Atheism is a belief system that attemps to free people to pursue selfish and evil desires without the burden of worrying about the ramificatons of these actions. I think the term “moral escapism” is appropriate.

      This turns Sigmund Freud’s concept of “wish fullfilment” on its head. The “you-choose-to-believe-that-to-fulfill-a-desire” argument is every bit as applicable to atheism as it is to theism.

      What evidence do I have that atheism is grounded in moral escapism? Well, it starts with the fact that atheists cannot satisfactorily explain why it is that human beings have morality, as I demonstrate in Why Do I Have to Believe in God to Be Good? Atheists resort to self-refuting arguments and contorted mental gymnastics in order to do away with morality. Your rebutals to the above mentioned essay are eagerly anticipated.

      People who are religious are almost invariably raised religious?! Simple logic easily demonstrates how this is impossible. How did Christianity (or any other widespread belief system) grow from a few original members to a major, worldwide religion? Because the original Christians (the twelve apostles) reproduced like rabbits?! Then I must be a descendent of one of the twelve apostles…I wonder which one.

      Citing statistics about how many smart people believe in God is a trecherous road. Click here to see a survey conducted by a Rice University sociologist which says that roughly two thirds of scientists believe in God. Further, as I demonstrate in What It All Boils Down To, a majority of the key contributors to modern physics were believers in God. This would include names such as Einstein, Max Planck (the founder of quantum theory), Werner Heisenberg (the founder of quantum mechanics), Max Born (who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics), Sir Arthur Eddinton, Erwin Schroedinger, James Clerk Maxwell (whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude as those of Einstein and Newton), Paul Dirac (who made crucial contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics), Sir Joseph J. Thompson (the founder of atomic physics), and on and on and on.

      Also, I must mention that atheists rely heavily on citing statistics about how many smart people disbelieve in God in order to protect the reasoning behind that disbelief from logical scrutiny. For example, to go from the scientific theory that “Darwinian evolution provides an explanation for the diversification of life from a common ancestor” to the philosophical belief that “there is no God,” one must engage in philosophy. As I demonstrate in Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism, this philosophical reasoning cannot withstand logical scrutiny.

      Yes, atheist scientists freely admit that they cannot explain the origin of life…and this immediately begs the question: What is their trail of logic that leads them from Darwinism to atheism? The answer is clear: Atheist biologists get from Darwinism to atheism by using their materialist/naturalist worldview (which has been completely discredited by modern physics) to extrapoloate an unintelligent source for the entire universe from the (at least apparently) unintelligent mechanism for the diversification of life.

      I am not saying that science is by itself a religion. Rather, it is converted into a religion called “scientism” by atheists who think that science is sufficient to answer all existential questions.
      Take the statement, “The only kind of knowledge that we can have is scientific knowledge.” This is a self-defeating statement. Philosopher Mikael Stenmark comments in his book Scientism: Science, Ethics and Religion:

      The problem is that the scientistic [not to be confused with “scientific”] belief that we can only know what science can tell us seems to be something that science cannot tell us. How can one set up a scientific experiment to demonstrate the truth of T1 [“T1” is Stenmark’s symbol for the premise, “The only kind of knowledge that we can have is scientific knowledge.”] What methods in, for instance, biology or physics are suitable for such a task? Well, hardly those methods that make it possible for scientists to discover and explain electrons, protons, genes, survival mechanisms and natural selection. Furthermore, it is not because the content of this belief is too small, too distant, or too far in the past for science to determine its truth-value (or probability). Rather it is that beliefs of this sort are not subject to scientific inquiry. We cannot come to know T1 by appeal to science alone. T1 is rather a view in the theory of knowledge and is, therefore, a piece of philosophy and not a piece of science. But if this is the case, then T1 is self-refuting. If T1 is true, then it is false. T1 falsifies itself.

      And the same is true with such statements as, “Science alone can answer our existential questions and explain as well as replace traditional religion.” Such a statement is self-refuting because it is not a scientific statement. Perhaps that is why Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

      Citing “name drops and unargued quotes” is a convenient way to casually dismiss arguments that you cannot (or do not want to) logically engage with.

      Evolution allows rapid adjustments? OK, fine. What is the source of the mechanism that allows for this? As I point out in Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism and Riddles for Atheists, questions such as this are meta-scientific / ontological rather than scientific. And atheism is not able to answer such core ontological questions.


  3. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Chrispy says:

    Bookmarked this page a year and a half ago and revisit!

    Have you ever heard C.S.Lewis’ refute of Naturalism in his book “Miracles”?

    He states that everything is cause and effect, while our though process is both cause and effect at the same time as ground and consequent (the realm of “Must” and “Therefore’s ex: Grandpa MUST be sick today because he got up late)

    And he works his way into saying that since the universe is mindless cause and effect, and rational thought contains something alongside cause and effect (the ground and consequent), our thought process cannot be entirely materialistic.

    In other words, If reason, that which allows us to be rational, is produced by irrational mindless matter, then our rationality ceases to be rational. Irrational causes cannot produce rational causes. We certainly never see this displayed in nature. In fact, the Atheist takes a tremendous leap of faith in stating that the irrational produces the rational, not by observing it happen scientifically.

    It then follows that only the rational can produce the rational. That mindless matter cannot produce mindful reasoning for the very reasoning that if our mindful reasoning is simply the result of chemical explosions, it ceases to be rational. Therefore, mankind must be the product of a rational cause, and the only things we know to have rationality are intelligent beings (humans), and therefore, the cause of mankind is a rational mind(s)

    We don’t have to jump from Atheism to Christianity. We jump from Atheism to Deism or Pantheism first :P

    Eh hope you liked it.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 33 ) says:

      Chrispy,

      No I had not heard about what you mention. What a coincidence, I am writing an essay on a very similar topic! I may in fact use what you have given me in the essay.

      Scott


  4. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Kyle says:

    Well. Scotty, since you haven’t yet responded to my latest exposition of your endless dishonesty – with nothing but more dishonesty, I’m sure – I’ll post a couple more rebuttals of your flagrantly irrational BS.

    First, recall that even after I rebutted your retarded Cavanaugh argument that dishonestly evades the need to address any and all religious violence, you repeated the argument as if I never rebutted it. Not only that, you compounded your deception by ignoring my point about the utter hypocrisy of your claims regarding “atheist violence” in the light of Cavanaughs argument!

    Let’s see if you can be shamed into admitting just one failed argument. My bet is that you cannot do so:

    If religion gets a pass 100% of the time because “religion wasn’t a discrete category of human activity”, even when the actions (e.g. – suicide) required motivations that were DEFINITIONAL religious motivations (e.g. – direct admission to paradise and 72 virgins), how can any moronic apologist (that’s you, Scotty) insist that atheism is responsible for this or that violence!

    If this is still too confusing for your pea brain, let me clarify further. Why would the examples – or even ONE example – of the supposed “atheist violence” be characterized as resulting from “atheism as a discrete category of human activity”? Can you, with a straight face, make an argument for that that would not, with the slightest pretense of unbiased reasoning, apply to “religious violence” IN SPADES?

    You should be ashamed of yourself for continuing with the SJG charade. You know damn well that he isn’t furious because he was revealed telling the truth! You know damn well he’s furious for being dishonestly quote mined, BUT YOU ARE NEVER, EVER GOING TO MAKE AN ADMISSION THAT WOULD BRING INTO QUESTION THE VERACITY OF THE PROFESSIONAL LIARS FOR JEBUS THAT IT IS YOUR BLOG’S ENTIRE PURPOSE TO QUOTE.

    Cambrian Explosion? Maybe next time. I tire of dealing with your lies. First, let’s see you fess up to JUST ONE. Your pick. Seriously, dude; if you can’t cop to at least some of the deceptions and failed arguments, you lose any tiny shred of integrity that you may be clinging to. All that your stubborn refusal to acknowledge EVERYTHING reveals is that you are an IDEOLOGUE, not a truth seeker. This is even more damning when the subject is science, which demands objectivity. Your 100% perfect record of ideological purity in the face of all science reveals to all that your positions are not science. They aren’t even pseudoscience; they’re just anti-science, plain and simple.

    This again?:

    “HOW CAN IT BE THAT INANIMATE MATTER CAN BE INDUCED TO OBEY A SET OF LAWS? (Such as the laws of chemistry, physics, or thermodynamics?) How, Kyle? HOW?”

    Your argument by question methodology is std creatard tactics because it only IMPLIES an argument, thus concealing that the implied argument is blatantly fallacious. How is this implying a valid argument? Don’t hide behind the Arguments from Ignorance questions. Spell out YOUR answer to YOUR question:

    HOW IS IT THAT INANIMATE MATTER CAN BE INDUCED TO OBEY A SET OF LAWS? (Such as the laws of chemistry, physics, or thermodynamics?) How, Scotty? HOW?

    Goddidit! No? Then I’m all ears. Let’s hear it.

    And I ask again, “Why must inanimate matter be coerced into following physical principles?

    Isn’t this just another way of saying, while DISHONESTLY refusing to say it? – “Why is the universe as it is?

    This about the 20th time that I’ve pointed out that it is a hilarious admission that every other argument of yours has failed when you ALWAYS are forced to move the goalpost/switch arguments to the ultimate first cause “argument”. You can try to disguise it with stupidly worded Arguments by Question, but you seem to forget that I actually understand logic and WILL catch it every time.

    Of late, you are consistently punting on all of your failed arguments. Every time I tally up the fallacies and refute the misinformation, you either explicitly or, as above, implicitly, revert to the same argument. That argument just happens to be one of the worst ever, so it speaks volumes about your other arguments that you use it to evade them.

    The ultimate first cause argument, whether stupidly hiding behind an Argument by Question or not, is just the ultimate Argument from Ignorance. All of the apologetics BS in the universe cannot change the fact that the argument is:

    “We don’t know ‘X’; therefore, there is an invisible, omnipotent creator of the universe.”

    It used to be used for damn near everything, from lightening to disease, because we didn’t know damn near anything. We are now to the point where science has closed so many gaps in knowledge that tards like you are reduced to using it exclusively on matters from the first 1 X 10^-43 seconds of the universe’s existence! Your god-o-the-gaps has lost every gap for a millennium, but you have FAITH that there is one last gap that cannot be closed – THEREFORE GODDIDIT!


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Kyle, whether or not you think I am dishonest an irrational is an entirely separate issue from whether or not you have made a convincing case against God. Your continuously trying to hammer home my alleged dishonesty is a clear diversion. If I misrepresented something Dawkins said, why don’t you just let the individual viewer of this website decide that for him or her self? The video is right there for everyone to see.

      The simple fact is that Dawkins endorsed the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis, as did several other highly prominent atheists such as Francis Crick, Chandra Wickaramsinghe, and Fred Hoyle. You are just not going to be able to get around this. Whether I exaggerated their endorsement of the hypothesis by allegedly calling it a firm belief is a separate issue. As I said before, the point of me posting the video is to show that the idea that atheists are somehow more rational and logical is utterly absurd.

      Furthermore, it exposes the fallacy of the notion that atheists do not rely on faith. Dawkins suggested in the video that the emergence of this alien life can be explained as the result of “some sort of Darwinian process.” This is despite the fact that Darwinian processes can only apply to things that are ALREADY ALIVE. Did you forget this too? Darwinian evolution requires reproductive capability and random genetic mutations. Non-living matter does not reproduce and does not have genes to mutate.

      Are you suggesting that the Cambrian explosion is a lie? Do I have that right?

      Here are some more key points:

      1) Using insults and strident rhetoric just makes you look like a wounded, cornered animal. It betrays the fact that you know your position is weak and indefensible. A person with a logically sound argument does not need to prop it up with insults and forceful rhetoric. Strong arguments stand up on their own without such proping up.

      2) Regarding the arguments presented by Cavanaugh, as presented in my Doesn’t Religion Cause Violence post in the snippets section, you STILL have not responded to his arguments. I recently added another paragraph from Cavanaugh’s book to the post, which I have copied and pasted below:

      “…The first conclusion is that there is no transhistorical or transcultural concept of religion. Religion has a history, and what counts as religion and what does not in any given context depends on different configurations of power and authority. The second conclusion is that the attempt to say that there is a transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion that is separable from secular phenomena is itself part of a particular configuration of power, that of the modern, liberal nation-state as it is developed in the West.”

      In order to tie religion to violence, you need to come up with some sort of transhistoric and transcultural concept of religion. No scholar of religion (regardless of their belief system) has been able to do this. How are you going to?

      I tie atheism to violence because it involves a greatly diminished concept of the dignity of human life. If humans are nothing but “survival machines,” than why not kill them in the millions when they get in your way?

      In 1920, Vladimir Lenin (the key founder of the Soviet Union) stated:

      “We repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. Everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.”

      Lenin also said,

      “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

      The specific “morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas” that I am referring to is the sanctity of human life. It is the morality that says that people are more than just “survival machines” that serve no more purpose than passing on their genes. The diminished concept of the value of human life is what allowed the Communists to rationalize killing people in historically unprecedented numbers.

      3) Quote mining?! Kyle, if you want to allege that a quote was taken out of context, you need to make a convincing case for what the correct context is. Otherwise, the allegation is meaningless. Further, I have agreed to proceed my arguments from the generous assumption that all of your science is correct.

      4) I will ask you again how it can be that inanimate matter can be made to follow a set of natural laws. Further, I will ask you how those laws got there without a Lawgiver.

      How do I think it is that this can be? Easy, I think that natural laws are the result of a divine Lawgiver. You, apparently, think that these laws “just are.” Please click on this link to read my post titled Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism, where I discuss the topic in detail.

      Labeling my view as “argument from ignorance” is inaccurate because my view is based upon what we DO know rather than upon what we don’t know. One must be willing to go wherever the evidence leads rather than wherever one’s ideology leads.

      Recall the example of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) scientists inferring intelligence from a set of prime numbers in a radio signal. Regarding the FAR FAR FAR greater complexity present in the most simple organism, you replied that the same inference of intelligence cannot be made because (please correct me if I am wrong) living organisms have reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms.

      The ball is now in your court to explain how living organisms got such dizzyingly complex mechanisms as reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms.

      You refer to my alleged God-of-the-gaps thinking. This is a double-edged sword. You apparently think that the gap in complexity separating non-living matter from the most simple organism will eventually be bridged by some sort of unintelligent mechanism, despite the almost incomprehensible complexity of the most simple organism. This is what should be labeled “unintelligent-mechanisms-of-the-gaps” thinking.

      When you say “it used to be used for damn near everything, from lightning to disease,” (referring to god-of-the-gaps thinking) you are correct that people are not justified in trying to fill in gaps that can be explained in naturalistic terms. That is because gaps such as the explanations for lightning and disease are questions of intermediate causation, not ultimate causation.

      The question of the origin of life is a question that involves a question of ultimate causation: Is life ultimately the result of intelligent or unintelligent causation? There is no intrinsic reason to doubt any of the self-organization scenarios that you reference with regard to the origin of life. There are scientific reasons to do so, but if we get into a discussion of the science behind self-organization, we will again be in a debate about intermediate causation.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Kyle says:

        “Kyle, whether or not you think I am dishonest an irrational is an entirely separate issue from . . . ”

        Again, you distort the facts. We aren’t talking about what I think; we’re talking about what you have shown and I have exposed. It’s all here in black and white and all you have to deal with it is denialism and some genuine inability to understand logical argumentation.

        “. . . whether or not you have made a convincing case against God.”

        Again, you invert the burden of evidence. The existence of sky daddy is absolutely a positive claim that I don’t even need address until credible evidence is presented. As I stated earlier – and you ignored – the loopy arguments and philosophical musings are not evidence.

        “Your continuously trying to hammer home my alleged dishonesty is a clear diversion.”

        No, a-hole, it is the PRIMARY POINT! All creationists are pathological liars BY NECESSITY! The average yahoo may not be able judge the science or understand fallacious arguments, but can reach the logical conclusion when one party in a debate lies with every breath.

        “If I misrepresented something Dawkins said, why don’t you just let the individual viewer of this website decide that for him or her self? The video is right there for everyone to see.”

        That smells like a desperate attempt to stop me from making it crystal clear exactly why the proper interpretation is precisely what I said. You guys must stick together. You might get kicked out of the cretinist club if ever forced to admit that they all lie, lie, lie all the time and on every subject.

        “The simple fact is that Dawkins endorsed the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis, . . . ”

        No, lying a-hole, the simple fact is that Dawkins was answering a direct question, which is in the video and which I have quoted VERBATIM! WHAT IS THE QUESTION SCOTTY! BE A MAN ABOUT IT. PULL YOUR NOSE OUT THE PRO-LIARS SPHINCTERS AND ADMIT THE OBVIOUS.

        “Whether I exaggerated their endorsement of the hypothesis by allegedly calling it a firm belief is a separate issue.”

        It’s not separate from the issue of you being a typical cretinist liar. You are also ignoring the matter of it not even being an endorsement. It was clearly an answer to a specific question and taking it to mean something entirely different is a LIE.

        “As I said before, the point of me posting the video is to show that the idea that atheists are somehow more rational and logical is utterly absurd.”

        And as I’ve said before, this is called “Argument from Incredulity” and “Argument by Ridicule” and it was used by you about a thousand times, with carefully crafted phrases meant to make catalysis sound new-agey, as a replacement for and diversion from rational arguments.

        “Furthermore, it exposes the fallacy of the notion that atheists do not rely on faith. Dawkins suggested in the video that the emergence of this alien life can be explained as the result of “some sort of Darwinian process.” This is despite the fact that Darwinian processes can only apply to things that are ALREADY ALIVE. Did you forget this too?”

        That all depends on how you define life. By most people’s definitions, it is also untrue, AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED. You even acknowledged the self-catalyzing RNA, so you can’t claim to have missed this one.

        “Darwinian evolution requires reproductive capability and random genetic mutations. Non-living matter does not reproduce and does not have genes to mutate.”

        As per above, molecules can reproduce. They do so with a high degree of mutation also, with no other material required. You are using semantics to argue substance, nitwit.

        “Are you suggesting that the Cambrian explosion is a lie? Do I have that right?”

        Every time you ask ‘Do I have that right?”, you are knowingly mischaracterizing my position; it’s transparent as hell. Your interpretations and arguments are all purposely deceptive.

        “1) Using insults and strident rhetoric just makes you look like a wounded, cornered animal. It betrays the fact that you know your position is weak and indefensible. A person with a logically sound argument does not need to prop it up with insults and forceful rhetoric. Strong arguments stand up on their own without such proping up.”

        Keep saying this, you miserable excuse for human being. I will keep answering the same way. I am punctuating and drawing attention to your weak, indefensible positions that can only be defended by maximum deceit.

        “2) Regarding the arguments presented by Cavanaugh, as presented in my Doesn’t Religion Cause Violence post in the snippets section, you STILL have not responded to his arguments. I recently added another paragraph from Cavanaugh’s book to the post, which I have copied and pasted below:”

        ““…The first conclusion is that there is no transhistorical or transcultural concept of religion. Religion has a history, and what counts as religion and what does not in any given context depends on different configurations of power and authority. The second conclusion is that the attempt to say that there is a transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion that is separable from secular phenomena is itself part of a particular configuration of power, that of the modern, liberal nation-state as it is developed in the West.””

        NO, JACKASS, I ABSOLUTELY DID RESPOND TO THIS!!! Go back, find my responses, read them, and address them, you flaming a-hole!

        “In order to tie religion to violence, you need to come up with some sort of transhistoric and transcultural concept of religion. No scholar of religion (regardless of their belief system) has been able to do this. How are you going to?”

        aaauuugghhh!!!!! Besides ignoring my response to this, you are also IGNORING the fact that if you are arguing that religion can’t be disentangled from other aspects of culture, EVEN THOUGH MOTIVATIONS LIKE INSTANT PARADISE W/ 72 VIRGINS ARE UNDENIABLY RELIGIOUS, THEN HOW IN HELL ARE YOU JUSTIFYING SINGLING OUT ATHEISM!? ANSWER ME, YOU EFFIN’ MORON!

        “I tie atheism to violence because it involves a greatly diminished concept of the dignity of human life.”

        Arguments can be made, have been, and I can do so as well, complete with undeniable historical examples, that religion in fact justifies evil that cannot be justified without it. I have done so directly to you. That said, I CAN ALSO TAKE THE SAME COP-OUT AS CAVANAUGH AND BE FAR MORE ACCURATE IN DOING SO! Show all that historical evidence for atheism as a distinct endeavor, you slimy weasel. DON’T MAKE ME ASK AGAIN!

        “If humans are nothing but “survival machines,” than why not kill them in the millions when they get in your way?”

        Ah yes, the retarded “acceptance of science” equals “promotes “social Darwinism”” shtick that is such an obvious non sequitur that only a creatard would ever use it. THANKS!

        As for Lenin – smokescreen. Lenin just stated that atheism was part of his philosophy, but how many times has religion been SPECIFICALLY INVOKED to commit horror after horror? This in no way answers the insane double std.

        “The specific “morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas” that I am referring to is the sanctity of human life.”

        Trivial. This is also central to all humanist morality and easily derived form evolutionary psychology as well.

        “It is the morality that says that people are more than just “survival machines” that serve no more purpose than passing on their genes.”

        You are again DELIBERATELY confusing the historical science – reality – with what ought to be. This is std cretinist BS, transparent as hell, and also fallacious in that no matter how much you might argue that gawd is needed, that IN NO WAY ARGUES FOR HIS EXISTENCE.

        “The diminished concept of the value of human life is what allowed the Communists to rationalize killing people in historically unprecedented numbers.”

        No, technology accounts for the numbers, nitwit. And answer this – How did Torquemada do it w/o atheism? How did those Mayans cut the hearts out of living men? How did the pogroms last all those centuries in Europe and Russia without atheism?

        “3) Quote mining?! Kyle, if you want to allege that a quote was taken out of context, you need to make a convincing case for what the correct context is. Otherwise, the allegation is meaningless. Further, I have agreed to proceed my arguments from the generous assumption that all of your science is correct.”

        Yes, we know you no longer want to argue cretinism and further wish to only argue the Big Bang because you lose on all others. It’s obvious even without me having stated it many times.
        You want me to address the correct context of a dishonest cretinist mined quote? I did. Let’s start with the context of Dawkins’ quote from your video, which is laid out so clearly in the question IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING IT! DEAL WITH IT!

        “4) I will ask you again how it can be that inanimate matter can be made to follow a set of natural laws.”

        I refer you back to my previous response to this oddly worded anthropomorphizing of atoms and molecules. Stop repeating yourself without acknowledging anything I post!

        “Further, I will ask you how those laws got there without a Lawgiver.”

        BINGO! Big Bang! You have only ONE argument and it sucks. Don’t ask me to repeat how it sucks. Read what I post the first five time, dope.

        “How do I think it is that this can be? Easy, I think that natural laws are the result of a divine Lawgiver.”

        Yes, we know what you BELIEVE. You BELIEVE the least plausible, least parsimonious, least evidenced BELIEF that was handed down to you from our bronze-age ancestors.

        “You, apparently, think that these laws “just are.””

        NO. LIAR, AS I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER, I SAY “I DON;T KNOW”. DID YOU GET IT THIS TIME, A-HOLE?

        “Please click on this link to read my post titled Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism, where I discuss the topic in detail.”

        Eff you. I’ve seen it. I’ve addressed it. I’ve also told you how asinine it is to keep arguing by means of “Click here and refute this” when you won’t even address direct rebuttals in my posts.

        “Labeling my view as “argument from ignorance” is inaccurate because my view is based upon what we DO know rather than upon what we don’t know. One must be willing to go wherever the evidence leads rather than wherever one’s ideology leads.”

        Again, you mistake arguments, often fallacious ones, and the philosophical, for EVIDENCE. DID YOU GET IT THIS TIME?!

        “Recall the example of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) scientists inferring intelligence from a set of prime numbers in a radio signal. Regarding the FAR FAR FAR greater complexity present in the most simple organism, you replied that the same inference of intelligence cannot be made because (please correct me if I am wrong) living organisms have reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms.”

        RECALL THAT I ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS, YOU FLAMING, GAPING A-HOLE?! HYSTERICAL BLINDNESS FOLLOWED BY REPETITION OF FAILED ARGUMENTS IS NOT DEBATING!!!!!!!!!!!!

        “The ball is now in your court to explain how living organisms got such dizzyingly complex mechanisms as reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms.”

        I’ll gladly (and I’m dead serious) direct you to the best science regarding just those topics JUST AS SOON AS YOU ENGAGE HONESTLY.

        “You refer to my alleged God-of-the-gaps thinking. This is a double-edged sword. You apparently think that the gap in complexity separating non-living matter from the most simple organism will eventually be bridged by some sort of unintelligent mechanism, despite the almost incomprehensible complexity of the most simple organism. This is what should be labeled “unintelligent-mechanisms-of-the-gaps” thinking.”

        I ALREADY DEALT WITH THE UTTERLY FALLACIOUS NATURE OF THE “UNINTELLIGENT-MECHANISMS OF THE GAPS” ARGUMENT! IGNORING ME IS NOT DEBATING, A-HOLE! Also, you are IGNORING that the most simple living organism may be an RNA molecule, depending on definition. It is DISHONEST to keep yammering on as if E. coli was the simplest organism!

        “When you say “it used to be used for damn near everything, from lightning to disease,” (referring to god-of-the-gaps thinking) you are correct that people are not justified in trying to fill in gaps that can be explained in naturalistic terms.”

        Only your incredulity argues that remaining gaps won;t be filled the same way as the last 10 billion.

        “That is because gaps such as the explanations for lightning and disease are questions of intermediate causation, not ultimate causation.”

        BINGO! Big Bang! Your ONLY argument (and it sucks).

        “The question of the origin of life is a question that involves a question of ultimate causation:”

        That’s called Argument by Assertion; the lowest of all fallacies.

        “Is life ultimately the result of intelligent or unintelligent causation? There is no intrinsic reason to doubt any of the self-organization scenarios that you reference with regard to the origin of life.”

        You’ve now said this twice. After the first time, you then returned to the usual creatard fallacious arguments about evolution. I predict you will do so many more times in your miserable life.

        “There are scientific reasons to do so, but if we get into a discussion of the science behind self-organization, we will again be in a debate about intermediate causation.”

        There is NO SCIENCE underlying creatard arguments against abiogenesis. Your twisted little arguments are not science. Show me the peer reviewed science that “proves” this negative. It doesn;t exist. There’s TONS of science about abiogenesis, none of it concluding its impossibility, that I would gladly share if you were ever to honestly engage. Hell, you could Google it if you had any interest in truth rather than just dogma.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Kyle, my replies to your comments are in bold.

          “Kyle, whether or not you think I am dishonest an irrational is an entirely separate issue from . . . ”

          Again, you distort the facts. We aren’t talking about what I think; we’re talking about what you have shown and I have exposed. It’s all here in black and white and all you have to deal with it is denialism and some genuine inability to understand logical argumentation.

          Kyle, Richard Dawkins is on video endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. There just isn’t anyway for you to get around it. Period.

          “. . . whether or not you have made a convincing case against God.”

          Again, you invert the burden of evidence. The existence of sky daddy is absolutely a positive claim that I don’t even need address until credible evidence is presented. As I stated earlier – and you ignored – the loopy arguments and philosophical musings are not evidence.

          Once again, you try to attack crude caricatures of God (sky daddy). Atheists explanations for origin of the universe and life are also positive claims. Kyle, the universe had a beginning. The law of causation (without which science would be impossible) says that everything with a beginning has a cause. And because nothing can cause itself, the natural universe requires a supernatural cause. If the law of causation is “loopy” in you view, fine. Prominent astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, who is the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said:

          “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

          “Your continuously trying to hammer home my alleged dishonesty is a clear diversion.”

          No, a-hole, it is the PRIMARY POINT! All creationists are pathological liars BY NECESSITY! The average yahoo may not be able judge the science or understand fallacious arguments, but can reach the logical conclusion when one party in a debate lies with every breath.

          OK Kyle, go ahead and specify what lies those are. The one about Richard Dawkins? He is on video endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. There is no way for you to get around this. You also cannot get around the fact that several other prominent atheists have endorsed this view (such as Francis Crick in his book Life Itself). If you want to continue calling things “lies” that any third party can very easily verify for him or her self, go right ahead.

          “If I misrepresented something Dawkins said, why don’t you just let the individual viewer of this website decide that for him or her self? The video is right there for everyone to see.”

          That smells like a desperate attempt to stop me from making it crystal clear exactly why the proper interpretation is precisely what I said. You guys must stick together. You might get kicked out of the cretinist club if ever forced to admit that they all lie, lie, lie all the time and on every subject.

          “The simple fact is that Dawkins endorsed the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis, . . . ”

          No, lying a-hole, the simple fact is that Dawkins was answering a direct question, which is in the video and which I have quoted VERBATIM! WHAT IS THE QUESTION SCOTTY! BE A MAN ABOUT IT. PULL YOUR NOSE OUT THE PRO-LIARS SPHINCTERS AND ADMIT THE OBVIOUS.

          Yes, Dawkins is answering a direct question…that is obvious. The question is “what do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might be the answer to some of the issues in genetics?” And his answer to that question is to endorse the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. There is no way for you to get around this….sorry.

          “Whether I exaggerated their endorsement of the hypothesis by allegedly calling it a firm belief is a separate issue.”

          It’s not separate from the issue of you being a typical cretinist liar. You are also ignoring the matter of it not even being an endorsement. It was clearly an answer to a specific question and taking it to mean something entirely different is a LIE.

          Nope, he proposed the hypothesis on his own without being prompted. That means that he is endorsing the plausibility of the hypothesis. Open and shut.

          “As I said before, the point of me posting the video is to show that the idea that atheists are somehow more rational and logical is utterly absurd.”

          And as I’ve said before, this is called “Argument from Incredulity” and “Argument by Ridicule” and it was used by you about a thousand times, with carefully crafted phrases meant to make catalysis sound new-agey, as a replacement for and diversion from rational arguments.

          Slap whatever labels on it that you wish, but the fact remains the same. He is on video endorsing the hypothesis. You obviously find this disturbing, but there is no way around it because it is right there on video.

          “Furthermore, it exposes the fallacy of the notion that atheists do not rely on faith. Dawkins suggested in the video that the emergence of this alien life can be explained as the result of “some sort of Darwinian process.” This is despite the fact that Darwinian processes can only apply to things that are ALREADY ALIVE. Did you forget this too?”

          That all depends on how you define life. By most people’s definitions, it is also untrue, AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED. You even acknowledged the self-catalyzing RNA, so you can’t claim to have missed this one.

          Here’s how one dictionary defines life: “The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.”

          Do you have a different definition, Kyle? I don’t acknowledge self-organizing RNA, I just state that even if the phenomenon were true, it would be irrelevant. How would self-catalyzing RNA shed light on this topic? When I asked you how such self-organization occurs, you said through the laws of physics. And when I asked you how it can be that inanimate matter can be induced to follow a law, you said that you don’t know. You have faith that there is some sort of explanation for inanimate matter following laws that does not require a reference to intelligence.

          “Darwinian evolution requires reproductive capability and random genetic mutations. Non-living matter does not reproduce and does not have genes to mutate.”

          As per above, molecules can reproduce. They do so with a high degree of mutation also, with no other material required. You are using semantics to argue substance, nitwit.

          The origin of reproductive capability is one of the things that you need to explain for us. How could such an ability have emerged? Was it the laws of physics? How did the laws of physics get there? How can inanimate matter be induced to follow a law in the absence of intelligence?

          “Are you suggesting that the Cambrian explosion is a lie? Do I have that right?”

          Every time you ask ‘Do I have that right?”, you are knowingly mischaracterizing my position; it’s transparent as hell. Your interpretations and arguments are all purposely deceptive.

          Then why don’t you clarify your position?! You have simply dropped the question. Do you or do you not think the Cambrian explosion is a lie? Please explain.

          “1) Using insults and strident rhetoric just makes you look like a wounded, cornered animal. It betrays the fact that you know your position is weak and indefensible. A person with a logically sound argument does not need to prop it up with insults and forceful rhetoric. Strong arguments stand up on their own without such proping up.”

          Keep saying this, you miserable excuse for human being. I will keep answering the same way. I am punctuating and drawing attention to your weak, indefensible positions that can only be defended by maximum deceit.

          You again fail to pay attention to the crucial difference between responding to an argument and merely characterizing it (“weak, indefensible”).

          “2) Regarding the arguments presented by Cavanaugh, as presented in my Doesn’t Religion Cause Violence post in the snippets section, you STILL have not responded to his arguments. I recently added another paragraph from Cavanaugh’s book to the post, which I have copied and pasted below:”

          ““…The first conclusion is that there is no transhistorical or transcultural concept of religion. Religion has a history, and what counts as religion and what does not in any given context depends on different configurations of power and authority. The second conclusion is that the attempt to say that there is a transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion that is separable from secular phenomena is itself part of a particular configuration of power, that of the modern, liberal nation-state as it is developed in the West.””

          NO, JACKASS, I ABSOLUTELY DID RESPOND TO THIS!!! Go back, find my responses, read them, and address them, you flaming a-hole!

          Go back and find them? If you are trying to argue a point, why don’t you just retype them or copy and paste them? Answer: Because they aren’t really there. I will ask the question again, Kyle: What is your transcultural and transhistorical concept of religion? No religious scholar has been able to come up with such a concept. Perhaps you could be the first!

          “In order to tie religion to violence, you need to come up with some sort of transhistoric and transcultural concept of religion. No scholar of religion (regardless of their belief system) has been able to do this. How are you going to?”

          aaauuugghhh!!!!! Besides ignoring my response to this, you are also IGNORING the fact that if you are arguing that religion can’t be disentangled from other aspects of culture, EVEN THOUGH MOTIVATIONS LIKE INSTANT PARADISE W/ 72 VIRGINS ARE UNDENIABLY RELIGIOUS, THEN HOW IN HELL ARE YOU JUSTIFYING SINGLING OUT ATHEISM!? ANSWER ME, YOU EFFIN’ MORON!

          And again, what is your transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion that allows you to declare that these are religious concepts? Cavanaugh again:

          “The second conclusion is that the attempt to say that there is a transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion that is separable from secular phenomena is itself part of a particular configuration of power, that of the modern, liberal nation-state as it is developed in the West.”

          The whole secular / religious dichotomy is an invention of modern westerners. Don’t you get it? I am singling out atheism because it degrades the value of human life (we are just “survival machines” with no greater purpose than to pass on our DNA) and allows for people to kill indiscriminately because they don’t believe that there is any power greater than themselves

          “I tie atheism to violence because it involves a greatly diminished concept of the dignity of human life.”

          Arguments can be made, have been, and I can do so as well, complete with undeniable historical examples, that religion in fact justifies evil that cannot be justified without it. I have done so directly to you. That said, I CAN ALSO TAKE THE SAME COP-OUT AS CAVANAUGH AND BE FAR MORE ACCURATE IN DOING SO! Show all that historical evidence for atheism as a distinct endeavor, you slimy weasel. DON’T MAKE ME ASK AGAIN!

          Kyle, religion is something that scholars have not been able to come up with a transhistorical and transcultural definition for. That is why “religious violence” cannot be distinguished from political or cross-cultural violence, etc..

          Atheism does have a clear transcultural and transhistorical definition. Do want to make the case that it doesn’t?

          “If humans are nothing but “survival machines,” than why not kill them in the millions when they get in your way?”

          Ah yes, the retarded “acceptance of science” equals “promotes “social Darwinism”” shtick that is such an obvious non sequitur that only a creatard would ever use it. THANKS!

          As for Lenin – smokescreen. Lenin just stated that atheism was part of his philosophy, but how many times has religion been SPECIFICALLY INVOKED to commit horror after horror? This in no way answers the insane double std.

          Yet again, you have failed to produce a transcultural and transhistorical definition of religion by which you could accuse religion of inciting “horror after horror.”

          “The specific “morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas” that I am referring to is the sanctity of human life.”

          Trivial. This is also central to all humanist morality and easily derived form evolutionary psychology as well.

          So, does atheism say that we have a greater purpose and value than just as “survival machines” used to pass on DNA? If so, somebody needs to alert Richard Dawkins. What would that greater purpose be? What would be the source of that greater value? I am curious. Darwinian evolution is declared by atheists to be purposeless and random. If we are just parts of a purposeless and random process, what higher value and purpose could we possibly have?

          Further, if humanism places an intrinsic value and purpose on human life, what does it say is the source of this higher value and purpose?

          “It is the morality that says that people are more than just “survival machines” that serve no more purpose than passing on their genes.”

          You are again DELIBERATELY confusing the historical science – reality – with what ought to be. This is std cretinist BS, transparent as hell, and also fallacious in that no matter how much you might argue that gawd is needed, that IN NO WAY ARGUES FOR HIS EXISTENCE.

          So do we have a greater purpose than that of “survival machines” used to pass on genes, or not? This wasn’t intended as an argument for God’s existence. It was intended as an argument for the depravity created by atheism.

          “The diminished concept of the value of human life is what allowed the Communists to rationalize killing people in historically unprecedented numbers.”

          No, technology accounts for the numbers, nitwit. And answer this – How did Torquemada do it w/o atheism? How did those Mayans cut the hearts out of living men? How did the pogroms last all those centuries in Europe and Russia without atheism?

          The Communists’ main tool for killing was the gulag, or slave labor / starvation camp. How high-tech is a camp?

          How are you going to declare that the violence perpetrated by Torquemada or the Mayans, or the pogroms of Europe and Asia were religiously motivated phenomena without a transcultural and transhistorical concept of religion?

          “3) Quote mining?! Kyle, if you want to allege that a quote was taken out of context, you need to make a convincing case for what the correct context is. Otherwise, the allegation is meaningless. Further, I have agreed to proceed my arguments from the generous assumption that all of your science is correct.”

          Yes, we know you no longer want to argue cretinism and further wish to only argue the Big Bang because you lose on all others. It’s obvious even without me having stated it many times.
          You want me to address the correct context of a dishonest cretinist mined quote? I did. Let’s start with the context of Dawkins’ quote from your video, which is laid out so clearly in the question IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING IT! DEAL WITH IT!

          Dawkins was asked a question and his response was to endorse the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. That is the context of the video that anyone viewing it can clearly see. You are not going to be able to get around that, nor are you going to be able to get around the fact that several other highly prominent atheists have endorsed the hypothesis, nor are you going to be able to get around the fact that prominent atheist biologist Michael Ruse endorsed the piggyback-ride-on-crystals hypothesis to explain the origin of life.

          “4) I will ask you again how it can be that inanimate matter can be made to follow a set of natural laws.”

          I refer you back to my previous response to this oddly worded anthropomorphizing of atoms and molecules. Stop repeating yourself without acknowledging anything I post!

          So are you suggesting that atoms and molecules don’t really follow natural laws? Is the view that inanimate matter follows such natural laws just an anthropomorphic misrepresentation of reality?

          “Further, I will ask you how those laws got there without a Lawgiver.”

          BINGO! Big Bang! You have only ONE argument and it sucks. Don’t ask me to repeat how it sucks. Read what I post the first five time, dope.

          “How do I think it is that this can be? Easy, I think that natural laws are the result of a divine Lawgiver.”

          Yes, we know what you BELIEVE. You BELIEVE the least plausible, least parsimonious, least evidenced BELIEF that was handed down to you from our bronze-age ancestors.

          And so your complete lack of an explanation is the better explanation?

          “You, apparently, think that these laws “just are.””

          NO. LIAR, AS I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER, I SAY “I DON;T KNOW”. DID YOU GET IT THIS TIME, A-HOLE?

          OK, you don’t know. So your complete lack of an explanation is to be preferred over the idea that natural laws have a source?

          “Please click on this link to read my post titled Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism, where I discuss the topic in detail.”

          Eff you. I’ve seen it. I’ve addressed it. I’ve also told you how asinine it is to keep arguing by means of “Click here and refute this” when you won’t even address direct rebuttals in my posts.

          How again did you address it? What is the source for these natural laws? You said you don’t know. That is not addressing question.

          “Labeling my view as “argument from ignorance” is inaccurate because my view is based upon what we DO know rather than upon what we don’t know. One must be willing to go wherever the evidence leads rather than wherever one’s ideology leads.”

          Again, you mistake arguments, often fallacious ones, and the philosophical, for EVIDENCE. DID YOU GET IT THIS TIME?!

          Kyle, scientists accept the complexity of such things as writing on a piece of paper and a set of prime numbers as evidence for intelligence. How do you refute that the far far greater complexity in the simplest living thing also is evidence for intelligence? Are you attempting a radical redefinition of the term “evidence”?

          “Recall the example of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) scientists inferring intelligence from a set of prime numbers in a radio signal. Regarding the FAR FAR FAR greater complexity present in the most simple organism, you replied that the same inference of intelligence cannot be made because (please correct me if I am wrong) living organisms have reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms.”

          RECALL THAT I ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS, YOU FLAMING, GAPING A-HOLE?! HYSTERICAL BLINDNESS FOLLOWED BY REPETITION OF FAILED ARGUMENTS IS NOT DEBATING!!!!!!!!!!!!

          You addressed it by saying that the complexity of life does not count because life has reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms. I then asked you if you are suggesting that there is no complexity present in reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms. If you responded to the second question, please do so again. I don’t think that you did.

          “The ball is now in your court to explain how living organisms got such dizzyingly complex mechanisms as reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms.”

          I’ll gladly (and I’m dead serious) direct you to the best science regarding just those topics JUST AS SOON AS YOU ENGAGE HONESTLY.

          “You refer to my alleged God-of-the-gaps thinking. This is a double-edged sword. You apparently think that the gap in complexity separating non-living matter from the most simple organism will eventually be bridged by some sort of unintelligent mechanism, despite the almost incomprehensible complexity of the most simple organism. This is what should be labeled “unintelligent-mechanisms-of-the-gaps” thinking.”

          I ALREADY DEALT WITH THE UTTERLY FALLACIOUS NATURE OF THE “UNINTELLIGENT-MECHANISMS OF THE GAPS” ARGUMENT! IGNORING ME IS NOT DEBATING, A-HOLE! Also, you are IGNORING that the most simple living organism may be an RNA molecule, depending on definition. It is DISHONEST to keep yammering on as if E. coli was the simplest organism!

          And how did the RNA molecule originate? Through the laws of physics? Once again, where did these laws come from and how is it that inanimate matter could be induced to follow them? Is it some unintelligent mechanism or is it something else?

          “When you say “it used to be used for damn near everything, from lightning to disease,” (referring to god-of-the-gaps thinking) you are correct that people are not justified in trying to fill in gaps that can be explained in naturalistic terms.”

          Only your incredulity argues that remaining gaps won;t be filled the same way as the last 10 billion.

          Will science fill in the gap of how it is that there exist the natural laws that you believe are the source of the complexity of life? Is this something that you feel science can address?

          “That is because gaps such as the explanations for lightning and disease are questions of intermediate causation, not ultimate causation.”

          BINGO! Big Bang! Your ONLY argument (and it sucks).

          You again confuse characterizing an argument (“it sucks”) with actually responding to it.

          “The question of the origin of life is a question that involves a question of ultimate causation:”

          That’s called Argument by Assertion; the lowest of all fallacies.

          Is the question of whether life ultimately originated from intelligent or unintelligent cases not a question of ultimate causation? Is this just an assertion?

          “Is life ultimately the result of intelligent or unintelligent causation? There is no intrinsic reason to doubt any of the self-organization scenarios that you reference with regard to the origin of life.”

          You’ve now said this twice. After the first time, you then returned to the usual creatard fallacious arguments about evolution. I predict you will do so many more times in your miserable life.

          My miserable life? Since I am just a “survival machine” with no greater purpose than to pass on my genes, and since I am accomplishing this purpose (by surviving to pass on my genes), by what standard could you judge my life to be “miserable?” I am accomplishing my purpose of surviving to pass on my genes, aren’t I?

          Is there some other higher purpose which I am failing to accomplish…by which you could judge my life to be “miserable?” If so, what would be the source of that higher purpose? Would it be random interactions of inanimate matter? The laws of physics? The aliens? The crystals? What would it be, Kyle?

          “There are scientific reasons to do so, but if we get into a discussion of the science behind self-organization, we will again be in a debate about intermediate causation.”

          There is NO SCIENCE underlying creatard arguments against abiogenesis. Your twisted little arguments are not science. Show me the peer reviewed science that “proves” this negative. It doesn;t exist. There’s TONS of science about abiogenesis, none of it concluding its impossibility, that I would gladly share if you were ever to honestly engage. Hell, you could Google it if you had any interest in truth rather than just dogma.

          There doesn’t need to be any science to refute abiogenesis because abiogenesis doesn’t have any science to refute. Abiogenesis is nothing but extremely speculative hypothesis. Such hypotheses would include the piggyback-ride-on-crystals and the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypotheses.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            Hi Scott. How’s it going?

            I remember that we have talked about David Attenborough once or twice before and you asked if I knew any good programmes that he’s made. You said that you enjoyed one that you found on netflix although I forget the name of it. I just thought I’d let you know that he’s made another great series that is airing in the US in the near future. It was aired in Britain just before Christmas and is called, ‘Frozen Planet’. I think that the clue is in the name, but it’s about the polar regions of the Earth and is a great watch if you were interested. It’s been hugely successful in Britain. I thought I’d mention it to you, as you said you enjoyed the other programme of his that you saw.
            I have found out why, perhaps, Attenborough was unfamiliar to you before he was mentioned on this site. It seems that because he is not so well known in the states, that often if his programmes are exported there, they are dubbed with more familiar narrators. So perhaps you may have seen some of Attenborough’s documentaries before, without realising it because the narrator was American. For example, Sigourney Weaver was chosen to narrate the Planet Earth series that was shown in America. When Frozen Planet is broadcast in America, the video and script will be the same, but the narration will be done by Alec Baldwin, for familiarity reasons I think. Anyhow, it’s a great series and I just thought I’d mention it to you. There’s a link to the website below. Thanks.
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mfl7n


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 33 ) says:

              Nick:

              Things are good. Thanks for the link. I like to watch stuff like this.

              Scott


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Joyce says:

            Although I believe in G-d, my teenage self went through a period where I found myself to be more agnostic than anything else. I understand how one can doubt G-d’s existence because He is often invisible to us either through lack of us seeing, hearing, experiencing Him or when He allows bad things to happen. There is never a reason for people to be angry at someone else for what they believe; however, I become highly upset when someone pushes their beliefs on me as if theirs’ is the only right faith. This world contains multiple religions other that Christianity and people need to be given the freedom to worship as they wish.

            Joyce
            http://joycelansky.blogspot.com


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 33 ) says:

              Joyce:

              Timothy Keller comments on this subject in his book The Reason for God:

              But even as believers should learn to look for reasons behind their faith, skeptics must learn to look for a type of faith hidden within their reasoning. All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B. For example, if you doubt Christianity because, “There can’t be just one true religion,” you must recognize that this statement is itself an act of faith. No one can prove it empirically, and it is not a universal truth that everyone accepts. If you went to the Middle East and said, “There can’t be just one true religion,” nearly everyone would say, “Why not?” The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore is based on a leap of faith.

              Keller goes on to ask the skeptic:

              How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?

              Somewhat rephrased, Keller is here saying that the belief that no religion can have a “comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality” is really nothing more than a claim that you have a comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality.

              So when you complain about someone else “pushing” the religious view that their’s is the right faith, you are in fact pushing your religious view that there is no right faith. I do not intend this to mean that religions other than Christianity contain no truth. We know that this cannot be the case for the simple fact that Christianity shares many similarities to other religions. For example, Judaism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism, like Christianity, are monotheistic. Certain schools of Buddhism, like Christianity, place a great emphasis on compassion (love).

              And yes, of course, people should be given the freedom to worship as they wish. But this is a different subject matter from which (if any) religion(s) contain truth.


    2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Once again, Kyle, I don’t know what your employment status is, but I have a full time job and other responsibilities. Judging from the time that you commit to these huge replies, I suspect that your employment status may be different than mine.

      You are going to have to wait several days between replies sometimes. I should have time to reply to your last 2 posts tomorrow, Sept. 24th.


  5. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Kyle says:

    That’s a nice long, unresponsive, lie-filled, logically atrocious, bullheaded, denialist, post, Scotty. I think I’ll post a nice long one myself, except mine will be, as usual, directly responsive to your latest drivel (though just as insistent on not falling for your diversions), fact-filled, logical, and truth-seeking. You will, of course, simply characterize it as being the opposite while insisting that yours was not the steaming pile of bovine excrement that any freshman debater would recognize in an instant. That’s the whole point of what I do:

    I keep you posting by refuting your BS and pointing out the atrocious logic and transparent dishonesty you – and anyone else – require to argue for the BS. You subconsciously know your positions are untenable, but your belief system makes it impossible (as you recently have been so kind to demonstrate) for you to ever concede a single misstatement of fact, fallacious argument, failed argument, deception, etc. Therefore, the more you post, the more you must lie, the more you must repeat refuted arguments, the more you must ignore, evade, and obfuscate counter-arguments, the more you must cling to blatant sophistry.

    That’s why I do this Scotty – because nothing shows the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of a dogmatic science denier and “gawd-proving” apologist better than their own non-stop vomiting of intellectually and morally bankrupt arguments. They can appear to rationally and honestly support their positions, but only in the eyes of their typical reader, who is lacking in critical thinking skills and likely already biased toward belief and science denialism. And they can only appear rational and honest in the controlled confines of their books and websites, where they studiously censor critical responses, if they allow any at all, and thus present the carefully constructed edifice of lies that Scotty the Irrational has apparently swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE LIED. Repeatedly asserting that I have lied without backing it up isn’t going to cut it.”

    I LISTED THEM BY THE DOZENS!!!!! MULTIPLE TIMES! HYSTERICAL BLINDNESS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, YOU SIMPERING TWIT! Do you think that there is one person, even a creatard, reading this that can’t see what a lying scumbag demand this is?

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “By the way HERE IS WHERE YOU LIED! : On Sept 4th, you said that Sweden and Denmark are 80% atheist. I cited a 2005 Eurobarometer poll which demonstrates that these countries are much less atheist (closer to 23%). Inventing wildly exaggerated statistics is a form of LYING.”

    I smell flop sweat, creatard ;o) You have the time to look back 6 weeks to DISHONESTLY attempt the most transparent DIVERSION yet, but you can’t be bothered to find and read (assuming you didn’t censor) the posts THAT YOU ADMITTED REPEATEDLY that you would censor and did censor. But – wait for it folks – this lying bag of excrement can go lower yet – much lower. Even though I just chastised him again in my last post for continuing to LIE about the matter of the Dawkins video w/o referencing my rebuttal, he does it again in this post – REPEATEDLY! Creatards make imbeciles look like geniuses and liars look like saints.

    That said, I’ll respond to your rebuttal – SOMETHING YOU NEVER DO:

    YOUR SOURCE, 2005 Eurobarometer poll, was worded:

    “I believe there is a god” (Sweden – 23%)

    “I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force” (Sweden – 53%)

    “I don’t believe there is some sort of spirit, god or life force” (Sweden – 23%)

    THANKS! You have implicitly equated religion with other superstitious nonsense. Now, let’s try to raise the bar a tad above the usual simplistic creatard level. From “Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns” by Phil Zuckerman in “The Cambridge Companion to Atheism” by Michael Martin:

    “Determining what percentage of a given society believes in God – or doesn’t — is fraught with methodological hurdles. First: low response rates; most people do not respond to surveys, and response rates of lower than 50% cannot be generalized to the wider society. Secondly: non-random samples. If the sample is not randomly selected – i.e., every member of the given population has an equal chance of being chosen — it is non-generalizable. Third: adverse political/cultural climates. In totalitarian countries where atheism is governmentally promulgated and risks are present for citizens viewed as disloyal, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they do believe in God. Conversely, in societies where religion is enforced by the government and risks are present for citizens viewed as non-believers, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they don’t believe in Allah, regardless of whether anonymity is “guaranteed.” Even in democratic societies without governmental coercion, individuals often feel that it is necessary to say that are religious, simply because such a response is socially desirable or culturally appropriate. For example, the designation “atheist” is stigmatized in many societies; even when people directly claim to not believe in God, they still eschew the self-designation of “atheist.” Greeley (2003) found that 41% of Norwegians, 48% of the French, and 54% of Czechs claimed to not believe in God, but only 10%, 19%, and 20% of those respondents self-identified as “atheist,” respectively. A final methodological problem: terminology. Definitions of specific words seldom translate well crossculturally. Signifiers such as “religious” or “God” have different meanings in different cultures (Beyer, 2003), making cross-national comparisons of beliefs between markedly different societies tenuous. Despite the above methodological limitations, we can make reliable estimates. Though methodological flaws persist, in the words of Robert Putnam (2000:23): “we must make do with the imperfect evidence that we can find, not merely lament its deficiencies.”

    “Below is a presentation of the findings of the most recently available surveys concerning rates of non-belief in God in various countries worldwide.”

    (skipping to the relevant discussion)

    “Europe”

    “Norris and Inglehart (2004) found that 39% of those in Britain do not believe in God. According to a 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC, 44% of the British do not believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 31% of the British do not believe in God, although only 10% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Bruce (2002), 10% of the British self-identify as an “agnostic person” and 8% as a “convinced atheist,” with an additional 21% choosing “not a religious person.” According to Froese (2001), 32% of the British are atheist or agnostic. According to Gallup and Lindsay (1999:121), 39% of the British do not believe in God or a “Higher Power.””

    “According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 44% of those in France do not believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 48% of the French do not believe in God, although only 19% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 54% of the French are atheist or agnostic. According to Davie (1999), 43% of the French do not believe in God.”

    “Norris and Inglehart (2004) found that 54% of Swedes do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a “personal God.” According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God.”

    “According to Norris and Inglehart (2004) 48% of Danes do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 49% of Danes do not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 43% of Danes do not believe in God, although only 15% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 45% of Danes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsson and Pettersson (2000), 80% of Danes do not believe in a “personal God.””

    “According to Inglehart et al (2004), 31% of Norwegians do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 54% of Norwegians said that they did not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 41% of Norwegians do not believe in God, although only 10% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Gustafsson and Pettersson (2002), 72% of Norwegians do not believe in a “personal God.” According to Froese (2001), 45% of Norwegians are either atheist or agnostic.”

    It goes on at length to cover virtually every European country, but Scandinavia was the topic. His summary chart shows rates of “agnostics/non-believers in god” (minimum – maximum) as:

    1) Sweden 46 – 85%
    2) Vietnam 81%
    3) Denmark 43 – 80%
    4) Norway 31 – 72%
    5) Japan 64 – 65%
    6) Czech Rep. 54 – 61%
    7) Finland 28 – 60%
    8) France 43 – 54%
    9) South Korea 30 – 52%
    10) Estonia 49%

    You’re welcome for the remedial education. Knowing you as I now do, I fully expect you to ignore everything above and make future simplistic and misleading claims that were refuted above, as if I never posted this.

    Diversions are your specialty, but allow me to point out that whilst researching, I found that Zuckerman also reveals the lie that is another std apologetics talking point, AND DOES SO WITH EVIDENCE. The implied, and prima facie FALLACIOUS argument is essentially, “Theism is true because it’s good for society.” You specifically made this (failed) argument directly to me and asked for the evidence. Enjoy. Or should I say – Ignore:

    “Atheism and Societal Health”

    “When recognizing that countries containing high percentages of nonbelievers are among the healthiest and wealthiest nations on earth (Paul, 2004), we must distinguish between nations where non-belief has been forced upon the society by dictators (“coercive atheism”) and nations wherein non-belief has emerged on its own without governmental coercion (“organic atheism”). Nations marked by coercive atheism — such as North Korea and former Soviet states — are marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, censorship, corruption, depression, etc. However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism – such as Sweden or the Netherlands — are among the healthiest, wealthiest, best educated, and freest societies on earth.”

    “Consider the Human Development Report (2004), commissioned by The United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177 nations on a “Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through a weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, per capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report, the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism. Of the top 25 nations ranked on the “Human Development Index,” all but one (Ireland) are top ranking non-belief nations, containing very high percentages of organic atheism. Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human Development Index” — the bottom 50 — all are countries lacking statistically significant percentages of atheism.”

    “Concerning the infant mortality rate (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), irreligious countries have the lowest rates, and religious countries have the highest. According to the CIA World Factbook (2004), the top 25 nations with the lowest infant mortality rates were all nations containing significantly high percentages of organic atheism. Conversely, the 75 bottom nations with the highest infant mortality rates were all nations without any statistically significant levels of organic atheism.”

    “Concerning international poverty rates, the United Nations’ Report on the World Social Situation (2003) found that of the 40 poorest nations on earth, all but one (Vietnam) are highly religious nations with statistically minimal or insignificant levels of atheism. Concerning illiteracy rates, the same report found that of the 35 nations with the highest levels of youth illiteracy rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.”

    “Concerning homicide rates, Fajnzylber et al (2002) and Fox and Levin (2000) found that the nations with the highest homicide rates are all highly religious nations with minimal or statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism, while nations with the lowest homicide rates tend to be highly secular nations with high levels of atheism.”

    “Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates, of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.”

    “Concerning gender equality, nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism are among the most egalitarian in the world, while highly religious nations are among the most oppressive. According to the 2004 Human Development Report’s “Gender Empowerment Measure,” the top ten nations with the highest degrees of gender equality are all strongly organic atheistic nations with significantly high percentages of non-belief. Conversely, the bottom ten are all highly religious nations without any statistically significant percentages of atheists. According to Inglehart (2003), countries with the most female members of parliament tend to be countries characterized by high degrees of organic atheism (such as Sweden and Denmark) and countries with the fewest female members in parliament tend to be highly religious countries (such as Pakistan and Nigeria).”

    “In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy. Of course, none of the above correlations demonstrate that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health, or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills. Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God, as has been demonstrated by Norris and Inglehart (2004), mentioned above.”

    You’re welcome for the remedial education. Knowing you as I now do, I fully expect you to also ignore everything above and make future simplistic and misleading claims that were refuted above, as if I never posted this.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “. . . this is the 7th time I have asked you to respond to the points in my Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance? essay.”

    LMAO! Creatards raise bullheaded denialism to high art. What the eff did I say about this, Scotty, and how many effin’ times have I said it? Are you effin’ retarded, or what?! Do you still think that making this demand does more to impugn my character than your own?!

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “Even if it is all correct, IT DOES NOTHING TO RATIONALIZE ATHEISM. . . . Why evolution can’t be used to rationalize atheism”

    Let me explain AGAIN how this is logically flawed:

    “Rationalizing atheism” is rhetorical wordplay that only implies that the evidentiary burden is on the atheist who says, “Show me evidence for gawd(s)”. I’ve called you on it before, but you IGNORE ALL REBUTTALS, so naturally, you use it again. You have made the positive claim of an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent being. Support it. Your utter lack of evidence does not shift the burden to me to prove a negative, you sniveling simpleton. Therefore, it is sophistry to demand that anyone “rationalize” the negative position. It’s obvious that all of your logical abortions are attempts to “rationalize” the evidence-free positive claim (using the more common usage of the term).

    It is also both a diversion and an admission, though of the most dishonest variety. It is a diversion from your science denialism arguments because you wish to evade any of the many, many failures therein, and, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly and you prove with every post – YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF EVER CONCEDING ANY SINGLE POINT – EVER – OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING REBUTTING ARGUMENTS – BECAUSE TRUTH-SEEKING IS NOT EVEN A MINOR PART OF YOUR AGENDA – ONLY SUPPORTING DOGMA AT ALL COSTS.

    It is, in fact, as close to an admission of a failed argument as a creatard is capable of making, which is to say, creatards are wholly incapable of admitting any glimmer of counter-argument except by the dishonest means of evading them in every way conceivable.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “You need another avenue to divert attention from the logical bankruptcy of your views.”

    ROTFL!!! Stop it, Scotty, it hurts!

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “So you think that reproduction and feedback mechanisms present in living organisms do away with the need for an intelligent source?”

    Congrats on being slimy as an eel. First slimy tactic – the ubiquitous creatard answer-with-a-question maneuver. As I’ve previously stated, and you’ve demonstrated many times, this is both an evasion and an implied statement of your fallacious Argument from Ignorance.

    Second slimy tactic – Just as I predicted, you ignored the fact that you claim to accept limited evolution as fact, and dishonestly feign ignorance of the non-intelligent mechanisms that you accept. You’re either too intellectually dishonest to state, or too illogical to grasp, the underlying argument that you fail to make. You are implying one or both of two positive claims; SUPPORT THEM:

    1) “Reproduction (imperfect) is an intelligent mechanism” WARNING – Reverting all the way back to cosmological origins, e.g., the properties of matter, is a dishonest cop out and an admission that you cannot support your argument. Switching to the Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity/False Dichotomy about the non-evolutionary matter of abiogenesis is also a dishonest cop out and an admission that you cannot support your argument.

    2) “Natural selection is an intelligent mechanism” Who the hell knows how you will choose to obfuscate on this claim, assuming you even acknowledge my argument.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “How do you explain the ability of organisms to reproduce?”

    BZZZZ! – An evasive, answer-with-a-question, implied Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity/False Dichotomy. Will you admit that it is such? Of course not. If it’s not, and since you asked it, you should be more than willing to answer your own question. How do you explain the ability of organisms to reproduce? Goddidit? Do you have scientific evidence that goddidit? (BS criticisms of evolution are NOT evidence for goddidit, oh ye of many False Dichotomies) Do you have an explanatory, predictive, scientific theory of how goddidit? Could you suggest a falsifiable scientific investigation that could ever rule out goddidit – or goddidanything, for that matter? No? Then goddidit is, as all relevant court decisions have unanimously affirmed, not scientific, is pseudoscience, and is a religiously-motivated attack on solid science.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “How did the feedback mechanism get there?”

    BZZZZ! – Another evasive, answer-with-a-question, implied Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity/False Dichotomy. Really, really stupid, too. The feedback mechanism is natural selection, so you’re asking, “Where did natural selection come from?” It just is, you friggin’ moron. The organism on the left is more suited to the environment than the one on the right, so its genes proliferate better. It’s your retarded question; why don’t you answer it? Did the organism on the right die or fail to widely reproduce because gawd reached down with the fickle finger of fate? Where the hell is such evidence, you knuckle-dragging Neanderthal?

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “Is it the case that reproduction and feedback mechanisms “just are”?”

    BZZZZ! – Yet another evasive, answer-with-a-question, implied Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity/False Dichotomy, except with the added sophistry of implying the infinite-regress argument to cosmological origins, and topped with a lame attempt at the ever-present creatard Argument by Ridicule. I suppose that you have a scientific theory, evidence, whatever, for the “origin of reproduction = goddidit”. Please present it, by all means! Is it more convincing than say – my totally ignored reference to self-catalyzing RNA in the lab?

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “There is no complexity in reproduction or in feedback mechanisms? Did I get that right?”

    BZZZZ! – Moving the Goalpost fallacy, oh irrational one. The subject that you claimed was (snicker) “so complex that obviously goddidit” was complex life. We KNOW (though you deny) that differential reproduction of imperfectly reproducing entities yields complexity. You might educate yourself in the fascinating subject of genetic algorithms as a perfectly valid analogy for life, but alas, I know full well that if you did, you would merely come back with the thoroughly discredited creatard arguments regarding same. Such is your pathological aversion to truth discovery.

    Back to that moving goalpost. Apparently being unable, unwilling, too dishonest, or too illogical to support your original claim against the PROVEN ability of natural processes to increase the complexity of life; you attempt to change the subject. If allowed, you will infinitely regress the goalpost all the way back to cosmic origins and make that same, lame, desperate Argument from Ignorance about the basic laws of physics, and STILL DISHONESTLY refuse to acknowledge the fallacious nature of the argument!!!!!

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “Yes, Kyle, your prediction was correct: I will insist that you come up with a third option to randomness or intentionality in order to invalidate my disjunctive syllogism.”

    (face-palm)

    OK, genius, I’ve got an analogy for you. Unlike ALL of yours, it’s VALID:

    A) Either you or Joe killed Bob.
    B) Joe didn’t kill Bob. (insert imaginary alibi here)
    C) Therefore, Scotty killed Bob!

    On planet Creatard, this argument would get you 20 to life unless your defense team can identify a third suspect. Meanwhile, on planet Creatard, the prosecution has no evidentiary burden whatsoever to support ‘A’.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – ”These are the only two options that have ever been proposed in all of history for the simple fact that they are the only two possible options.”

    That’s what’s known in rational circles as an emphatic Argument by Assertion. The more emphatic, the more valid, I suppose? Damn, you’re stupid. Also, you conveniently ignored my observation about the squishy creatard definition of “random” or “randomness”. Perhaps on planet Creatard, the dichotomy between “randomness” and “intentionality” makes some sort of sense because of a unique definition. To me, and other rational people, the dichotomy as posed seems, well, silly.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – ”For you to assert that there is some third unknown option would be the very essence of ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.”

    You’re embarrassing yourself, Scotty. Parroting the language of a field without regard to content (a foundational characteristic of pseudoscience, btw) may work on the target audience of the gullible, but I WILL call you on it. It would only be an Argument from Ignorance if I claimed my position were true based upon an IGNORANCE of any third option (as you do), not on a claim that there could be one! What an effin’ buffoon you are.

    Btw, that is not rhetoric and insult in place of an argument, as you invariably claim. It is, rather, righteous indignation and deserved insults punctuating a 100% rational argument that you either lack the intellectual honesty or the critical thinking skills to recognize as such – or, by all indications, both.

    “Here is another disjunctive syllogism for you to ponder:”

    “Jake is either married or he is single.
    Jake is not married.
    Therefore Jake is a single.”

    “Kyle, should we assume that this disjunctive syllogism is invalid because it hasn’t been demonstrated that these aren’t the only two possibilities?! Interesting logic!”

    Yes, interesting creatard logic indeed! It HAS been demonstrated that these are the only two possibilities, you prancing ninny! “Single” is DEFINED as “not married”. “One cannot be both married and not married” is a simple statement of the identity principle, which is the VERY FIRST FOUNDATIONAL AXIOM OF LOGIC! Holy crap, you are borderline brain dead!

    Do you still insist that you have made a VALID logical argument here? Are you implying that “random” is DEFINED as “not intentional” or that “intentional” is DEFINED as “not random”? It is a trivial matter to posit something that is intentional, yet random. DO NOT EVADE – ANSWER THE EFFIN’ QUESTION AND PROVE YOU HAVE SOME TINY IOTA OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY!

    RATIONAL PERSON – “Just because a creatard invents an inversion of a valid critique of creatards, doesn’t make it valid. Calling atheism a faith is an example of this wordplay nonsense.”

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “So there is no faith involved in atheism?”

    That is correct. Atheism is a lack of faith; a failure to accept a proposition without convincing evidence. It’s so very simple, yet I predict that, unless you ignore it, you will continue to argue the indefensible.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “Then Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, etc. KNOW that aliens brought life to earth? Is that right? Does atheist biologist Michael Ruse KNOW that life originated by a piggyback ride on crystals? Does Bertrand Russell KNOW that the universe is a “brute fact” even though it is abundantly clear that the universe had a beginning (click here) and the fact that the law of causation (without which science would be impossible) declares that everything with a beginning requires a cause.”

    First, oh Dishonest One, you are repeating the lie that I already called you on (and was ignored – of course). Too many lies to keep track of? Remember the one where you said that you NEVER claimed Dawkins did anything more than accept the hypothesis of directed panspermia? Hmmm?

    And of course, you are STILL lying about Dawkins while still refusing to acknowledge my rebuttal. Please continue to do so at least twice in every post as it is such a wonderful example of creatard stubbornness, illogic (after all, it is an Argument by Quotation), and DISHONESTY.

    Second, they are also ALL Argument by Ridicule and Arguments from Incredulity. Go ahead and say that I’m merely characterizing your arguments rather than refuting them. All that shows is that you either think fallacious arguments need to be taken seriously or you don’t know a fallacious argument when repeatedly pummeled about the head with one.

    RATIONAL PERSON – ““I have rebutted you. You’ve ignored, refuse to read, deleted, etc.”

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “Here is another chance to really shine: Lay out for me SPECIFICALLY what you have rebutted, what I have ignored, what I have refused to read, or what I have deleted.”

    Whuh?! I HAVE! REPEATEDLY! I’ve rebutted literally SCORES of your lies and fallacies. You totally ignored the vast majority of them and routinely repeat your argument as if I never posted anything – seemingly oblivious to the fact that I may have just clearly revealed it to be factually incorrect, logically flawed, or otherwise CRAP. Other times, I might as well have posted to another blog for all the good it did. Here’s just two – the same two from which I gave you the choice of picking one to discuss – in my vain attempts to reduce your infinite ability to obfuscate:

    1) I rebutted the standard, dead-obvious, creatard interpretation of the Dawkins video. You’ve evaded all attempts to get you to acknowledge it. You claimed on multiple occasions to have deleted posts. If you did, how the hell do I prove it? If you didn’t, YOU EFFIN’ FIND IT, READ IT, AND RESPOND TO IT, YOU CRETINOUS ANAL SPHINCTER. And just to be more imbecilic and deceptive, you continue to assert the creatard interpretation even as you refuse to acknowledge the rebuttal – NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I CALL YOU ON IT! Words cannot express how contemptible you are.

    ATTENTION, LIAR: I searched every page of your slimy blog for every occurrence of my name. My post explaining the BIG LIE is nowhere to be found. That means that you deleted it. You claim to have not even read it. I say you’re a liar about that as well as damn near everything else. But I’ll bet you’re a good christian anyway, right, Scotty? CARE TO FESS UP TO IT? CARE TO REINSTATE IT? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, SCOTTY?

    2) I rebutted the deliberately deceptive, mined quote, creatard Argument by Quotation regarding the conflation of the difficulty of calculating/predicting/simulating sufficiently complex natural phenomena whose controlling equations are 100% fully understood with the asinine claim that intelligent agency is therefore required for the ACTUAL phenomena to occur. You did eventually touch upon this one, but your only response was to continue the childish charade, ask a lot of rhetorical, non sequitur questions, and honestly claim to be so stupid that you couldn’t see how jaw-droppingly retarded the argument really is even after I explained it.

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “I will go first by laying out SPECIFICALLY what you have ignored and refused to read:”

    “1) My essay titled Is there a God? What is the chance that our world is the result of chance? You refer to this as a “rabbit trail.” I refer to it as a trail that you are AFRAID to go down.”

    OK, if resisting this attempt at diversion is to be interpreted as “FEAR”, then can we interpret the 187 trails that represent direct REBUTTALS to your arguments – that you will not address honestly, if at all, and sometimes ADMITTED that you censored – as pants-pissing “TERROR”? Hmmm?

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “ “2) My point that atheists claiming to have a more “logical” explanation for the origin of life is patently absurd because the most prominent atheists cite explanations for life such as aliens-brought-it-here-in-their-spaceship and it-originated-in-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals. These explanations are the LOGICAL ones?! There is no faith, but only logic, involved in these explanations?!”

    THE BIG LIE!!!! Again, no mention of my rebuttal of your interpretation, which was already self-refuting within the video that you cited! Again, no reference to the fact that you have further lied by claiming to have never characterized Dawkins’ position on the matter as anything beyond an hypothesis, nor that I have called you on that lie. Hysterical blindness is just a creatard form of lying. Again, no reference to the volumes written about Earth-bound abiogenesis or the many volumes written by Dawkins himself that express NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER regarding Earth-bound abiogenesis. Again, you stick to the glaringly obvious deception of this particular instance of the insipid creatard quote mining deception tactic. (When you Googled “The Quote Mine Project”, did you spend any time at all on the rationalist cites or did you just reflexively read only creatard propaganda?)

    SCOTTY THE IRRATIONAL – “Perhaps Dawkins, Crick, Hoyle etc. have MET THE ALIENS who brought life here!!

    That’s just an Argument by Ridicule piled atop the steaming heap of fallacious non-arguments that are apparently all that you know.

    While looking for previously posted material that you ignored or potentially censored, I stumbled upon yet another participant making, with near saintly patience, many of the same observations that I have about your inability or refusal to engage in a productive manner. Immediately thereafter, you displayed yet another hideous display of cognitive bias, flawed logic, and stubborn denialism. Here are some highlights of Nick’s VERY warranted observations about your mental pathologies and your subsequent illustration of them all over again, unfazed. Ignorance is excusable, but willful ignorance is goes beyond stupidity. I DARE you to defend the transparent stupidity you display in this exchange:

    • nick says:
    September 9, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    When people like Kyle become so infuriated, you have demonstrated some of the causes very well here. Though it may be counterproductive to become enraged, I can understand where the frustration comes from. I am not enraged, but perhaps you realize why it may happen.

    You are presented with evidence or specific examples and (not every time, but) often you simply won’t engage specifically with these examples. You will bring up your website/resource of quotations and relist some appropriate ones, but often they are repeated or recycled, even in the same conversation and may well be unrelated to the specifics at hand.

    To constructively resolve an issue you must take things one example at a time. You must look in detail at the case for and against one example solely and conclude on this matter in isolation. By jumping from place to place you are not being specific and engaging in the detail of the live issue. This becomes erratic and single cases are not resolved. People then cannot keep up with the amount of information you are bringing up and quite possibly the result becomes huge swathes of text, as happened with Kyle and some others. I try to take it one thing at a time and try to get a single adequate resolution, otherwise endless texts will continue.

    Here are 4 or 5 of the live issues currently on the table:

    nylonase flavobacterium.

    New information evolving in nature (from your stumped video).

    I asked for the scientific resource or peer reviewed location of your article that you initially quoted and linked. You know for science to be legitimate it must be recognised or at least reviewed by a reputable source to some extent with some critical analysis.

    micro+micro+micro+micro+micro=macro.

    answers to your question: ‘What would you say are the multiple evidential bases for macro evolution?’

    -genetics. the fossil record. transitional forms. anatomical vestiges. the science of modern biology. witnessing evolution in the present day – catching it in the act.

    These 5 are issues where we could discuss actual data, where images and photographs could be found, where fossil record evidence can be located and displayed. Tangible modern evidence is also available in modern biology such as in skeletons and DNA.

    If your quotations are really able to demonstrate the falsehoods or truths in this data, then you should be able to show this with more than quotations. eg. photographs. live examples. studies. scientific reason. peer reviewed articles. logic. repeatable experiments. testable experiments.

    This is what will convince me and others like me. Quotes may be correct, but people in science do not go simply by peoples word. You need to be pursuaded empirically as well.

    You need to demonstrate with a working block of reason and tangible evidence as to why these things are not true. Where is the respected refutation of what is demonstrated in bones, genetics labs and natural history museums? Quotes need to be substantiated with proof. Someone’s word is seldom enough to demonstrate a point as truth. The quotes may be correct, but medical progress is not founded on quotes, neither is technology or physics or astronomy or engineering. If an issue is brought up, people including myself require more than a quote to back up what you say.

    A working diagram, or an insight into the mechanism you claim, a photo or a link to an empirical counter example. Tested and sanctioned counter evidence from reputable sources – the very same sources that you quote – Simpsons, Eldridges, Goulds, Stanleys. You use these people in your responses, so they would be ideal people to persuade me of the truth inferred by the claims you make.

    You have engaged in your above answer here with the flavobacterium, but this is as much direct engagement with an example as you have shown. It was short and dismissive, but at least it was what is required. Please expand on this, I do not understand you’re criticism here.

    These bacteria have evolved an entirely new ability to digest nylon. Nylon is a new substance – 70 years old. Therefore the bacteria have evolved this ability at some time in the last 70 years. This is acquired new data or information, which is an example of what was asked of Dawkins in your video.

    Morris, I would imagine, would concur that genetic novelty is a rare but real phenomenon.

    • syoungren says:
    September 10, 2011 at 2:41 am

    Nick,

    It is you who are not engaging the issues. I just don’t think this is getting through to you. [JAWDROPPING TRANSFERRENCE!] Here are the simple facts:

    1) The burden of proof lies with those trying to prove a theory…. not with those wishing to disprove it.

    [WHAT IS THE THEORY OF CREATIONISM/ID? PLEASE PRESENT ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING SCIENCE IN THAT REGARD. EVEN A MERELY PROPOSED LINE OF INQUIRY THAT IS NOT PATENTLY PSEUDOSCIENCE. NOTHING? THAT’S OK, NOT ONE SINGLE CREATARD HAS EVER DONE SO.]

    2) Not even Richard Dawkins can cite an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process shown to increase the genetic capacity of the genome. Without this capability, macroevolution cannot occur. You have not responded to this point.

    [ARGUMENT BY DISHONEST QUOTE MINE. IGNORES ALL THE MANY EXAMPLES AS WELL AS THE INSANELY OBVIOUS, SIMPLE REFUTATIONS. BY STATING, “You have not responded to this point.”, IT IMPLIES THAT WHAT YOU POSTED WAS SOMETHING OTHER THAN LIES. THEY ARE LIES. PERIOD. EVEN IF SOMEONE POSTS ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD FOR YOUR LIES, YOU WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE ANY OF IT. EVER. PROVEN FAC T. PROVEN BY YOU. DAILY.

    3) Not only does the fossil record not support macroevolution (please don’t make me rehash the quotes again…. and I can come up with many others) [ARGUMENT BY DISHONEST QUOTE MINE”] but the fossil record cannot even in principle support macroevolution, as the citations I provide demonstrate. [BUT THEY’RE ALL LIES. WHAT ABOUT THE TRUTH? WE KNOW – IT’LL NEVER BE ACKNOWLEDGED.] Species appear in the fossil record fully formed without any signs of ancestors. [BS – LIE.] If these quotes are taken out of context, you need to reinsert them into the correct context. [YOU’D NEVER ADMIT IN ANYWAY AS YOU’VE PROVEN TO ME. WHEY DON’T YOU SIMPLY CEASE ARGUING BY A KNOWN DISHONEST AND FALLACIOUS MEANS SO THAT WE WON’T HAVE TO? HMMMM?] This means that you must tell us what the correct context is…. not just provide additional text that preceded and followed the quote which I provide. That is just providing additional text, not context. {EFF YOU. ARE YOU REALLY TO STUPID TO COMPREHEND CLEAR MEANING OR JUST DISHONEST ENOUGH TO CLAIM TO BE?]

    4) You say that I wont engage deeply in your examples. Well, of course I wont. [WE KNOW. BUT YOU;LL LIE ABOUT THE REASONS. WAIT FOR IT . . . .] Here is what you are not getting: If Richard Dawkins could not come up with an example of an genetic mutation or evolutionary process shown to increase the information in the genome, why should I think that you can? [BREATHTAKINGLY BOLD ASININITY! YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY IGNORE THE COUNTLESS EXAMPLES IN FAVOR OF THE DISHONEST MINED QUOTE, YOPU ALO PREEMPTIVELY DISMISS ANY FUTURE EVIDENCE ON THAT BASIS. ASTOUNDING!] If he can’t come up with such an example, it doesn’t take much of a leap of faith to assume that this is because there are no such examples. [EXCEPT ALL OVER SEVERAL VOLUMES OF BOOKS THAT HE AUTHORED, YOU LYING BAG OF EXCREMENT!!!!!!]

    5) Micro+micro+micro+micro cannot equal macro because species adapt within genetic limits. You have not responded to this objection. [THIS DOESN’T EVEN QUALIFY AS AN OBJECTION. YOU ARE ADMITTING TO EVOLUTION AND THEN MAKING A NAKED ASSERTION THAT THERE IS A LIMIT. NAKED ASSERTION = DAMN DUMBEST ARGUMENT OF ALL.]

    6) Yes, we cannot just go on quotes. Yes, we need to be persuaded empirically as well. You are right. Macroevolution cannot be demonstrated empirically because it is not testable. [EXCEPT BY SEVERAL AREAS OF GENETICS, PALEONTOLOGY, AND SEVERAL OTHER SCIENTIFIC FIELDS, BUT DON’T STOP IGNORING NOW.] Ancestry in the fossil record and in the genome can only be inferred. [FIRST, I HAVE TO ASK WHATEVER HAPPENED TO YOUR ARGUMENT FOR INFERENCE WHEN THE SUBJECT WAS INTELLIGENT AGENCY? KNOWING YOU’LL IGNORE THAT, MOVE ON TO IGNORING THE FACT THAT ID IS NOT TESTABLE. HIPOCRACY SEETHES FROM YOUR EVERY PORE, SCOTTY. The fact that species and phyla appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record (without ancestors) means that there is no empirical support for macroevolution. [BS SIMPLISTIC OVERSTATEMENT CRIBBED FORM CREATARDS] As Lynn Margulis demonstrates, not a single biologist can come up with a singe unambiguous example of a new species emerging through an accumulation of mutations. [SO THE EFF WHAT? YOU NOT ONLY IGNORE TIME SCALE – ALSO, THE SAME LIMITATION APPLIES TO THE ID’ER, DUMMY – YOU ARE DISMISSING ALL HYSTORICAL SCIENCES, SUCH AS PLATE TECTONICS. YOU HAVE YET TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION THAT MICRO+MICRO+MICRO+MICRO =/= MACRO OTHER THAN HAND WAVING.

    7) Continued support for Darwinian evolution (in museums for example) is the result of the fact that science cannot proceed without a paradigm (or theoretical framework) upon which to build. As Thomas Kuhn points out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, paradigms don’t go away when the science no longer supports them. Rather, they go away when the science no longer supports them, AND a new paradigm comes along to take its place. Scientists didn’t just give up on Newtonian physics, for example, when Newtonian physics failed to explain certain subatomic and astronomical phenomena. Rather, scientists abandoned Newtonian physics when Newtonian physics failed to explain certain subatomic and astronomical phenomena AND Einstein’s physics came along.

    [YOU ARE CONFLATING “A NEW PARADIGM COMING ALONG” WITH DISHONEST ANKLE BITING OF THE “OLD” PARADIGM. SCIENTISTS GAVE UP ON NEWTONIAN PHYSICS WHEN REPEATABLE OBSERVATIONS OF STARLIGHT FOLLOWING CURVED SPACE-TIME CONCLUSIVELY SUPPORTED THE FULLY DEVELOPED THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY. PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US WITH THE FULLY DEVELOPED THEORY OF ID THAT IS A BETTER EXPLANANTION FOR BILLIONS OF MUTUALLY REINFORCING OBSERVATIONS IN A DOZEN FIELDS? DON’T FEEL BAD; NO CREATARD HAS EVER EVEN ACKNOWLDGED THAT QUESTION. THEREFORE, YOUR OBSERVATION ABOVE IS A BALD-FACED LIE AND SHOULD BE RETRACTED. WILL YOU? OF COURSE NOT!]

    Hmmm? Funny how you EVADED that whole nylonase matter again. I admire Nick for his saintly demeanor and for not delivering the typed equivalent of a Jap-slap, but on the other hand, perhaps such intellectual dishonesty as pervades your every word need to be treated with the disdain, ridicule, and anger that they very much deserve.

    I truly do feel sorry for people like you, Scotty. You are fundamentally incapable, for whatever combination of cognitive deficiencies and emotional dependencies, of rational discourse – or even critical thinking. But I feel more afraid than anything, because such stubborn irrationality, which only the proudly irrational phenomenon of religion can produce and sustain, can and does bleed over into other areas, is virulently contagious (you’re far from the only nutter rehashing the creatard arguments online – and obviously very motivated to proselytize), negatively impacts the education of our children, and destroys intelligent debate of public policy issues.

    Even if the irrationality of religion didn’t bleed over any further than this one area of science denial, it is still scary as hell, but it doesn’t. My fundy, YEC brother has not only raised five YEC kids, they have 6 (soon to be 8) grandkids who will most likely be subjected to all the brainwashing required to be YEC’s as well. They adamantly dismiss any science that disagrees with their irrational beliefs on the exact same basis that a 9/11 truther dismisses all evidence for what really happened on 9/11. The analogy is not strained.

    Once their brains were trained to dismiss all evidence not supporting their predetermined conclusions (baseless beliefs), they have found it easy to dismiss any and all environmental concerns, no matter the science, by invoking an identical, global, hilariously impossible, conspiracy theory. And they are much more sure of their utterly baseless positions than any rational person is of positions they hold based on actual evidence! The “true believer” syndrome for which their minds were trained from early childhood.

    And they all vote – religiously. (pun intended) This makes it difficult to determine which of the Republican presidential candidates’ espoused anti-science, anti-reason, denialist, and faith-based positions are pandering to the “faithful” (pun again intended) or genuinely held positions based upon their own irrationality. As a conservative, I would like to be able to vote for a conservative candidate without having to cross my fingers and hope that he’s merely pandering and not truly irrational. Huntsman openly warned that the Republican Party was becoming the anti-science party, but he’s out of the race now. All remaining are at least pandering to some degree, if not actually deluded. The numbers of voters who adamantly hold to irrational beliefs based on irrational arguments – like Scotty – are so vast that simply professing to accept reality is a political death sentence.

    My brother also believes that he can dowse for water using divining rods, has quoted Nostradamus as if it might actually be relevant to current events, subscribes to a variety of medical quackery, and views much of politics, world affairs, economics, etc. through the lens of conspiracism, and is otherwise cognitively impaired, though a very intelligent and successful individual. Coincidence? I think not. Also, while being inordinately certain of every patently absurd position that he holds, he demonizes atheists as being dangerous! I have to avoid stating my lack of belief because I’m fairly sure that I would be subjected to even worse treatment than what I once received from a (former) friend when I told them that I was rational.

    That’s just a few aspects of the problem of irrational belief and irrational thinking in this country. The problem can and does get a lot worse. I remind you again of my 9/11 post, which Scotty essentially ignored. I pointed out that he could not be intellectually consistent and simultaneously argue against how the hijackers arrived at their positions and decisions, other than to make the faith-based claim that their faith was misplaced. Scotty wouldn’t acknowledge an argument that would – assuming he suddenly developed a capacity for honest engagement – end in a conclusion that faith enables irrationality that is far more immediately dangerous than science denial. He did what he always does – evades and obfuscates.

    I encourage all to read and listen to Sam Harris as much as possible. No one as clearly expresses the dangers of religion as he does. The dangers are not overstated. People are just not used to hearing the truth because religious people – who may well demonize theists, other religions, and any number of other people or ideas – often act as if religion – theirs – shouldn’t be criticized.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      So I am irrational? Is that right? Here is where we stand:

      1) You are still hammering the whole “pseudoscience” thing even though I have stated at least twice that I have agreed to proceed with my arguments from the assumption that the science you have presented is 100% correct.

      Macroevolution is true? You want it, you’ve got it. Self-organizing matter? You want it, you’ve got it. Nylonase demonstrates macroevolution? You want it, you’ve got it. Richard Dawkins’ science is 100% correct? You want it, you’ve got it.

      Why do you keep barking up the your-science-is-wrong tree when I have agreed to proceed from the generous assumption that your science is 100% correct? Because you are afraid to address the following question:

      You believe that life emerged as result of natural laws causing organisms to “self-organize” from lifeless matter. But this leaves you with a question to answer: How is it that inanimate matter can be made to follow a set of natural laws? Your response was that you don’t know (please correct me if I am wrong).

      And yet you assert that atheism is a lack of faith! Atheism is “a failure to accept a proposition without convincing evidence,” in your words. Atheism is clearly a lack of faith in God, but it is NOT a lack of faith that there are natural laws which “just are” and that the phenomenon of lifeless matter following these laws “just is.” You apparently have faith that science will one day find an answer for these questions even though such questions do not fall under the rubric of science (as I describe in my essay titled “Why evolution cannot be used to rationalize atheism”).

      Please describe for us what your “convincing evidence” is for the proposition that inanimate matter can be made to follow a natural law without higher intelligence guiding the universe. Please also detail for us what your “convincing evidence” is that these natural laws can be pre-existent in a universe devoid of an intelligent source.

      2) This is now the EIGTH time that I have asked you to rebut the points made in my essay titled Is there a God? What is the chance that the world is the result of chance?

      3) You continually assert that it is atheists who are rational and theists who are irrational. Yet, I have clearly demonstrated that the best explanations for the origin of life that the most prominent atheists can come up with are such things as aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-a-spaceship and life-emerged-as-a-result-of-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals.

      You continually assert that I have somehow misrepresented these facts. And yet, any party viewing this can see Richard Dawkins endorsing the aliens hypothesis by clicking on this link and can review prominent atheist biologist Francis Crick’s endorsement of the hypothesis in his book Life Itself by reading this article.

      Anyone viewing this can easily click on this link to see prominent atheist biologist Michael Ruse endorsing the idea that life originated by lifeless matter taking a piggyback ride on crystals.

      Whether or not I exaggerated Dawkins endorsement of the aliens hypothesis by “lying” and saying that he firmly believes it is besides the point. The simple, unavoidable fact is that these are the explanations for the origin of life that “rational” and “logical” ultra-prominent atheist scientists come up with. And that’s the facts…Jack.

      I deleted your rebuttal to the Dawkins/aliens video? If so, then why didn’t you just repost it in your last reply? Do you really think you are fooling anybody by suggesting that you “refuted” Richard Dawkins endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis when he is clearly seen on video doing so? How can a person “refute” something that is on video?! It boggles the imagination.

      You have made several other assertions that I have “deleted” refutations that you have made. And yet, mysteriously, you don’t merely repost those alleged refutations.

      Once again, please copy and paste for us where I lied about Richard Dawkins endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis by calling it a firm belief. You continually make forceful assertions that you have shown us “dozens of times” that I have “lied,” and yet WHERE have you shown us this? You seem to fall for the all too common atheist belief that something false will become true if you just assert it often enough and forcefully enough. If I keep shouting “the ocean is made of maple syrup, not water!” often enough and forcefully enough, will it become true?

      Lastly, your own citations about atheism in Scandinavia show that you lied when you presented the “80% atheist” figure. For one, you seem to be including agnostics in the category of atheists.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Kyle says:

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “So I am irrational? Is that right?”

        Yes! You go through fallacies faster than a McDonald’s goes through fries! I pointed them out over and over and over! You have, many times, supported a position solely on a glaringly obvious elemental fallacy, had it pointed out to you, and either continued unfazed or actually claimed that the fallacy was logical! And then you’re so GD stupid that you ask the above question! I ask you again – Are you ten years old?

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “You are still hammering the whole “pseudoscience” thing even though I have stated at least twice that I have agreed to proceed with my arguments from the assumption that the science you have presented is 100% correct.”

        And yet again, YOU ARE REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE SOMETHING THAT I POST TO YOU OVER AND OVER AND OVER. You may want to move the goal post away from science denial and pseudoscience – until such time as you repeat the same BS again – but I’m not letting you run me in circles. You’ve taken up the dumber than a rock, creatard position and argued for it with every creatard deception ever excreted by the professional Liars for Jebus. You have been called on dozens of them. Deceptions were unveiled. Lies were corrected. Sophistry was countered with logic. You have proven an Olympic level obfuscator.

        YOU HAVE NEVER, EVEN AFTER I’VE CHALLENGED YOU MULTIPLE TIMES, CONCEDED EVEN ONE MISSTATEMENT OF FACT, ONE CREATARD DECEPTION, ONE LOGICLA FALLACY. NOT ONE.

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Why do you keep barking up the your-science-is-wrong tree when I have agreed to proceed from the generous assumption that your science is 100% correct?”

        Besides the obvious that I stated above, let me point out how HILARIOUS it is that you actually referred to what you’ve espoused in terms of “your-science-is-wrong”. YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO SCIENCE! Did you read any of the quotes describing how creatards interpret all words of scientists as being “science”, independent of underlying meaning, just like theologians “prooftexting”? You wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the butt.

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “You believe that life emerged as result of natural laws causing organisms to “self-organize” from lifeless matter. But this leaves you with a question to answer: How is it that inanimate matter can be made to follow a set of natural laws? Your response was that you don’t know (please correct me if I am wrong).”

        You are wrong. I may have said that as well, and it is the only honest and intelligent claim to make (religion = claiming to know crap that you make up), but I have also said this is an admission that ALL of your related arguments have failed! Every time you are losing on a CLEARLY fallacious “It looks designed” argument, or an “I just can’t conceive of it, so it can’t be true” argument, or an “I don’t understand it, so it can’t be true” argument, or a “Science doesn’t know, so we can never know, so goddidit” argument, or a retarded “random is the opposite of intelligent” argument, or a “out of context quotes by people who adamantly object to how they’ve been misquoted are “science” and the Mt. Everest of actual science” argument, etc., you reflexively jump to the SAME DAMN LAME ARGUMENT! That means that you ONLY HAVE ONE ARGUMENT! And that argument is HORRIBLE. Your ONE argument is that since you can’t conceive of/don’t know and/or science doesn’t know, fundamental Big Bang questions from the first 1 X 10^-43 seconds of the universe’s existence regarding the space-time, matter, and energy, GODDIDIT!

        In other words, on the rare occasions that you actually acknowledge and engage counter arguments to your fallacious (see above) arguments, you punt by jumping to THE SAME, even more fallacious argument, which is the ultimate Argument from Ignorance! Sure, you spew some lame apologetics sophistry from some impressive sounding names, but it’s all still complete BS just the same. A fallacy is a fallacy. The pro creatards count on the faithful to be lacking in critical thinking skills. They are seldom disappointed in that regard.

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “ “And yet you assert that atheism is a lack of faith! Atheism is “a failure to accept a proposition without convincing evidence,” in your words. Atheism is clearly a lack of faith in God, but it is NOT a lack of faith that there are natural laws which “just are” and that the phenomenon of lifeless matter following these laws “just is.””
        That sir, is a LIE. I have told you repeatedly, as have others, that the straw man that you just created is a LIE. We say, “I DON’T KNOW.” Religion says “I know everything because the man in the sky dictated it to a bronze age goat herder”. One more time for the hard of thinking:

        The opposite of “I don’t know” is NOT “goddidit”. Get it yet?

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “ You apparently have faith that science will one day find an answer for these questions . . .”

        Apparent to you, maybe, but not to me. I am perfectly willing to conceded that any or all unanswered questions may fail to yield to the most persistent inquiry. It is, btw, IMPLICIT IN YOUR STATEMENT, that if science doesn’t figure something out, goddidit! What a moron!

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “. . . even though such questions do not fall under the rubric of science (as I describe in my essay titled “Why evolution cannot be used to rationalize atheism”).”

        BS. First, apologists make naked assertions that this, that, or the other thing will never be understood by rational inquiry, which is, lest you not get it yet, the lowest of all fallacies. Then, based on that impressive foundation (snicker), they declare that this, that, or the other is therefore outside of the purview of rational inquiry, which is just another naked assertion. Then, they continue to build this imposing (snicker) edifice of an “argument” by making the naked assertion, almost always unstated, that there exists a realm that is by nature impervious to rational inquiry. Usually, being that they are faithheads and mystics, this is simply assumed. If pressed on it, which they very seldom are, they will tap dance in circles using lofty, but empty rhetoric about beauty, love, and internal experiences like transcendence, or just yammer on about how religion seems innate – totaling ignoring all naturalistic explanations from neuroscience, anthropology, etc. and getting really pissy if you bring them up. Often, they will make the same, stupid, naked assertions that science will never understand ‘X’, therefore their religious experiences are PROOF that invisible sky fairies exist!

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Please describe for us what your “convincing evidence” is for the proposition that inanimate matter can be made to follow a natural law without higher intelligence guiding the universe. Please also detail for us what your “convincing evidence” is that these natural laws can be pre-existent in a universe devoid of an intelligent source.”

        There is no way to respond to these except by stating the obvious – They are loaded, nonsense questions. Among its other faults, the first one is yet another retarded attempt to invert the evidentiary burden. Since you have made nothing remotely resembling a convincing argument for ID, the only way that this question can be made logical is to rephrase it as “Please describe for us what your “convincing evidence” is for the proposition that inanimate matter requires a higher intelligence guiding the universe to be made to follow a natural law.” Remember, you are making the positive claim in every single creatard ID argument, that ‘X’ requires gawd. You need to support that claim.

        Also, it’s just plain silly to imply that inanimate matter has to be coerced into behaving according to the laws of physics.

        Your second request is dumber than the first. It is nothing more than a very contorted version of the SAME, LAME ultimate first cause fallacious “Argument from” as previously described – from Ignorance, from Incredulity, and from False Dichotomy.

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “2) This is now the EIGTH time that I have asked you to rebut the points made in my essay titled Is there a God? What is the chance that the world is the result of chance”

        Since you are so instistent, I have obliged by recounting your entire despicable display of deception on that thread. Keep reading and enjoy.
        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “3) You continually assert that it is atheists who are rational and theists who are irrational. Yet, I have clearly demonstrated that the best explanations for the origin of life that the most prominent atheists can come up with are such things as aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-a-spaceship and life-emerged-as-a-result-of-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals.”

        The first is largely a BIG LIE. I will expose it in a moment – FOR THE THIRD TIME. The first and second are also both Arguments from Incredulity and Arguments from Ridicule, which you will now ignore again, and then proceed to repeat them as if they were actually logically valid – until hell freezes over.

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “You continually assert that I have somehow misrepresented these facts. [YOU HAVE] And yet, any party viewing this can see Richard Dawkins endorsing the aliens hypothesis by clicking on this link [AND LIKEWISE SEE THAT HE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT “ENDORSING” IT AT ALL BECAUSE THEY WILL HERE STEIN;S QUESTION THAT PRECEDES DAWKINS’ ANSWER, YOU MONUMENTAL TWIT!]

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Anyone viewing this can easily click on this link to see prominent atheist biologist Michael Ruse endorsing the idea that life originated by lifeless matter taking a piggyback ride on crystals.”

        SO WHAT! Your argument is as fallacious as is possible! If you knew anything about science and was not religiously deluded, you would know that he was talking about catalysis. I suppose that you think gawd is personally cracking all the nasties in your car’s exhaust, too – assuming you are old enough to drive.

        SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Whether or not I exaggerated Dawkins endorsement of the aliens hypothesis by “lying” and saying that he firmly believes it is besides the point. The simple, unavoidable fact is that these are the explanations for the origin of life that “rational” and “logical” ultra-prominent atheist scientists come up with. And that’s the facts…Jack.”

        In Dawkins’ case, as is obvious as hell, this is not the case and you know it. Plus, it is a LIE to keep saying that these only abiogenesis hypotheses. You could claim to have been misinformed at first, but I’ve TOLD you about the many other hypothese, so it is now a LIE every time.

        SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “I deleted your rebuttal to the Dawkins/aliens video? If so, then why didn’t you just repost it in your last reply? [BECAUSE YOU EFFIN’ DELETED IT, YOU EFFIN’ MORON AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RECREATE THINGS BECAUSE YOU CENSOR THEM. BUT READ ON, OH DISHONEST ONE. READ ON!] Do you really think you are fooling anybody by suggesting that you “refuted” Richard Dawkins endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis when he is clearly seen on video doing so? [HE IS JUST AS CLEARLY ANSWERING A QUESTION – A QUESTION LEFT IN THE VIDEO! – THAT PUTS THE LIE TO THE CREATARD MINED QUOTE.] How can a person “refute” something that is on video?! It boggles the imagination. [YOU’RE TELLIN’ ME!!!!]

        SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “You have made several other assertions that I have “deleted” refutations that you have made. And yet, mysteriously, you don’t merely repost those alleged refutations.”

        Your logic is nothing if not consistent – consistently illogical!

        SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “Once again, please copy and paste for us where I lied about Richard Dawkins endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis by calling it a firm belief.”

        I did the next best thing, but can’t do exactly that because YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOU DISHONESTLY EDITED AWAY THE WORST CASES OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “You continually make forceful assertions that you have shown us “dozens of times” that I have “lied,” and yet WHERE have you shown us this? [JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T READ THEM OR CLAIM NOT TO READ THEM, OR READ THEM AND IGNORE THEM DOES NOT MEAN THEY DON’T EXIST, RETARD.] You seem to fall for the all too common atheist belief that something false will become true if you just assert it often enough and forcefully enough. [THE TRANSFERENCE IS TRULY ASTONISHING WITH YOU!]

        SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “Lastly, your own citations about atheism in Scandinavia show that you lied when you presented the “80% atheist” figure. For one, you seem to be including agnostics in the category of atheists.”

        Thanks for totally ignoring the entire portion of that post that dealt with all the issues regarding such studies and sticking with the simplistic talking point. Thanks also for totally ignoring that the Scandinavian agnostics are described by the researchers as about as non-religious as you can get. If you need to claim every superstitious Swede that professes to feel in his gut that there’s a “life force” as a theist in order to maintain your fiction that religiosity is innate and that religion is needed for a moral society, then go right ahead.

        NOW, SCOTTY THE GREAT LIAR SHALL BE UNMASKED!:

        Oh Great Deceiver, I bow down in the presence of such master deception. I predict that you will censor this post because you must not reveal to the creatard faithful that you are so dependent upon dishonest means. And also, of course, for the same reason that you CENSORED THE CONTENT BEFORE – T_W_I_C_E_!_:

        Because you have flogged the Dawkins’ video lie so many times that they can’t be counted and you are too dishonest to admit to the lie.

        I HAD FIRST GIVEN YOU A HINT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR ANY SENTIENT BEING:

        Kyle says: September 5, 2011 at 5:22 am
        3) The very link that you provided clearly states the context. Rather than spell it out for you, I challenge you to show some intellectual honesty and tell me what it is. Hint – it lies in the question to which he was responding. Can you tell us the true context and why it renders “Richard Dawkins himself admitted in an interview that he believes life on earth originated from an intelligent source.” to be a transparent bald-faced lie? Can you do it? Can YOU be LOGICAL? Or do I need to spell it out in excruciating detail as well? Otherwise, it will look an awful lot like you are avoiding your obvious dishonesty by willingly appearing to be stupid. Hmm?

        YOU PREFERED TO LOOK STUPID OVER BEING HONEST.

        I had to research internet archives to find this. I posted the ALREADY DEAD OBVIOUS proper interpretation FIRST on September 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm:

        FIRST CENSORED POSTING OF THE DAWKINS’ VIDEO REBUTTAL. YOU RESPONDED – WHICH MEANS YOU READ IT:

        Kyle says:
        September 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm
        Yes, facts are facts, something I’m almost surprised that you admit, as you dismiss so many.

        OK, I guess it’s possible that you’re so rabid that you don’t see the obvious, which I saw even before seeing Dawkins confirm it, so I’ll spell it out for you.

        First, let me point out that any of these people, Dawkins included, “endorsing a HYPOTHESIS”, does not, BY DEFINITION, necessarily mean they BELIEVE it to be true! They aren’t even CONCLUDING it to be true; not even PROVISIONALLY! They are merely affirming that it is a valid hypothesis. (Why can’t you guys just once Google “scientific method”?)

        AND THIS IS MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR IN STEIN’S QUESTION!!! (Excuse the caps but I’m at a loss how to beat the obvious into impervious skulls.)

        Note your words:

        “. . . taken by prominent atheist biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge and others…BELIEF THAT LIFE WAS BROUGHT TO EARTH BY ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE. Click here to see a video of Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) endorsing the idea in an interview.”

        It’s funny, sad, and a little frightening how you guys consistently conflate accepting, even provisionally, a conclusion based on evidence and reason with belief. You do it every time you try to hand wave away your unfounded beliefs by equating it with a rationalists acceptance of scientific evidence.

        If that isn’t enough for ya, consider that Dawkins has written thousands of pages that make it crystal clear that he sees no difficulty with what the evidence shows – that Earthly evolution is a sufficient explanation (principle of parsimony). Why would you, Stein, and the pack ignore thousands of pages of published writings in favor of a contradictory and sophomoric straw man attack? Because that’s what IDiots do! If it weren’t for quote mining and taking things out of context, they would forgo 90% of their “arguments”.

        As for your refusal to provide the context in YOUR source, one almost has to conclude intentional deception at this point. I’ll do it for you:

        Ben Stein: “What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?”

        Dawkins is quite used to the routine propaganda techniques of the ID/creationist crowd. He knows that IDiots cannot help themselves from assuming the ID’er is their deity, so he leaped at the chance to illustrated this false dichotomy. It was also immediately apparent to him, and I when I first saw the consistently dishonest “Expelled”, that if he said, “None”, he would be accused of doing what IDiots are doing with every breath – a priori excluding an hypothesis (and in their case, evidence, and thoroughly supported theory as well). Dawkins later confirmed this to be exactly why he responded as he did!

        However, even with his experience with IDiots, he failed to anticipate the astoundingly and obviously intentional way that that was misinterpreted. Which, of course, you not only repeat uncritically, but will almost certainly stick with forever as all IDiots do when every single one of their failed arguments, logical travesties, gross distortions, mined quotes, and bald-faced lies are revealed. Dawkins, having failed (correctly) to be cornered by this amateurish ploy into admitting that a magic invisible entity, wholly lacking in evidence, is a valid scientific hypothesis, was instead subjected to this. IDiot dishonesty knows no bounds.

        Prove me wrong. Admit to the proper context. Then admit that Stein, the rest of the pack, and yourself, are transparently conflating his admission that an intelligence designing biological systems (as we are beginning to do) is a valid hypothesis with claiming that he BELIEVES it to be true. If you can’t, then you have proven yourself to be a typical liar for Jebus and will be treated as such.

        Oh yes, that reminds me – Even with Dawkins and others, some quite long ago, having accepted the validity of this hypothesis, no IDiot has undertaken or even proposed a scientifically valid attempt to test the hypothesis. Virtually none of millions of $’s collected by the evolution denial ministry – I mean industry – goes to anything that even they claim to be research. All while they insist that, “It is so science!”

        And no, a thousand laughably pseudo-scientific variations of the Argument from Incredulity, transparently inverted evidentiary burdens, including the vacuous and thoroughly debunked irreducible complexity, the bogus information theory arguments, the “laws” developed via the rectal extraction method, etc., published only to the masses without peer review – or very occasionally slipped into some obscure journal devoted to a virtually unrelated field, do not count.

        YOUR RESPONSE WAS TO IGNORE, CENSOR, AND LAUNCH DIVERSIONS:

        syoungren says: September 8, 2011 at 10:45 am
        Kyle:

        From this point forward, I am enforcing a one comment per day rule. All comments in excess of one per day will be deleted.

        You are not the first angry atheist to try to spam me out with huge volumes of text. It is far too time consuming for me to respond to the roughly one dozen comments you make per day. But even if you only made one comment per day, you could actually say a lot more than you are saying with fewer words if you just subtracted all of the insults and empty, angry rhetoric.

        Try to work on the qualitative aspect of your comments as opposed to the quantitative aspect.

        It is not difficult for anyone to see what you (and several other angry atheists) are trying to do: You are trying to make it look like you are winning the debate by writing so much stuff that I will inevitably not respond to some of it due to time constraints. I don’t know what your employment status is, but I have a full time job and other responsibilities.

        Persuasion happens as a result of presenting a logically cohesive argument… not as a result of forcefulness and repetition of assertion.

        Now lets get back to the debate: What is your reply to the anthropic fine tuning evidence as presented in my essay entitled “Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance?” Post your as briefly as possible by including only rationally constructed, fact based arguments and no empty rhetoric. I will note that I have asked you to reply to this first piece of evidence several times before.

        SO I QUOTED THE ENTIRE CENSORED POST ON September 8, 2011 at 7:13 am

        YOU CENSORED IT AGAIN! AND IGNORED IT AGAIN AS WELL, OF COURSE:

        Kyle says: September 8, 2011 at 7:13 am
        I tire of your hysterical blindness – Here’s the dead obvious explanation, that was then made by Dawkins, and then explained to you. Now do what you do best and use every intellectually dishonest weasel maneuver in the faithhead arsenal to either misrepresent it, pretend not to understand it, insist that black is white, and obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate – most likely by asking crap like, “How did X happen?”, “How could random processes do Y?”, “Oh yeah, well explain to me how watermelons could possibly function as truck differentials.”

        Let the obfuscation and denialism begin!:

        Kyle says:
        September 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm

        Yes, facts are facts, something I’m almost surprised that you admit, as you dismiss so many.

        OK, I guess it’s possible that you’re so rabid that you don’t see the obvious, which I saw even before seeing Dawkins confirm it, so I’ll spell it out for you.

        First, let me point out that any of these people, Dawkins included, “endorsing a HYPOTHESIS”, does not, BY DEFINITION, necessarily mean they BELIEVE it to be true! They aren’t even CONCLUDING it to be true; not even PROVISIONALLY! They are merely affirming that it is a valid hypothesis. (Why can’t you guys just once Google “scientific method”?)

        AND THIS IS MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR IN STEIN’S QUESTION!!! (Excuse the caps but I’m at a loss how to beat the obvious into impervious skulls.)

        Note your words:

        “. . . taken by prominent atheist biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge and others…BELIEF THAT LIFE WAS BROUGHT TO EARTH BY ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE. Click here to see a video of Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) endorsing the idea in an interview.”

        It’s funny, sad, and a little frightening how you guys consistently conflate accepting, even provisionally, a conclusion based on evidence and reason with belief. You do it every time you try to hand wave away your unfounded beliefs by equating it with a rationalists acceptance of scientific evidence.

        If that isn’t enough for ya, consider that Dawkins has written thousands of pages that make it crystal clear that he sees no difficulty with what the evidence shows – that Earthly evolution is a sufficient explanation (principle of parsimony). Why would you, Stein, and the pack ignore thousands of pages of published writings in favor of a contradictory and sophomoric straw man attack? Because that’s what IDiots do! If it weren’t for quote mining and taking things out of context, they would forgo 90% of their “arguments”.

        As for your refusal to provide the context in YOUR source, one almost has to conclude intentional deception at this point. I’ll do it for you:

        Ben Stein: “What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?”

        Dawkins is quite used to the routine propaganda techniques of the ID/creationist crowd. He knows that IDiots cannot help themselves from assuming the ID’er is their deity, so he leaped at the chance to illustrated this false dichotomy. It was also immediately apparent to him, and I when I first saw the consistently dishonest “Expelled”, that if he said, “None”, he would be accused of doing what IDiots are doing with every breath – a priori excluding an hypothesis (and in their case, evidence, and thoroughly supported theory as well). Dawkins later confirmed this to be exactly why he responded as he did!

        However, even with his experience with IDiots, he failed to anticipate the astoundingly and obviously intentional way that that was misinterpreted. Which, of course, you not only repeat uncritically, but will almost certainly stick with forever as all IDiots do when every single one of their failed arguments, logical travesties, gross distortions, mined quotes, and bald-faced lies are revealed. Dawkins, having failed (correctly) to be cornered by this amateurish ploy into admitting that a magic invisible entity, wholly lacking in evidence, is a valid scientific hypothesis, was instead subjected to this. IDiot dishonesty knows no bounds.

        Prove me wrong. Admit to the proper context. Then admit that Stein, the rest of the pack, and yourself, are transparently conflating his admission that an intelligence designing biological systems (as we are beginning to do) is a valid hypothesis with claiming that he BELIEVES it to be true. If you can’t, then you have proven yourself to be a typical liar for Jebus and will be treated as such.

        Oh yes, that reminds me – Even with Dawkins and others, some quite long ago, having accepted the validity of this hypothesis, no IDiot has undertaken or even proposed a scientifically valid attempt to test the hypothesis. Virtually none of millions of $’s collected by the evolution denial ministry – I mean industry – goes to anything that even they claim to be research. All while they insist that, “It is so science!”

        And no, a thousand laughably pseudo-scientific variations of the Argument from Incredulity, transparently inverted evidentiary burdens, including the vacuous and thoroughly debunked irreducible complexity, the bogus information theory arguments, the “laws” developed via the rectal extraction method, etc., published only to the masses without peer review – or very occasionally slipped into some obscure journal devoted to a virtually unrelated field, do not count.

        NOW THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU’RE A DESPICABLE LIAR, LET’S LOOK AT JUST A SAMPLING OF ALL THE TIMES YOU LIED ABOUT THIS MATTER. FIRST, THE LIE ABOUT LYING:

        syoungren says:
        September 12, 2011 at 1:46 am

        “A) Regarding the Dawkins video: I have always used the term “hypothesis” with regards to his endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth suggestion. It should not be understood to mean that he has firmly concluded that it is the case.”

        EVEN SAYING HE ENDORSED IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY A LIE WHEN THE CLEAR CONTEXT OF STEIN’S QUESTION IS ACKNOWLEDGED.

        AS THE SUPREME LIAR THAT YOU ARE, YOU DISHONESTLY EDITED OUT THE MOST EGREGIOUS CASES OF THIS LIE, WHEREIN YOU MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT REFER TO A HYPOTHESIS. HERE’S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU POSTED AND THEN DELETED, AS I (HONESTLY) QUOTED YOU. I SEARCHED EVERY PAGE OF YOUR BLOG FOR THE PHRASE, “BELIEF THAT LIFE WAS BROUGHT”. Y_O_U_ _A_R_E_ _S_C_U_M_!:

        “. . . taken by prominent atheist biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge and others…BELIEF THAT LIFE WAS BROUGHT TO EARTH BY ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE. Click here to see a video of Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) endorsing the idea in an interview.”

        THOUGH ALL THE MOST EGREGIOUS WERE DELETED, NEARLY EVERY REFERENCE TO THE DAWKINS’ VIDEO IS A LIE NONETHELESS. LET THE LIE-FEST BEGIN.

        FROM THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE, THE LIE IS REPEATED THREE TIMES:

        “If the evidence for God is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced?”

        . . . others such as the biologist Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) and the astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe have endorsed the concept of “directed panspermia” which states that life was brought to earth by aliens from outer space. (This article reveals Crick’s support of the theory. Click here to view a video of Dawkins endorsing the idea in an interview).

        By endorsing directed panspermia, individuals such as Crick and Dawkins have done more than embarrass themselves, as Denton above insinuates: They have laid bare for all to see the perceptual filter steering their atheistic beliefs, which is religious in nature, as Peck maintains.

        Does the aliens-brought-life-to-earth explanation for the origin of life endorsed by atheist biologist Richard Dawkins not satisfy you? Well then, perhaps you will be satisfied by the explanation given by prominent atheist biologist Michael Ruse: A MAGICAL CRYSTAL PIGGYBACK RIDE! Sound bizarre?

        THEN MULTIPLE LIES ARE REPEATED ENDLESSLY IN NEARLY EVERY THREAD ON EVERY ESSAY. THIS IS FAR FROM EXHAUSTIVE:

        syoungren says:
        January 10, 2011 at 6:25 pm
        How did the first life emerge? Was it brought here by aliens from outer space, as atheist biologist Richard Dawkins asserts in this video

        syoungren says:
        April 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm
        So life being brought here by aliens from outer space clearly demolishes the creation theory? I have probably linked you to this video of Richard Dawkins endorsing the hypothesis

        syoungren says:
        April 10, 2011 at 7:20 pm
        Am I correct that you feel that the hypothesis that aliens brought life here in a spaceship (“directed panspermia”) shoots down creationism? Recall that this is the best that the atheist cream-of-the-crop (such as Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick) can come up with to explain the origin of life.

        syoungren says:
        September 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm
        You seem to keep going back to the accusation that I lied about the Dawkins / aliens video. If you want to think that I told some sort of lie, that is fine with me. But you just keep evading the important question: If atheism provides a more logical explanation for such things as the origin of life, then why do the most prominent atheist thinkers cite such absurd hypotheses as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis and the life-emerged-from-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals hypothesis?

        syoungren says:
        September 16, 2011 at 3:59 pm
        The same thing with your reply to the Dawkins / aliens video. If you are so confident in your argument, why not accomplish the simple task of restating it or at least copying and pasting it? Your insistence that I go find these arguments myself is highly suggestive that you don’t have much faith in them. Further, there is no room for interpretation here… Dawkins is on video endorsing a hypothesis which says that life on earth can be explained by the fact that it was brought here by aliens. Period. End of story. What needs to be interpreted?

        syoungren says:
        July 11, 2011 at 4:31 pm
        Outspoken atheist biologist Richard Dawkins insists that Darwinian evolution explains the existence of life. But when pressed to explain where life came from in an interview, he admits that nobody knows and he then proposes that life can be explained by the fact that it was brought here by aliens from outer space.

        syoungren says:
        May 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm
        God was not created. He exists outside of time and did not have a beginning.

        Please describe for us how evolution works. Did aliens from outer space evolve through some sort of unspecified “Darwinian process of natural selection” and then send life to earth in a space ship (as the atheist biologist Richard Dawkins suggests in this interview)?

        syoungren says:
        January 5, 2011 at 5:45 am
        Prominent atheist biologists Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins have endorsed “directed panspermia.”

        The concept does not address the origins of life in the universe but how it may have arrived on earth. It is a way for atheists to avoid the question of how life emerged from non-living chemicals by delaying the question or “kicking the can down the road.” In other words, because an answer to the question of how the first life emerged cannot be answered in a way avoids giving credit to God, they just avoid the question by making the hypothesis that it was put here by aliens.

        I encourage you to watch the video with Richard Dawkins and listen carefully to what he says.

        HERE, ELLEN CALLS YOU ON ONE LIE AND ON A GROSS FALLACY AS WELL:

        Ellen says:
        January 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm
        I listened to the clip of Dawkins on “directed panspermia” and yes you are correct in your statement regarding his “endorsement” of the idea however….. he also goes on to say that this higher intelligence could have come about by some explicable process and couldn’t just have jumped into existence. He also points out that this is one of many ways in which life could have come to earth. In other words because he is a scientist he is willing to admit that he does not know all the answers and he is open to different ideas. You state that “because an answer to the question of how the first life emerged cannot be answered in a way avoids giving credit to God, they just avoid the question by making the hypothesis that it was put here by aliens”.

        Just because something does not have a scientific explanation yet… and may never….. does not mean the only other explanation is God. We once thought the world was flat……..

        Finally, if there are aliens that created us perhaps they are Gods creation as well.

        YOU PROCEEDED TO EVADE THAT LIE BUT TELLING ANOTHER ONE ABOUT DAWKINS AND THEN ADDRESSED THE FALLACY BY YOUR GO-TO ROUND-ROBIN TACTIC OF “CLICK ON ANOTHER BIT OF MY BS”.

        syoungren says:
        January 14, 2011 at 11:52 pm
        The main point that I was trying to make by posting this video is that the atheist claim that there is air-tight evidence proving there is no God is absurd. Atheists such as Dawkins present a facade of scientific cerainty that masks a hollow shell of ideology.

        Please read my post “what it all boils down to” in reply to your comment that “just because something does not have a scientific explanation yet…does not mean the only other explanation is God.

        syoungren says:
        February 20, 2011 at 3:12 am
        What is your theory as to how the first life emerged from lifeless chemicals? Did it result from lightning striking a pond with just the right mix of chemicals? Or would you side with Dawkins’ and Crick’s hypothesis that it was brought here by aliens from outer space?

        syoungren says:
        February 28, 2011 at 9:24 pm
        please view this video of Richard Dawkins endorsing the hypothesis that life on earth originated when it was brought here by aliens from outer space.

        syoungren says:
        March 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm
        I have already demonstrated that absolutely nobody has anything better than fanciful speculation about how life could have emerged from lifeless chemicals through unintelligent processes (and Dawkins admits it in the video I link to in my evoluton post).

        syoungren says:
        September 3, 2011 at 6:24 pm
        How do you explain the origin of life? Do you cite aliens from outer space, as do prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge, Fred Hoyle, and others? Please watch this video of Richard Dawkins expressing his endorsement of the hypothesis in an interview.

        syoungren says:
        August 29, 2011 at 8:14 pm
        Several prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins (biologist and author of The God Delusion) seriously entertain the idea that life was brought here by ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE. Please click here to see Dawkins endorsing the idea in an interview.

        Please note that this is not a crude caricature. Prominent atheists such as Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge, and Fred Hoyle ACTUALLY BELIEVE that such an explanation for life might be plausible. This is because such desperate explanations are the only way out of belief in God.

        IN THIS ONE POST, YOU NOT ONLY LIED ABOUT THIS MATTER, BUT ESPOUSED THE OTHER REFUTED CREATARDISM THAT I OFFERED UP AS A TOPIC ON WHICH TO CONCENTRATE:

        syoungren says:
        September 3, 2011 at 4:07 pm
        I have given you some of the logic for belief in God (anthropic fine tuning, remarkable similarity of biblical and scientific accounts of creation, consciousness is more fundamental than matter). NOW PLEASE GIVE US YOUR LOGIC FOR DISBELIEF IN GOD!

        Would you agree with prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, etc.. that we don’t need a higher intelligence such as God to explain the origin of life because aliens from outer space brought life here? Please watch this video of Richard Dawkins expressing his endorsement of the hypothesis in an interview. And you can read how prominent atheist biologist Francis Crick endorsed the idea in his book Life Itself by clicking on this link.

        If you agree that the aliens can explain the origin of life, please then go on to explain how the aliens got there. As Scientific American magazine points out, “It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10 to the 127th power years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids.” And protein folding is only the first step in creating life from lifeless chemicals. Further, random processes would need a heck of a lot longer to fold proteins than would a supercomputer programmed to do so. But, the problem is, the universe is only about 15 billion years old.

        Maybe the aliens came from another universe that is much much older?

        HERE, YOU REPEAT ONE OF THE LIES, LIE ABOUT ME HAVING SUBSTANTIATED THE LIE (BECAUSE YOU CENSORED IT – TWICE), AND THEN LIE AGAIN BY IGNORING ALL OF THE ABIOGENESIS WORK WITH WHICH THEY ARE ALL AWARE AND ABOUT WHICH DAWKINS HAS WRITTEN AT LENGTH. THAT’S A CREATARD LIE TRIFECTA!:

        syoungren says:
        September 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm
        It looks like RIchard Dawkins’ endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth hypothesis has really got you in a tizzy. It is clear that this is a threat to your worldview.

        Your decision to focus intently on accusing me of a lie (without substantiation) speaks volumes.

        Why would Dawkins (and several other prominent atheists) endorse this hypothesis if they had a more “logical” explanation for the origin of life than theists? Why Kyle? Why?

        syoungren says:
        September 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm
        So there is no faith involved in atheism? Then Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, etc. KNOW that aliens brought life to earth? Is that right?

        syoungren says:
        September 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm
        You continually assert that I have somehow misrepresented these facts. And yet, any party viewing this can see Richard Dawkins endorsing the aliens hypothesis by clicking on this link

        WHILE SEARCHING FOR THESE, I ALSO FOUND YOU IGNORANTLY PARROTING THIS DISHONEST INTERPRETATION FROM A CREATARD QUOTE MINE. OF COURSE, YOU STUCK TO IT BY PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED:

        As this article from Scientific American magazine points out, “It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10127 years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids.” And protein folding is only the first step in creating life from lifeless chemicals. Further, random processes would need a heck of a lot longer to fold proteins than would a supercomputer programmed to do so. But, the problem is, the universe is only about 15 billion years old.

        YOU ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE CENSORED MY EXPLANATION OF THIS, SO FROM THE ARCHIVES:

        Kyle says: September 8, 2011 at 3:09 am

        I’VE REMOVED MY REBUTTAL CONCERNING CREATARD QUOTE MINING, WHEREIN I GAVE MASSIVE EVIDENCE. YOU UTTERLY EVADED IT ON THE TRANSPARENT “WIKIPEDIA EXCUSE”.

        I SPECIFICALLY SHREDDED THE SJG “TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS” LIE. YOU CHOSE TO APPEAR TOO RETARDED TO GRASP IT.

        I REBUTTED YOUR CREATARDISMS IN REGARD TO LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR COMMON DESCENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. YOU AGAIN IGNORED ALL THE PRIMARY LITERATURE CITED WITH THE HILARIOUSLY FLIMSY “WIKIPEDIA EXCUSE”.

        I TOLD YOU THE OBVIOUS YET AGAIN, BUT YOU WERE TO SHOW A PREFERENCE FOR APPEARING RETARDED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME ON THIS ONE: “THE OPPOSITE OF INTELLIGENTLY DIRECTED IS NOT RANDOM, YOU MORON!”

        NOW, THE OTHER EXPLANATION THAT YOU ARE TOO STUPID AND/OR TOO DISHONEST TO GRASP:

        “So this is how something that a supercomputer couldn’t even begin to do in 10 to the 127th power years is accomplished? And so this self-catalyzing RNA accomplishes this task with the assistance sea floor vents and lipid bubbles through purely random processes?!”

        You need to stop exclusively reading creatard propaganda because it is FULL of lies and distortions. Thanks for the perfect example; let’s look at its inanity, shall we?:

        The entire article is about limitations of computation in science. There is a universe of difference between computing a simulation and the actual event. The creatard interpretation is so far out in left field that it’d be funny if you clowns weren’t so damn dangerous. This example in the article (freely available online) doesn’t discuss a supercomputer folding a protein. It discusses a supercomputer computing how a protein would fold based upon the KNOWN (just because you don’t know doesn’t mean it isn’t known, can’t be known, or goddidit) parameters that affect the folding. The number of parameters and the exponential nature of their interactions makes it essentially impossible to simulate or predict how a large protein will fold. SO WHAT!

        This was the second example of three in the article. Since your belief system interferes too much whenever biology is involved, let’s use the first one as an analogy. It was about the N-body problem. From the paper:

        “Broadly speaking, this problem looks at the behavior of a number, N, of point-size masses moving in accordance with Newton’s law of gravitational attraction. One version of the problem addresses whether two or more of these bodies will collide or whether one will acquire an arbitrarily high velocity in a finite time. In his 1988 doctoral dissertation, Zhihong ( Jeff) Xia of Northwestern University showed how a single body moving back and forth between two binary systems (for a total of five masses) could approach an arbitrarily high velocity and be expelled from the system. This result, which was based on a special geometric configuration of the bodies, says nothing about the specific case of our solar system. But it does suggest that perhaps the solar system might not be stable. More important, the finding offers new tools with which to investigate the matter.”

        Are you so stupid that you can’t see that he is discussing the difficulty of calculating the motion over long periods of a large number of objects orbiting a body? He is NOT discussing a supercomputer controlling their motions, you effin’ moron! To make it perfectly clear – The bodies will interact and move, for billions of years, following the rules of motion and gravity TO THE LETTER whether anyone ever tried to simulate it or predict it. Does this imply magic! Now read this very slowly for comprehension:

        THE PROTEIN WILL FOLD, EVEN IN A FRACTION OF A SECOND, FOLLOWING THE RULES OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS _T_O_ _T_H_E_ _L_E_T_T_E_R_ WHETHER ANYONE EVER TRIES TO SIMULATE IT OR PREDICT IT. _D_O_E_S_ _T_H_I_S_ _I_M_P_L_Y_ _M_A_G_I_C_?_!

        “There is no reason to doubt that self-catalyzing RNA, sea floor vents and lipid bubbles were involved in the origin of life… I will start from the assumption that you are correct.”

        Whiskey tango foxtrot! I’ll give you the opportunity to claim that you typo’ed. If you actually meant to type this, then it appears that you are beginning to acknowledge just how many gaps your gawd has been evicted from. But how can you square acceptance of that with denial of “macro” (sic) evolution and common descent?!

        “But once again, Kyle, you confuse intermediate causes with ultimate causes. The self-catalyzing of RNA is an intermediate cause. Regarding questions of ultimate causes, the question would be, “How was the RNA able to self-catalyze?” Through intelligent, or merely random and unintelligent causes?”

        You are simply obfuscating – or tap dancing. Why is “How was the RNA able to self-catalyze?” a question of ultimate cause? Because you have a priori assumed it’s magic? Just like molecular shape or orbital mechanics, the RNA self replicates because of the KNOWN rules of chemistry! How do you think the researchers arrived at the idea of the research? The details of it? Was it all RANDOM and therefore MAGIC? No, they predicted it based on SCIENCE.

        And again: THE OPPOSITE OF INTELLIGENTLY DIRECTED IS NOT RANDOM, YOU SIMPERING TWIT!

        “Well, in answering this, keep in mind what the Scientific American article entitled Confronting Science’s Logical Limits said about a supercomputer programmed to do so would need 10 to the 127 power years just to fold a simple sequence of 100 proteins.”

        (face->palm)

        “Was it the sea floor vent that performed this complex operation? If so, THAT IS ONE SMART SEA FLOOR VENT!”

        Holy crap – are you ever thick! The sea floor vent nor any other entity or condition that I mentioned needed to KNOW anything! It was the KNOWN rules of chemistry (which, btw, can be derived directly from particle physics/QM). Thank you for illustrating so well one of the two evolved irrational characteristics of human cognition that is fundamental to all superstition – False attribution of agency. You are the gift that keeps on giving. I could use you as the exclusive subject of extensive studies of the evolutionary psychology of religion and neurotheology.

        Now, I am sick and tired of being bombarded with questions – stupid, dishonest, often diversionary – so start acknowledging some answers, answering some of my questions, etc. I suggest that you answer the big implied questions above, which are all variations of:

        “Do you acknowledge this error?”

        “Will you cease repeating this error?”

        “Will you admit that the pro and semi-pro liars for Jebus have been feeding you a steady diet of BS?”

        “Will you apologize for your willful ignorance and incessant insulting of those who have been trying to correct you?”

        “Will you actually check the veracity of your sources in the future; possibly even study some science, before repeating long discredited, ignorant, dishonest creatard propaganda?”

        YOUR RESPONSE WAS TOTALLY NONRESPONSIVE – A DISHONEST DISMISSAL:

        syoungren says: September 8, 2011 at 3:36 am
        Wow, that is a lot of typing that doesn’t seem to say much. If the opposite of intelligent isn’t random, what is it? Wikipedia is garbage. Click on this link to see what I mean.

        Kyle, your replies are incoherent. Try to limit your replies to only the necessary points. I will repeat that your use of insults and strident rhetoric only betrays the fact that you feel your worldview threatened. Why else would you be angry if you didn’t feel a threat to your worldview?

        . . . LIE, LIE, LIE, EVADE, TAP DANCE, EVADE, ARGUE IN A CIRCLE, REPEAT REFUTED CLAIM, MOVE THE GOAL POST, “CLICK HERE AND RESPOND TO THIS BS”, LIE, OBFUSCATE, LIE . . .

        AND SO ON, AD NAUSEUM.

        I ALSO FOUND ONE OF THE MANY, MANY TIMES THAT I ASKED YOU VERY PERTINENT QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENTS, ONLY TO BE COMPLETELY IGNORED:

        Kyle says:
        September 7, 2011 at 4:50 am
        “Under no circumstances does an informed God-believing person think that we should cease rational inquiry and just say “God did it” when a more detailed understanding of how God did it can be determined.”

        1) They effectively do so all the time; you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. If you disagree . . .
        2) . . . please point me to the vast volumes of scientific research into gawd’s mechanisms. That’s a trick question; there is not only no real ID research, there is no scientific research into any other aspect of religion . . .
        3) . . . except for the anthropology, neuropsychology, neurology, etc. that clearly shows that religion is a purely natural phenomenon.
        4) Your theistic assumptions are showing. What justifies investigating gawd’s mechanisms without evidence that goddidit?
        5) Or that gawd exists?
        6) Or that anything supernatural ever existed or occurred?

        YOU’VE IGNORED #2 MULTIPLE TIMES. JUST WHERE IS THE SCIENCE OF CREATIONISM/ID? WHY IS ESSENTIALLY NONE OF THE MILLIONS OF $’S RAKED IN BY THE CREATARD ELITE DIRECTED TOWARD RESEARCH? WHY DO THEY ONLY PUBLISH LAY-LANGUAGE CRITICISMS (USUALLY DECEPTIVELY) OF EVOLUTION AND EVEN MATTERS OUTSIDE EVOLUTION RATHER THAN ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES SCIENCE?


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Kyle, I have copied and pasted much of your reply below, and I have inserted replies to the specific points that you make. My commentary is in bold.

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “So I am irrational? Is that right?”

          Yes! You go through fallacies faster than a McDonald’s goes through fries! I pointed them out over and over and over! You have, many times, supported a position solely on a glaringly obvious elemental fallacy, had it pointed out to you, and either continued unfazed or actually claimed that the fallacy was logical! And then you’re so GD stupid that you ask the above question! I ask you again – Are you ten years old?

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “You are still hammering the whole “pseudoscience” thing even though I have stated at least twice that I have agreed to proceed with my arguments from the assumption that the science you have presented is 100% correct.”

          And yet again, YOU ARE REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE SOMETHING THAT I POST TO YOU OVER AND OVER AND OVER. You may want to move the goal post away from science denial and pseudoscience – until such time as you repeat the same BS again – but I’m not letting you run me in circles. You’ve taken up the dumber than a rock, creatard position and argued for it with every creatard deception ever excreted by the professional Liars for Jebus. You have been called on dozens of them. Deceptions were unveiled. Lies were corrected. Sophistry was countered with logic. You have proven an Olympic level obfuscator.

          Kyle, the above is a perfect example of your use of strident rhetoric and insults to cover for the holes in your argument. Using such language just makes you look more and more like a wounded, cornered animal. A strong argument does not need to be propped up by strident rhetoric and insults. A strong argument stands up by its own merits.

          You continually reference my alleged irrationality. Are we supposed to believe that the explanations for the origin of life proposed by highly prominent atheist biologists (such as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship and crystal-piggy-back-ride hypotheses) are more rational?!

          YOU HAVE NEVER, EVEN AFTER I’VE CHALLENGED YOU MULTIPLE TIMES, CONCEDED EVEN ONE MISSTATEMENT OF FACT, ONE CREATARD DECEPTION, ONE LOGICLA FALLACY. NOT ONE.

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Why do you keep barking up the your-science-is-wrong tree when I have agreed to proceed from the generous assumption that your science is 100% correct?”

          Besides the obvious that I stated above, let me point out how HILARIOUS it is that you actually referred to what you’ve espoused in terms of “your-science-is-wrong”. YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO SCIENCE! Did you read any of the quotes describing how creatards interpret all words of scientists as being “science”, independent of underlying meaning, just like theologians “prooftexting”? You wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the butt.

          Kyle, I am proceeding from the generous assumption that all of your science is correct because the question of whether life originated from an intelligent or unintelligent cause is ultimately a meta-scientific question, not a scientific one. Please review my essay titled Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism in the snippets section.

          Does the dizzying complexity of this physical and natural world indicate an intelligent cause, or is it the case that this dizzyingly complex physical and natural world is the result of natural laws that “just are,” as atheists seem to believe? Where did these laws (which are akin to the software that directs a robot, as in my essay) come from? The origin of natural laws is a meta-scientific rather than scientific question. It would be impossible to construct a scientific study to determine the source of natural laws.

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “You believe that life emerged as result of natural laws causing organisms to “self-organize” from lifeless matter. But this leaves you with a question to answer: How is it that inanimate matter can be made to follow a set of natural laws? Your response was that you don’t know (please correct me if I am wrong).”

          You are wrong. I may have said that as well, and it is the only honest and intelligent claim to make (religion = claiming to know crap that you make up), but I have also said this is an admission that ALL of your related arguments have failed! Every time you are losing on a CLEARLY fallacious “It looks designed” argument, or an “I just can’t conceive of it, so it can’t be true” argument, or an “I don’t understand it, so it can’t be true” argument, or a “Science doesn’t know, so we can never know, so goddidit” argument, or a retarded “random is the opposite of intelligent” argument, or a “out of context quotes by people who adamantly object to how they’ve been misquoted are “science” and the Mt. Everest of actual science” argument, etc., you reflexively jump to the SAME DAMN LAME ARGUMENT! That means that you ONLY HAVE ONE ARGUMENT! And that argument is HORRIBLE. Your ONE argument is that since you can’t conceive of/don’t know and/or science doesn’t know, fundamental Big Bang questions from the first 1 X 10^-43 seconds of the universe’s existence regarding the space-time, matter, and energy, GODDIDIT!

          Kyle, your ONE argument is that science doesn’t know, so some unknown unintelligent mechanism did it. This is the unintelligent-mechanisms-of-the-gaps thinking that I spoke of in a previous reply. And yet you adopt the stance that atheists only accept things that have verification. This is a big contradiction.

          Using your language, your stance could be summed up as UNKNOWNUNINTELLIGENTMECHANISMSDIDIT!!

          And your stance that unknown unintelligent mechanisms did it is in direct conflict with the fact that scientists make inferences of intelligent causation based upon complexity. Recall the example of the SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) scientists inferring intelligent causation from an information-rich set of prime numbers in a radio signal…scientifically. In regards to the FAR FAR FAR greater complexity and information content involved in the most simple organism, you seemed to reply that an inference of intelligent causation cannot be made because organisms have reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms. This is absurd because reproductive capability and feedback mechanisms involve dizzying complexity. Please explain this for us. If I missed something in your reply, I apologize.

          Oxford University mathematician John Lennox notes:

          “Biophysicist Dean Kenyon, co-author of a definitive textbook on the origin of life, says the more that has been learned in recent years about the chemical details of life, from molecular biology and origin-of-life studies, the less likely does a strictly naturalistic explanation of origins become. Kenyon’s studies have led him to the conclusion that biological information has been designed: ‘If science is based on experience, then science tells us that the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. What kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist.‘”

          Lennox continues:

          “Writing on paper (or paint on a Rembrandt canvas) exhibits what philosopher Del Ratzsch calls counterflow — phenomena that nature, unaided by agent activity, could not produce. It is because we know that, even in principle, physics and chemistry cannot give an explanation of the counterflow exhibited by the writing, that we reject a purely naturalistic explanation, and we postulate an author. But it needs to be said that postulating an intelligent agent to explain writing is not falling into an ‘author-of-the-gaps’ syndrome; rather it is our knowledge of the nature of the ‘gap’ that demands we postulate an author.”

          In other words, on the rare occasions that you actually acknowledge and engage counter arguments to your fallacious (see above) arguments, you punt by jumping to THE SAME, even more fallacious argument, which is the ultimate Argument from Ignorance! Sure, you spew some lame apologetics sophistry from some impressive sounding names, but it’s all still complete BS just the same. A fallacy is a fallacy. The pro creatards count on the faithful to be lacking in critical thinking skills. They are seldom disappointed in that regard.

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “ “And yet you assert that atheism is a lack of faith! Atheism is “a failure to accept a proposition without convincing evidence,” in your words. Atheism is clearly a lack of faith in God, but it is NOT a lack of faith that there are natural laws which “just are” and that the phenomenon of lifeless matter following these laws “just is.””
          That sir, is a LIE. I have told you repeatedly, as have others, that the straw man that you just created is a LIE. We say, “I DON’T KNOW.” Religion says “I know everything because the man in the sky dictated it to a bronze age goat herder”. One more time for the hard of thinking:

          The opposite of “I don’t know” is NOT “goddidit”. Get it yet?

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “ You apparently have faith that science will one day find an answer for these questions . . .”

          Apparent to you, maybe, but not to me. I am perfectly willing to conceded that any or all unanswered questions may fail to yield to the most persistent inquiry. It is, btw, IMPLICIT IN YOUR STATEMENT, that if science doesn’t figure something out, goddidit! What a moron!

          There you go again, Kyle. You are indulging in forceful, strident rhetoric and insults to cover up the weakness of your arguments. This just makes you look more and more like a wounded, cornered animal that is lashing out to defend itself. I will also again point out that you fill in the scientific gaps with unintelligent-mechanisms-of-the-gaps thinking and the argument-from-ignorance that because you don’t know the source of something, unintelligent mechanisms must be the explanation.

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “. . . even though such questions do not fall under the rubric of science (as I describe in my essay titled “Why evolution cannot be used to rationalize atheism”).”

          BS. First, apologists make naked assertions that this, that, or the other thing will never be understood by rational inquiry, which is, lest you not get it yet, the lowest of all fallacies. Then, based on that impressive foundation (snicker), they declare that this, that, or the other is therefore outside of the purview of rational inquiry, which is just another naked assertion. Then, they continue to build this imposing (snicker) edifice of an “argument” by making the naked assertion, almost always unstated, that there exists a realm that is by nature impervious to rational inquiry. Usually, being that they are faithheads and mystics, this is simply assumed. If pressed on it, which they very seldom are, they will tap dance in circles using lofty, but empty rhetoric about beauty, love, and internal experiences like transcendence, or just yammer on about how religion seems innate – totaling ignoring all naturalistic explanations from neuroscience, anthropology, etc. and getting really pissy if you bring them up. Often, they will make the same, stupid, naked assertions that science will never understand ‘X’, therefore their religious experiences are PROOF that invisible sky fairies exist!

          Here, Kyle, you attack your own crude caricatures of Christian beliefs rather than what Christians actually believe. This is the very essence of attacking a straw-man of your own construction. Further, your statement that Christians (and other God-beliving people) “make the same, stupid, naked assertions that science will never understand ‘X’, therefore their religious experiences are PROOF that invisible sky fairies exist,” demonstrates that you still do not understand the difference between scientific questions of intermediate causation and meta-scientific questions of ultimate causation.

          I will again point out the enormous amount of faith present in your unintelligent-mechanisms-of-the-gaps thinking regarding meta-scientific questions of ultimate causation. This requires a far far greater amount of faith than Christians must adopt when you consider the overwhelming evidence for intelligent causation in the origin of life (and several other areas).

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Please describe for us what your “convincing evidence” is for the proposition that inanimate matter can be made to follow a natural law without higher intelligence guiding the universe. Please also detail for us what your “convincing evidence” is that these natural laws can be pre-existent in a universe devoid of an intelligent source.”

          There is no way to respond to these except by stating the obvious – They are loaded, nonsense questions. Among its other faults, the first one is yet another retarded attempt to invert the evidentiary burden. Since you have made nothing remotely resembling a convincing argument for ID, the only way that this question can be made logical is to rephrase it as “Please describe for us what your “convincing evidence” is for the proposition that inanimate matter requires a higher intelligence guiding the universe to be made to follow a natural law.” Remember, you are making the positive claim in every single creatard ID argument, that ‘X’ requires gawd. You need to support that claim.

          Also, it’s just plain silly to imply that inanimate matter has to be coerced into behaving according to the laws of physics.

          Your second request is dumber than the first. It is nothing more than a very contorted version of the SAME, LAME ultimate first cause fallacious “Argument from” as previously described – from Ignorance, from Incredulity, and from False Dichotomy.

          Whether or not these questions are loaded, Kyle, you need to reply. There is no point in discussing Intelligent Design theories vs. Darwinian evolution because there is nothing about Darwinian evolution that conflicts with Christian beliefs. I detail this point in my essay titled Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism in the snippets section. You need to provide some support for your view that unintelligent mechanisms are responsible for the dizzying complexity of the most simple organism. You are the one making an argument from ignorance. My stance that the complexity of living organisms points to an intelligent cause is supported by my above arguments regarding the scientific inferences from complexity. So what exactly is your basis for believing that unintelligent mechanisms are responsible? You still need to explain this.

          Further, I must point out to you that logically constructed arguments do not rely on characterizations such as “LAME.” You are consistently not paying attention to the crucial difference between responding to an argument and merely characterizing it.

          Please also point out what false dichotomy exists here. Is intelligent vs. unintelligent not a true dichotomy? Is on vs. off not a true dichotomy? Please explain.

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “2) This is now the EIGTH time that I have asked you to rebut the points made in my essay titled Is there a God? What is the chance that the world is the result of chance”

          Since you are so instistent, I have obliged by recounting your entire despicable display of deception on that thread. Keep reading and enjoy.
          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “3) You continually assert that it is atheists who are rational and theists who are irrational. Yet, I have clearly demonstrated that the best explanations for the origin of life that the most prominent atheists can come up with are such things as aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-a-spaceship and life-emerged-as-a-result-of-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals.”

          The first is largely a BIG LIE. I will expose it in a moment – FOR THE THIRD TIME. The first and second are also both Arguments from Incredulity and Arguments from Ridicule, which you will now ignore again, and then proceed to repeat them as if they were actually logically valid – until hell freezes over.

          Kyle, you don’t seem to understand the difference between slapping labels on an argument (merely characterizing it) and responding to an argument.

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “You continually assert that I have somehow misrepresented these facts. [YOU HAVE] And yet, any party viewing this can see Richard Dawkins endorsing the aliens hypothesis by clicking on this link [AND LIKEWISE SEE THAT HE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT “ENDORSING” IT AT ALL BECAUSE THEY WILL HERE STEIN;S QUESTION THAT PRECEDES DAWKINS’ ANSWER, YOU MONUMENTAL TWIT!]

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Anyone viewing this can easily click on this link to see prominent atheist biologist Michael Ruse endorsing the idea that life originated by lifeless matter taking a piggyback ride on crystals.”

          SO WHAT! Your argument is as fallacious as is possible! If you knew anything about science and was not religiously deluded, you would know that he was talking about catalysis. I suppose that you think gawd is personally cracking all the nasties in your car’s exhaust, too – assuming you are old enough to drive.

          Nope, Kyle, the question he was asked was, “How did we get from the inorganic world to the cell?” His answer was the piggyback-on-crystals hypothesis. Whether or not catalysis is related to his reply is a separate issue. Click here to again view the video. Please also note that he refers to this theory as “popular.” Among what group do you think that the crystal-piggyback-ride theory is popular? Some other group other than atheists?

          SCOTT THE IRRATIONAL: “Whether or not I exaggerated Dawkins endorsement of the aliens hypothesis by “lying” and saying that he firmly believes it is besides the point. The simple, unavoidable fact is that these are the explanations for the origin of life that “rational” and “logical” ultra-prominent atheist scientists come up with. And that’s the facts…Jack.”

          In Dawkins’ case, as is obvious as hell, this is not the case and you know it. Plus, it is a LIE to keep saying that these only abiogenesis hypotheses. You could claim to have been misinformed at first, but I’ve TOLD you about the many other hypothese, so it is now a LIE every time.

          Why is this “not the case?” Please explain. Further, I have never asserted that these are the only abiogenesis hypotheses. Rather, they are apparently the best abiogenesis hypotheses that atheists can come up with. Why would they put anything worse than their best foot forward?

          SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “I deleted your rebuttal to the Dawkins/aliens video? If so, then why didn’t you just repost it in your last reply? [BECAUSE YOU EFFIN’ DELETED IT, YOU EFFIN’ MORON AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RECREATE THINGS BECAUSE YOU CENSOR THEM. BUT READ ON, OH DISHONEST ONE. READ ON!] Do you really think you are fooling anybody by suggesting that you “refuted” Richard Dawkins endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis when he is clearly seen on video doing so? [HE IS JUST AS CLEARLY ANSWERING A QUESTION – A QUESTION LEFT IN THE VIDEO! – THAT PUTS THE LIE TO THE CREATARD MINED QUOTE.] How can a person “refute” something that is on video?! It boggles the imagination. [YOU’RE TELLIN’ ME!!!!]

          What?! Of course he is answering a question! The question was “what do you think the chances are that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?” The answer he gave was the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. Please point out exactly what “lie” is being told here! It boggles the imagination. Click here to again review the video.

          Also, if I am censoring your replies, Kyle, why have I not censored you in the places where you accuse me of censoring?! Who do you think you are fooling? I don’t think that any third party observer would interpret this as anything as less than a truly desperate tactic.

          SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “You have made several other assertions that I have “deleted” refutations that you have made. And yet, mysteriously, you don’t merely repost those alleged refutations.”

          Your logic is nothing if not consistent – consistently illogical!

          SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “Once again, please copy and paste for us where I lied about Richard Dawkins endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis by calling it a firm belief.”

          I did the next best thing, but can’t do exactly that because YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOU DISHONESTLY EDITED AWAY THE WORST CASES OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “You continually make forceful assertions that you have shown us “dozens of times” that I have “lied,” and yet WHERE have you shown us this? [JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T READ THEM OR CLAIM NOT TO READ THEM, OR READ THEM AND IGNORE THEM DOES NOT MEAN THEY DON’T EXIST, RETARD.] You seem to fall for the all too common atheist belief that something false will become true if you just assert it often enough and forcefully enough. [THE TRANSFERENCE IS TRULY ASTONISHING WITH YOU!]

          I edited away the worst cases of my alleged lying about the Dawkins video? Why have I not edited away the places where you accuse me of editing away? Who do you really think you are fooling? Please show for me an unsupported assertion that I have made.

          SCOTT THE DISHONEST: “Lastly, your own citations about atheism in Scandinavia show that you lied when you presented the “80% atheist” figure. For one, you seem to be including agnostics in the category of atheists.”

          Thanks for totally ignoring the entire portion of that post that dealt with all the issues regarding such studies and sticking with the simplistic talking point. Thanks also for totally ignoring that the Scandinavian agnostics are described by the researchers as about as non-religious as you can get. If you need to claim every superstitious Swede that professes to feel in his gut that there’s a “life force” as a theist in order to maintain your fiction that religiosity is innate and that religion is needed for a moral society, then go right ahead.

          Kyle, you lumped people into the “atheist” category who are not atheists (but are rather agnostic). This is an attempted deception, open and shut.

          NOW, SCOTTY THE GREAT LIAR SHALL BE UNMASKED!:

          Oh Great Deceiver, I bow down in the presence of such master deception. I predict that you will censor this post because you must not reveal to the creatard faithful that you are so dependent upon dishonest means. And also, of course, for the same reason that you CENSORED THE CONTENT BEFORE – T_W_I_C_E_!_:

          Because you have flogged the Dawkins’ video lie so many times that they can’t be counted and you are too dishonest to admit to the lie.

          I HAD FIRST GIVEN YOU A HINT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR ANY SENTIENT BEING:

          Kyle says: September 5, 2011 at 5:22 am
          3) The very link that you provided clearly states the context. Rather than spell it out for you, I challenge you to show some intellectual honesty and tell me what it is. Hint – it lies in the question to which he was responding. Can you tell us the true context and why it renders “Richard Dawkins himself admitted in an interview that he believes life on earth originated from an intelligent source.” to be a transparent bald-faced lie? Can you do it? Can YOU be LOGICAL? Or do I need to spell it out in excruciating detail as well? Otherwise, it will look an awful lot like you are avoiding your obvious dishonesty by willingly appearing to be stupid. Hmm?

          YOU PREFERED TO LOOK STUPID OVER BEING HONEST.

          I had to research internet archives to find this. I posted the ALREADY DEAD OBVIOUS proper interpretation FIRST on September 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm:

          FIRST CENSORED POSTING OF THE DAWKINS’ VIDEO REBUTTAL. YOU RESPONDED – WHICH MEANS YOU READ IT:

          Kyle says:
          September 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm
          Yes, facts are facts, something I’m almost surprised that you admit, as you dismiss so many.

          OK, I guess it’s possible that you’re so rabid that you don’t see the obvious, which I saw even before seeing Dawkins confirm it, so I’ll spell it out for you.

          First, let me point out that any of these people, Dawkins included, “endorsing a HYPOTHESIS”, does not, BY DEFINITION, necessarily mean they BELIEVE it to be true! They aren’t even CONCLUDING it to be true; not even PROVISIONALLY! They are merely affirming that it is a valid hypothesis. (Why can’t you guys just once Google “scientific method”?)

          AND THIS IS MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR IN STEIN’S QUESTION!!! (Excuse the caps but I’m at a loss how to beat the obvious into impervious skulls.)

          Note your words:

          “. . . taken by prominent atheist biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge and others…BELIEF THAT LIFE WAS BROUGHT TO EARTH BY ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE. Click here to see a video of Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) endorsing the idea in an interview.”

          Kyle, whether or not I misinterpreted the Dawkins / aliens video to indicate that Dawkins firmly believes in the alien explanation is a separate issue. The point of the Dawkins / aliens video, as I stated before, is this: The idea that atheists have a more logical explanation for the origin of life is utterly absurd. In fact, they have a far far less logical explanation when you consider how scientists infer intelligent causation from such things as a set of prime numbers and writing on a paper. Kyle, this is the point that you need to respond to. You continued diversion from the main point by referencing an alleged lie is a transparent indication that you are not able to reply to the main point.

          There is no way to tell from an individuals endorsement of a hypothesis whether they firmly believe it or not. Therefore, if I referred to Dawkins as “believing” in the aliens, this would be an overstatement on my part, and I apologize. In the vast majority of the cases, however, I refer to his endorsement of the aliens hypothesis as just that… a hypothesis. And this does not subtract in any way from the fact that you are still left to explain away the main point of the video: The idea that atheists have a more logical explanation for the origin of life is absurd.

          Again, the enormous amount of emphasis that you put upon any overstatements that I made is a clear attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you cannot respond to the main point that I am making by posting this video (as well as Francis Crick’s endorsement of the hypothesis).

          It’s funny, sad, and a little frightening how you guys consistently conflate accepting, even provisionally, a conclusion based on evidence and reason with belief. You do it every time you try to hand wave away your unfounded beliefs by equating it with a rationalists acceptance of scientific evidence.

          If that isn’t enough for ya, consider that Dawkins has written thousands of pages that make it crystal clear that he sees no difficulty with what the evidence shows – that Earthly evolution is a sufficient explanation (principle of parsimony). Why would you, Stein, and the pack ignore thousands of pages of published writings in favor of a contradictory and sophomoric straw man attack? Because that’s what IDiots do! If it weren’t for quote mining and taking things out of context, they would forgo 90% of their “arguments”.

          Again, referencing “taking things out of context” without even making any attempt to re-insert these supposedly out-of-context quotes into what you feel is the correct context is utterly meaningless. If someone said that “LIncoln’s Gettysburg address was taken out of context” without providing a case for what the correct context is, what meaning would that have? Answer: None.

          Yes, Dawkins has written thousands of pages that make it crystal clear that he sees no difficulty with the idea that evolution is a sufficient explanation for the origin of life. Unfortunately, Darwinian evolution only applies to things that are already alive. As I pointed out before, random mutation and natural selection cannot apply to something that does not have any genes to mutate nor any reproductive offspring to be naturally selected. Dawkins clearly understands this, and this is why he endorses the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. In the video, he clearly admits that neither he nor anyone has a scientific explanation for the origin of life.

          Please detail for us what the principle of parsimony is and how it applies here.

          As for your refusal to provide the context in YOUR source, one almost has to conclude intentional deception at this point. I’ll do it for you:

          Ben Stein: “What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?”

          Dawkins is quite used to the routine propaganda techniques of the ID/creationist crowd. He knows that IDiots cannot help themselves from assuming the ID’er is their deity, so he leaped at the chance to illustrated this false dichotomy. It was also immediately apparent to him, and I when I first saw the consistently dishonest “Expelled”, that if he said, “None”, he would be accused of doing what IDiots are doing with every breath – a priori excluding an hypothesis (and in their case, evidence, and thoroughly supported theory as well). Dawkins later confirmed this to be exactly why he responded as he did!

          However, even with his experience with IDiots, he failed to anticipate the astoundingly and obviously intentional way that that was misinterpreted. Which, of course, you not only repeat uncritically, but will almost certainly stick with forever as all IDiots do when every single one of their failed arguments, logical travesties, gross distortions, mined quotes, and bald-faced lies are revealed. Dawkins, having failed (correctly) to be cornered by this amateurish ploy into admitting that a magic invisible entity, wholly lacking in evidence, is a valid scientific hypothesis, was instead subjected to this. IDiot dishonesty knows no bounds.

          Prove me wrong. Admit to the proper context. Then admit that Stein, the rest of the pack, and yourself, are transparently conflating his admission that an intelligence designing biological systems (as we are beginning to do) is a valid hypothesis with claiming that he BELIEVES it to be true. If you can’t, then you have proven yourself to be a typical liar for Jebus and will be treated as such.

          Oh yes, that reminds me – Even with Dawkins and others, some quite long ago, having accepted the validity of this hypothesis, no IDiot has undertaken or even proposed a scientifically valid attempt to test the hypothesis. Virtually none of millions of $’s collected by the evolution denial ministry – I mean industry – goes to anything that even they claim to be research. All while they insist that, “It is so science!”

          And no, a thousand laughably pseudo-scientific variations of the Argument from Incredulity, transparently inverted evidentiary burdens, including the vacuous and thoroughly debunked irreducible complexity, the bogus information theory arguments, the “laws” developed via the rectal extraction method, etc., published only to the masses without peer review – or very occasionally slipped into some obscure journal devoted to a virtually unrelated field, do not count.

          Here, again, Kyle, you do not pay attention to the crucial difference between responding to an argument and merely characterizing an argument. Labeling arguments as “vacuous,” “thoroughly debunked” and “bogus” is not a response to an argument.

          The proper context, Kyle? As I have said many times before, the proper context is that Dawkins is endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. If this weren’t the best hypothesis that highly prominent atheists such as Dawkins, Crick, Hoyle and Wickaramsinghe can come up with, why on earth would they endorse it in the first place?

          YOUR RESPONSE WAS TO IGNORE, CENSOR, AND LAUNCH DIVERSIONS:

          If I have censored your arguments Kyle, why then do I not censor you in the places where you accuse me of censoring?! Do you really think that you are fooling anybody?!

          syoungren says: September 8, 2011 at 10:45 am
          Kyle:

          From this point forward, I am enforcing a one comment per day rule. All comments in excess of one per day will be deleted.

          You are not the first angry atheist to try to spam me out with huge volumes of text. It is far too time consuming for me to respond to the roughly one dozen comments you make per day. But even if you only made one comment per day, you could actually say a lot more than you are saying with fewer words if you just subtracted all of the insults and empty, angry rhetoric.

          Try to work on the qualitative aspect of your comments as opposed to the quantitative aspect.

          It is not difficult for anyone to see what you (and several other angry atheists) are trying to do: You are trying to make it look like you are winning the debate by writing so much stuff that I will inevitably not respond to some of it due to time constraints. I don’t know what your employment status is, but I have a full time job and other responsibilities.

          Persuasion happens as a result of presenting a logically cohesive argument… not as a result of forcefulness and repetition of assertion.

          Now lets get back to the debate: What is your reply to the anthropic fine tuning evidence as presented in my essay entitled “Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance?” Post your as briefly as possible by including only rationally constructed, fact based arguments and no empty rhetoric. I will note that I have asked you to reply to this first piece of evidence several times before.

          SO I QUOTED THE ENTIRE CENSORED POST ON September 8, 2011 at 7:13 am

          YOU CENSORED IT AGAIN! AND IGNORED IT AGAIN AS WELL, OF COURSE:

          Kyle says: September 8, 2011 at 7:13 am
          I tire of your hysterical blindness – Here’s the dead obvious explanation, that was then made by Dawkins, and then explained to you. Now do what you do best and use every intellectually dishonest weasel maneuver in the faithhead arsenal to either misrepresent it, pretend not to understand it, insist that black is white, and obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate – most likely by asking crap like, “How did X happen?”, “How could random processes do Y?”, “Oh yeah, well explain to me how watermelons could possibly function as truck differentials.”

          Let the obfuscation and denialism begin!:

          Kyle says:
          September 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm

          Yes, facts are facts, something I’m almost surprised that you admit, as you dismiss so many.

          OK, I guess it’s possible that you’re so rabid that you don’t see the obvious, which I saw even before seeing Dawkins confirm it, so I’ll spell it out for you.

          First, let me point out that any of these people, Dawkins included, “endorsing a HYPOTHESIS”, does not, BY DEFINITION, necessarily mean they BELIEVE it to be true! They aren’t even CONCLUDING it to be true; not even PROVISIONALLY! They are merely affirming that it is a valid hypothesis. (Why can’t you guys just once Google “scientific method”?)

          AND THIS IS MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR IN STEIN’S QUESTION!!! (Excuse the caps but I’m at a loss how to beat the obvious into impervious skulls.)

          Note your words:

          “. . . taken by prominent atheist biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge and others…BELIEF THAT LIFE WAS BROUGHT TO EARTH BY ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE. Click here to see a video of Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) endorsing the idea in an interview.”

          It’s funny, sad, and a little frightening how you guys consistently conflate accepting, even provisionally, a conclusion based on evidence and reason with belief. You do it every time you try to hand wave away your unfounded beliefs by equating it with a rationalists acceptance of scientific evidence.

          If that isn’t enough for ya, consider that Dawkins has written thousands of pages that make it crystal clear that he sees no difficulty with what the evidence shows – that Earthly evolution is a sufficient explanation (principle of parsimony). Why would you, Stein, and the pack ignore thousands of pages of published writings in favor of a contradictory and sophomoric straw man attack? Because that’s what IDiots do! If it weren’t for quote mining and taking things out of context, they would forgo 90% of their “arguments”.

          As for your refusal to provide the context in YOUR source, one almost has to conclude intentional deception at this point. I’ll do it for you:

          My refusal to provide the context in my source, Kyle? The context is that Dawkins is endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis. As to how the aliens got there, Dawkins cites “some sort of Darwinian evolution” even though Darwinian evolution only applies to things that are already alive. Random mutation and natural selection cannot apply to inanimate matter that does not have any genes to mutate nor any reproductive offspring to naturally select.

          Ben Stein: “What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?”

          Dawkins is quite used to the routine propaganda techniques of the ID/creationist crowd. He knows that IDiots cannot help themselves from assuming the ID’er is their deity, so he leaped at the chance to illustrated this false dichotomy. It was also immediately apparent to him, and I when I first saw the consistently dishonest “Expelled”, that if he said, “None”, he would be accused of doing what IDiots are doing with every breath – a priori excluding an hypothesis (and in their case, evidence, and thoroughly supported theory as well). Dawkins later confirmed this to be exactly why he responded as he did!

          However, even with his experience with IDiots, he failed to anticipate the astoundingly and obviously intentional way that that was misinterpreted. Which, of course, you not only repeat uncritically, but will almost certainly stick with forever as all IDiots do when every single one of their failed arguments, logical travesties, gross distortions, mined quotes, and bald-faced lies are revealed. Dawkins, having failed (correctly) to be cornered by this amateurish ploy into admitting that a magic invisible entity, wholly lacking in evidence, is a valid scientific hypothesis, was instead subjected to this. IDiot dishonesty knows no bounds.

          Prove me wrong. Admit to the proper context. Then admit that Stein, the rest of the pack, and yourself, are transparently conflating his admission that an intelligence designing biological systems (as we are beginning to do) is a valid hypothesis with claiming that he BELIEVES it to be true. If you can’t, then you have proven yourself to be a typical liar for Jebus and will be treated as such.

          Oh yes, that reminds me – Even with Dawkins and others, some quite long ago, having accepted the validity of this hypothesis, no IDiot has undertaken or even proposed a scientifically valid attempt to test the hypothesis. Virtually none of millions of $’s collected by the evolution denial ministry – I mean industry – goes to anything that even they claim to be research. All while they insist that, “It is so science!”

          And no, a thousand laughably pseudo-scientific variations of the Argument from Incredulity, transparently inverted evidentiary burdens, including the vacuous and thoroughly debunked irreducible complexity, the bogus information theory arguments, the “laws” developed via the rectal extraction method, etc., published only to the masses without peer review – or very occasionally slipped into some obscure journal devoted to a virtually unrelated field, do not count.

          NOW THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU’RE A DESPICABLE LIAR, LET’S LOOK AT JUST A SAMPLING OF ALL THE TIMES YOU LIED ABOUT THIS MATTER. FIRST, THE LIE ABOUT LYING:

          Once again, Kyle, your intense focus on “lying” utterly betrays the fact that you are not able to respond to the fundamental point of my posting the video. That point, again, is that the idea that atheists have a more logical explanation for the origin of life is utterly absurd. In point of fact, they have a far less logical explanation for the origin of life. Unintelligent Darwinian mechanisms that apply only to living things cannot be logically cited as the source for the origin of life. Once again, random mutation and natural selection cannot apply to inanimate matter that does not have any genes to mutate nor any reproductive offspring to naturally select. The level of absurdity is mind boggling.

          syoungren says:
          September 12, 2011 at 1:46 am

          “A) Regarding the Dawkins video: I have always used the term “hypothesis” with regards to his endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth suggestion. It should not be understood to mean that he has firmly concluded that it is the case.”

          EVEN SAYING HE ENDORSED IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY A LIE WHEN THE CLEAR CONTEXT OF STEIN’S QUESTION IS ACKNOWLEDGED.

          AS THE SUPREME LIAR THAT YOU ARE, YOU DISHONESTLY EDITED OUT THE MOST EGREGIOUS CASES OF THIS LIE, WHEREIN YOU MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT REFER TO A HYPOTHESIS. HERE’S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU POSTED AND THEN DELETED, AS I (HONESTLY) QUOTED YOU. I SEARCHED EVERY PAGE OF YOUR BLOG FOR THE PHRASE, “BELIEF THAT LIFE WAS BROUGHT”. Y_O_U_ _A_R_E_ _S_C_U_M_!:

          Once again, Kyle, the more you rely on insults (“SCUM”), the more you are going to look like a wounded, cornered animal. I have exposed the utter bankruptcy of your worldview, and you are angry at me for this.

          HERE, ELLEN CALLS YOU ON ONE LIE AND ON A GROSS FALLACY AS WELL:

          Ellen says:
          January 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm
          I listened to the clip of Dawkins on “directed panspermia” and yes you are correct in your statement regarding his “endorsement” of the idea however….. he also goes on to say that this higher intelligence could have come about by some explicable process and couldn’t just have jumped into existence. He also points out that this is one of many ways in which life could have come to earth. In other words because he is a scientist he is willing to admit that he does not know all the answers and he is open to different ideas. You state that “because an answer to the question of how the first life emerged cannot be answered in a way avoids giving credit to God, they just avoid the question by making the hypothesis that it was put here by aliens”.

          Just because something does not have a scientific explanation yet… and may never….. does not mean the only other explanation is God. We once thought the world was flat……..

          Finally, if there are aliens that created us perhaps they are Gods creation as well.

          YOU PROCEEDED TO EVADE THAT LIE BUT TELLING ANOTHER ONE ABOUT DAWKINS AND THEN ADDRESSED THE FALLACY BY YOUR GO-TO ROUND-ROBIN TACTIC OF “CLICK ON ANOTHER BIT OF MY BS”.

          OK, maybe Ellen can provide for us this “explicable process.” Or maybe you could provide for us this “explicable process.”

          Would it be “some sort of Darwinian means,” even though Darwinian processes only apply to living organisms? Can you come up with some sort of “explicable process” that is less absurd than Dawkins’ proposed explicable process?

          As this article from Scientific American magazine points out, “It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10127 years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids.” And protein folding is only the first step in creating life from lifeless chemicals. Further, random processes would need a heck of a lot longer to fold proteins than would a supercomputer programmed to do so. But, the problem is, the universe is only about 15 billion years old.

          YOU ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE CENSORED MY EXPLANATION OF THIS, SO FROM THE ARCHIVES:

          Kyle says: September 8, 2011 at 3:09 am

          I’VE REMOVED MY REBUTTAL CONCERNING CREATARD QUOTE MINING, WHEREIN I GAVE MASSIVE EVIDENCE. YOU UTTERLY EVADED IT ON THE TRANSPARENT “WIKIPEDIA EXCUSE”.

          I SPECIFICALLY SHREDDED THE SJG “TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS” LIE. YOU CHOSE TO APPEAR TOO RETARDED TO GRASP IT.

          I REBUTTED YOUR CREATARDISMS IN REGARD TO LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR COMMON DESCENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. YOU AGAIN IGNORED ALL THE PRIMARY LITERATURE CITED WITH THE HILARIOUSLY FLIMSY “WIKIPEDIA EXCUSE”.

          I TOLD YOU THE OBVIOUS YET AGAIN, BUT YOU WERE TO SHOW A PREFERENCE FOR APPEARING RETARDED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME ON THIS ONE: “THE OPPOSITE OF INTELLIGENTLY DIRECTED IS NOT RANDOM, YOU MORON!”

          NOW, THE OTHER EXPLANATION THAT YOU ARE TOO STUPID AND/OR TOO DISHONEST TO GRASP:

          “So this is how something that a supercomputer couldn’t even begin to do in 10 to the 127th power years is accomplished? And so this self-catalyzing RNA accomplishes this task with the assistance sea floor vents and lipid bubbles through purely random processes?!”

          You need to stop exclusively reading creatard propaganda because it is FULL of lies and distortions. Thanks for the perfect example; let’s look at its inanity, shall we?:

          The entire article is about limitations of computation in science. There is a universe of difference between computing a simulation and the actual event. The creatard interpretation is so far out in left field that it’d be funny if you clowns weren’t so damn dangerous. This example in the article (freely available online) doesn’t discuss a supercomputer folding a protein. It discusses a supercomputer computing how a protein would fold based upon the KNOWN (just because you don’t know doesn’t mean it isn’t known, can’t be known, or goddidit) parameters that affect the folding. The number of parameters and the exponential nature of their interactions makes it essentially impossible to simulate or predict how a large protein will fold. SO WHAT!

          So what? So, are you suggesting that calculating how a protein will fold is actually simpler than the actual process of folding the protein? Please read this article about protein folding. Are you suggesting that life is not really that complex? The point of me citing this Scientific American article is to illustrate the dizzying complexity of the most simple organism. Is the article about the limitations of computational science? Fine. The fact remains that life is very extremely complex and that there is a vast chasm in complexity separating the most simple organism from inanimate matter.

          Your reference to “the number of parameters and the exponential nature of their interactions” betrays the fact that you understand the degree of complexity. So, my question is, how do you account for this complexity with purely unintelligent mechanisms?

          This was the second example of three in the article. Since your belief system interferes too much whenever biology is involved, let’s use the first one as an analogy. It was about the N-body problem. From the paper:

          “Broadly speaking, this problem looks at the behavior of a number, N, of point-size masses moving in accordance with Newton’s law of gravitational attraction. One version of the problem addresses whether two or more of these bodies will collide or whether one will acquire an arbitrarily high velocity in a finite time. In his 1988 doctoral dissertation, Zhihong ( Jeff) Xia of Northwestern University showed how a single body moving back and forth between two binary systems (for a total of five masses) could approach an arbitrarily high velocity and be expelled from the system. This result, which was based on a special geometric configuration of the bodies, says nothing about the specific case of our solar system. But it does suggest that perhaps the solar system might not be stable. More important, the finding offers new tools with which to investigate the matter.”

          Are you so stupid that you can’t see that he is discussing the difficulty of calculating the motion over long periods of a large number of objects orbiting a body? He is NOT discussing a supercomputer controlling their motions, you effin’ moron! To make it perfectly clear – The bodies will interact and move, for billions of years, following the rules of motion and gravity TO THE LETTER whether anyone ever tried to simulate it or predict it. Does this imply magic! Now read this very slowly for comprehension:

          THE PROTEIN WILL FOLD, EVEN IN A FRACTION OF A SECOND, FOLLOWING THE RULES OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS _T_O_ _T_H_E_ _L_E_T_T_E_R_ WHETHER ANYONE EVER TRIES TO SIMULATE IT OR PREDICT IT. _D_O_E_S_ _T_H_I_S_ _I_M_P_L_Y_ _M_A_G_I_C_?_!

          No, Kyle, it does not imply magic, nor aliens nor crystal piggyback rides either. So the “rules of physics and quantum mechanics” explains how the proteins are able to fold? Fine. What is the source of these rules? Please again refer to my post titled Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism (click on the link). The laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics (etc.) are like the software driving the robots in my robotic factory illustration. How did this “software” get there? Was is “some sort of Darwinian means?”

          “There is no reason to doubt that self-catalyzing RNA, sea floor vents and lipid bubbles were involved in the origin of life… I will start from the assumption that you are correct.”

          Whiskey tango foxtrot! I’ll give you the opportunity to claim that you typo’ed. If you actually meant to type this, then it appears that you are beginning to acknowledge just how many gaps your gawd has been evicted from. But how can you square acceptance of that with denial of “macro” (sic) evolution and common descent?!

          “But once again, Kyle, you confuse intermediate causes with ultimate causes. The self-catalyzing of RNA is an intermediate cause. Regarding questions of ultimate causes, the question would be, “How was the RNA able to self-catalyze?” Through intelligent, or merely random and unintelligent causes?”

          You are simply obfuscating – or tap dancing. Why is “How was the RNA able to self-catalyze?” a question of ultimate cause? Because you have a priori assumed it’s magic? Just like molecular shape or orbital mechanics, the RNA self replicates because of the KNOWN rules of chemistry! How do you think the researchers arrived at the idea of the research? The details of it? Was it all RANDOM and therefore MAGIC? No, they predicted it based on SCIENCE.

          The question of ultimate cause it this: Is the origin of life ultimately the result of intelligent or unintelligent causes? There is no tap dancing. How did the “KNOWN rules of chemistry” get there, Kyle? How do rules get there without an intelligent source dictating those rules? The standard atheist reply is to engage in just-so storytelling or to make an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE suggestion that because we don’t know how the rules came to be, an unintelligent mechanism is ultimately responsible. This is despite what scientists scientifically infer from the complexity of something such as a string of prime numbers in a radio signal or writing on a paper.

          And again: THE OPPOSITE OF INTELLIGENTLY DIRECTED IS NOT RANDOM, YOU SIMPERING TWIT!

          Ok, Kyle, what is the opposite of intelligently directed? Please free me from this false dichotomy.

          “Well, in answering this, keep in mind what the Scientific American article entitled Confronting Science’s Logical Limits said about a supercomputer programmed to do so would need 10 to the 127 power years just to fold a simple sequence of 100 proteins.”

          (face->palm)

          “Was it the sea floor vent that performed this complex operation? If so, THAT IS ONE SMART SEA FLOOR VENT!”

          Holy crap – are you ever thick! The sea floor vent nor any other entity or condition that I mentioned needed to KNOW anything! It was the KNOWN rules of chemistry (which, btw, can be derived directly from particle physics/QM). Thank you for illustrating so well one of the two evolved irrational characteristics of human cognition that is fundamental to all superstition – False attribution of agency. You are the gift that keeps on giving. I could use you as the exclusive subject of extensive studies of the evolutionary psychology of religion and neurotheology.

          Once again, please explain for us how the known rules of chemistry or the laws of particle physics came into existence in the absence of an intelligent cause. It would be advisable to avoid just-so explanations and arguments from ignorance.

          Kyle says:
          September 7, 2011 at 4:50 am
          “Under no circumstances does an informed God-believing person think that we should cease rational inquiry and just say “God did it” when a more detailed understanding of how God did it can be determined.”

          1) They effectively do so all the time; you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. If you disagree . . .
          2) . . . please point me to the vast volumes of scientific research into gawd’s mechanisms. That’s a trick question; there is not only no real ID research, there is no scientific research into any other aspect of religion . . .
          3) . . . except for the anthropology, neuropsychology, neurology, etc. that clearly shows that religion is a purely natural phenomenon.
          4) Your theistic assumptions are showing. What justifies investigating gawd’s mechanisms without evidence that goddidit?
          5) Or that gawd exists?
          6) Or that anything supernatural ever existed or occurred?

          YOU’VE IGNORED #2 MULTIPLE TIMES. JUST WHERE IS THE SCIENCE OF CREATIONISM/ID? WHY IS ESSENTIALLY NONE OF THE MILLIONS OF $’S RAKED IN BY THE CREATARD ELITE DIRECTED TOWARD RESEARCH? WHY DO THEY ONLY PUBLISH LAY-LANGUAGE CRITICISMS (USUALLY DECEPTIVELY) OF EVOLUTION AND EVEN MATTERS OUTSIDE EVOLUTION RATHER THAN ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES SCIENCE?

          Once again, Kyle, there is no point in discussing Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian evolution because both views are completely compatible with Christian theism. What evidence is there that anything supernatural ever existed or occurred? The evidence that I present in my essay titled Is There A God? What Is the Chance That Our World is the Result of Chance?, just for starters. This is the evidence that you continually refuse to address. This is the NINTH time that I will ask you to address the evidence in this essay.

          Religion is a purely natural phenomenon? You still have not made a case for a “concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of human history,” as Cavanaugh puts it.


  6. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Kyle says:

    Your intellect sir, is so ideologically blinded as to make conversation impossible. I’m so effing pissed at your production of yet another steaming pile of diversions, attempted diversions, repetitious lies, restated arguments that IGNORE the rebuttals just made, etc., that I’ll respond to it later. And yes, damn straight, I’m not going to take the rabbit trail, “Is there A God? What is the Chance That Our World is the Result of Chance?” a 6th time either, dipsquat. It’s NOT EVADING to insist that you cease evading!

    Instead, while I cool down and ponder how Richard and danno kept their cool as long as they did, I’ll post something else for your cognitive dissonance to digest. I reviewed the comments – I’m not the first one to get your number. Richard NAILED it! Yep! I think I’ll give you some of your own medicine and go off on some tangents. I do it for the same reason that you do it – BECAUSE YOU MAKE AN HONEST EXCHANGE IMPOSSIBLE!

    From Wikipedia’s page (just to piss you off) on “Evidence of common descent”:

    Contents

    1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry

    1.1 Genetics
    1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
    1.1.2 DNA sequencing
    1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses
    1.1.4 Proteins
    1.1.5 Pseudogenes
    1.1.6 Other mechanisms
    1.2 Specific examples
    1.2.1 Feline endogenous retroviruses
    1.2.2 Chromosome 2 in humans
    1.2.3 Cytochrome c
    1.2.4 Human endogenous retroviruses
    1.2.5 Recent African origin of modern humans

    2 Evidence from comparative anatomy

    2.1 Atavisms
    2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
    2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
    2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
    2.5 Vestigial structures
    2.6 Specific examples
    2.6.1 Hind structures in whales
    2.6.2 Insect mouthparts
    2.6.3 Other arthropod appendages
    2.6.4 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
    2.6.5 Pentadactyl limb
    2.6.6 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
    2.6.7 Route of the vas deferens

    3 Evidence from paleontology

    3.1 Fossil record
    3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record
    3.2 Limitations
    3.3 Specific examples
    3.3.1 Evolution of the horse

    4 Evidence from geographical distribution

    4.1 Continental distribution
    4.2 Island biogeography
    4.2.1 Types of species found on islands
    4.2.2 Endemism
    4.2.3 Adaptive radiations
    4.3 Ring Species
    4.4 Specific examples
    4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris
    4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials
    4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel

    5 Evidence from observed natural selection

    5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field
    5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
    5.1.2 E. coli long-term evolution experiment
    5.1.3 Humans
    5.1.4 Lactose intolerance in humans
    5.1.5 Nylon-eating bacteria
    5.1.6 PCB tolerance
    5.1.7 Peppered moth
    5.1.8 Radiotrophic fungus
    5.1.9 Urban wildlife

    6 Evidence from observed speciation

    6.1 Specific examples
    6.1.1 Blackcap
    6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster
    6.1.3 Hawthorn fly
    6.1.4 London Underground mosquito
    6.1.5 Madeira House Mouse
    6.1.6 Mollies
    6.1.7 Thale cress
    6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
    6.2.1 Polar bear
    6.2.2 Raphanobrassica
    6.2.3 Salsify
    6.2.4 Welsh groundsel
    6.2.5 York groundsel

    7 Evidence from artificial selection
    8 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration

    8.1 Specific examples
    8.1.1 Avida simulation

    Note the many lies of yours that are contradicted. Note that you will rely on a mined quote comeback for those that you don’t refuse to acknowledge altogether.

    I couldn’t have said this better, except for grammar:

     Richard says:
    June 14, 2011 at 3:53 pm
    Was’nt talkin about your essay i was explaining what you asked GODIDIT for… Im over this place, just like anybody else no matter what is brought to your attention you will not accept the truth, you are a sad sack of shit and every other jesus lovin dumbass that is in this world, you people argue but dont have the slightest clue of what your talking about so it gets to the point where you use what other people say… and whats funny is that the quotes say things very obtusely and you take em as if they are 100% sure about it like its a fact… you people got your head twisted about opinion n fact, just because someone says something doesnt make it true… thats the problem that you have with the bible. you picked it up n told it was gods word and u took it literally… you are a pathetic waste of human flesh gett a life and stop holding on to your dumbass website by making up crazy ass ideas and copy pasting people and giving your opinion and calling it evidence…. you are doing just like preachers and pastors and insurance companys and bank loaners and all of those people…. laying false hope before the weak to suck them in and take whatever lil they have left… if i could meet you in person i would spit in your face and slap you senseless until you admitted that you are doing nothing but feeding bullshit.

     Richard says:
    June 14, 2011 at 4:08 pm
    read what i said you dumbass i was quoting your words… another example of an idiot abroad… thats the problem scott you dont get it and reading thru all these comments you seem to keep holding on but you are still failing at your work… you put yourself in these holes with every comment you make. when are you just going to realize your wrong and there is not one quote in the world you can copy n paste to show evidence of any god… everything about you religion is a big damn contradiction… any religion for that matter, the bible, how religious people truly live their lives and how they thinnk about things, and last of all how you… yes YOU on this comment board just dont seem to get it… ive read all the way down this and youll say something someone will bring up a point to you… youll say something iin return… then that person will say something to completly shut it down, and then (like all believers) you switch up what your saying completely and throw in some big useless words to make it seems like you know what your talking about and try to hide the fact that your teeter tottering on you positions on things… or if that doesnt happen you just simply tell somebody to refer to another qoute or one of your time wasting essays that do absolutely nothing… It kind of looks like the book of ZEN. If you have ever read or even seen before… it consists of nothing but wise quotations… only difference is the wise part… your quotations are obviously showing disparity to hold on to somthing your not even really sure of yourself… its like your trying to convince yourself by trying to convince others… its hilarious when you take time to put it all together.

    Oh, by the way, Dishonest One, while reviewing the comments kept finding more and more evidence – IN YOUR POSTS – that you were LYING when you said that you’ve never accused Dawkins of considering directed panspermia as anything more than an hypothesis. So many lies, Scott! I even found you LYING about what argument you are making when you LIE about Dawkins’ position.

    I ASKED YOU BEFORE, I’LL ASK AGAIN –

    DO YOU WANT TO FESS UP TO THE LIE OR WOULD YOU RATHER I CITE YOUR WORDS?

    It’ll be interesting to see how someone who argues by quotes weasels out of admitting to lies that are proven by quoting him.

    Worry not, Liar for Jebus, assuming that at least one of my two rebuttals (that you were too dishonest to read) to the two issues I gave you to choose from was not CENSORED by you, I will copy and paste it.

    AT THAT MOMENT, ANYTHING YOU POST TO ME IN RESPONSE THAT IS NOT ON TOPIC WILL RESULT IN ME REMINDING EVERYONE WHAT A DISHONEST MORON YOU ARE.

    ALSO, EVERY INSTANCE OF YOU POSTING “CLICK HERE TO SEE MY …” WILL BE IGNORED. SINCE YOU CAN REFUSE TO READ (OR LIE ABOUT READING) MY POSTED ARGUMENTS, AND THEN DELETE THEM, YOU HAVE FORFEITED ANY EXPECTATION THAT I GO BACK AND READ YOUR TWADDLE AGAIN. I READ THEM. THEY ARE ALL CRAP. POSTING – “CLICK HERE …” INSTEAD OF MAKING A RATIONAL ARGUMENT IS DISALLOWED.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Evidence of common descent? In my reply to your last comment, I decided, just for the purposes of debate, to adopt the position that everything you say about evolution is 100% accurate.

      The reason that I am doing this is to point out that even if everything you say about evolution is 100% accurate, you still must explain how it is that evolution can occur in a universe that has not been influenced by a conscious and intelligent source. How is it, Kyle, that inanimate matter can be induced to follow a law (such as the laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics)?

      Atheists are left with only one avenue to explain this. They must engage in the “just is” storytelling that is so very characteristic of the atheist faith. In other words, the atheist has no choice but to declare that fact that inanimate matter follows laws “just is.” The universe “just is” (atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell’s “brute fact” universe). The beauty we experience in nature, in music, and in art “just is,” even though it serves no evolutionary purpose. The fact that our brains are far more sophisticated than is necessary for survival (capable of advanced mathematics, higher reasoning, etc.) “just is.” The fact that the universe is intelligible (as Einstein wondered at) “just is.”

      Quote mining? Kyle, no atheist has ever explained to me what this means. If this means taking a quote out of context, then it is the responsibility of the person making this accusation to re-insert the quote into what that person feels is the correct context… not just the greater text. Adding additional text from the individual being quoted that preceded and followed the quote is not putting the quote into a larger context. Without providing a convincing case for what the additional text means, such a practice is only putting the quote into larger text.

      Yes, Richard is another angry atheist. Is there a point to copying and pasting his rhetoric?

      It looks like RIchard Dawkins’ endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth hypothesis has really got you in a tizzy. It is clear that this is a threat to your worldview.

      Your decision to focus intently on accusing me of a lie (without substantiation) speaks volumes. It shows that you are trying to create a diversion from the fact that you cannot engage with the issue. Why would Dawkins (and several other prominent atheists) endorse this hypothesis if they had a more “logical” explanation for the origin of life than theists? Why Kyle? Why?


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Kyle says:

        You are nothing if not predictable. You ranted on again, repeating the transparent lie about Dawkins, ignoring my request that you fess up to your lie about you what you have claimed about Dawkins, failing to reference my argument about Dawkins as if I never made it, and LIED, LIED, LIED, like every science denier must, by necessity. For today, I think I’ll just concentrate on counting the lies. And for my purposes, ignoring a previous rebuttal, repeating an argument that was already shown to be faulty or a cop out, evading the current argument by jumping in round-robin fashion to another failed argument, asking incredulous questions as if they were an actual argument, etc. are just variations of lying. Since your every post is nothing but a steaming heap of the above, I tire of spelling it out; therefore, I’ll use the following shorthand:

        Plain old-fashioned lie – “LIE”

        Ignores previous rebuttal on the facts/logic – “HYSTERICAL BLINDNESS LIE”

        Ignores previous explanation of why your argument is a cop out – “COP OUT LIE”

        Evades the current argument by switching horses midstream to another argument – “WILD GOOSE CHASE LIE”

        The ever-popular “if you can’t answer question X, goddidit” – “ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY/FALSE DICHOTOMY LIE”

        A ubiquitous variation on the above two wherein the question is one regarding cosmology; the infinite regress to the ultimate unknowns – “BIG BANG COP OUT LIE”

        “Atheism is a faith” lie – “”YOU’RE AS IRRATIONAL AS I AM “LIE””

        The most ludicrous of all, argument by asserting your position is correct, more plausible, obvious, etc. – “ARGUMENT BY ASSERTION LIE”

        Making an accusation that is patently false that actually applies to you – “BAT-SHIT CRAZY TRANSFERENCE LIE”

        “Evidence of common descent? In my reply to your last comment, I decided, just for the purposes of debate, to adopt the position that everything you say about evolution is 100% accurate.”

        Prelude to the “WILD GOOSE CHASE LIE”. Obviously, you so desperately need to ignore the evidence that you stipulate its accuracy!

        “The reason that I am doing this is to point out that even if everything you say about evolution is 100% accurate, you still must explain how it is that evolution can occur in a universe that has not been influenced by a conscious and intelligent source.”

        Combo “WILD GOOSE CHASE LIE”, “ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY/FALSE DICHOTOMY LIE”, and an implied “ARGUMENT BY ASSERTION LIE”. So much sophistry, Scotty! It’s quite literally all that you have.

        “How is it, Kyle, that inanimate matter can be induced to follow a law (such as the laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics)?

        “BIG BANG COP OUT LIE” version of the “ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY/FALSE DICHOTOMY LIE”

        “Atheists are left with only one avenue to explain this. They must engage in the “just is” storytelling that is so very characteristic of the atheist faith.”

        Combo of “”YOU’RE AS IRRATIONAL AS I AM “LIE”” and “BAT-SHIT CRAZY TRANSFERENCE LIE”

        “In other words, the atheist has no choice but to declare that fact that inanimate matter follows laws “just is.” The universe “just is” (atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell’s “brute fact” universe).”

        “BAT-SHIT CRAZY TRANSFERENCE LIE” Actually, the atheist agrees with the scientists, who say, I don’t know”, whilst nutters have no choice but to declare that”goddidit”.

        “The beauty we experience in nature, in music, and in art “just is,” even though it serves no evolutionary purpose.”

        Either a “LIE” or an “”ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY/FALSE DICHOTOMY LIE”, depending upon whether you are completely ignorant of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary principles.

        “The fact that our brains are far more sophisticated than is necessary for survival (capable of advanced mathematics, higher reasoning, etc.) “just is.””

        Either a “LIE” or an “”ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY/FALSE DICHOTOMY LIE”, depending upon whether you are completely ignorant of evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary principles.

        “The fact that the universe is intelligible (as Einstein wondered at) “just is.””

        “MEANINGLESS RHETORIC LIE”

        “Quote mining? Kyle, no atheist has ever explained to me what this means.”

        “LIE” A THOUSAND TIMES A LIE! I explained it in excruciating detail, with examples, with links to the HUMONGOUS database of CREATARD MINED QUOTES, you LYING BAG OF EXCREMENT! Eat shit and die, you effing bastard!

        “If this means taking a quote out of context, then it is the responsibility of the person making this accusation to re-insert the quote into what that person feels is the correct context… not just the greater text. Adding additional text from the individual being quoted that preceded and followed the quote is not putting the quote into a larger context. Without providing a convincing case for what the additional text means, such a practice is only putting the quote into larger text.”

        “LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH LIE” I did! And 1000’s have done it. I linked to all of them! I posted a thoroughly explained example. Therefore – “HYSTERICAL BLINDNESS LIE”

        “Yes, Richard is another angry atheist. Is there a point to copying and pasting his rhetoric?”

        Two actually. First, he independently nailed you for exactly the same dishonest behavior that I nailed you for. What are the chances that that’ll induce some introspection on your part? Rhetorical question; we all know the answer is ZERO.

        Second, because part of what he wrote was conceptually identical to a quote that I earlier posted as to why you and your ilk are the way that you are. It was obvious that Richard was not cribbing from that source and was insightful enough to put it together on his own:

        Richard: “you people argue but dont have the slightest clue of what your talking about so it gets to the point where you use what other people say… and whats funny is that the quotes say things very obtusely and you take em as if they are 100% sure about it like its a fact… you people got your head twisted about opinion n fact, just because someone says something doesnt make it true… thats the problem that you have with the bible. you picked it up n told it was gods word and u took it literally… you are a pathetic waste of human flesh gett a life and stop holding on to your dumbass website by making up crazy ass ideas and copy pasting people and giving your opinion and calling it evidence…”

        Radner and Radner, in “Science and Unreason”:

        “This has been compared to the Christian theological method of prooftexting:

        Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation.”

        I’m sure you’ll just ignore it yet again, but it is amazing how well Richard understands the pathology of creatard thinking.

        “It looks like RIchard Dawkins’ endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth hypothesis has really got you in a tizzy. It is clear that this is a threat to your worldview.”

        “BIG LIE” There is no doubt that you understand full well what the proper interpretation is, whether you ever read my original rebuttal or not. It is also noted that you refuse to acknowledge that rebuttal and will not reference it. The “BIG LIE” doesn’t have me in a tizzy, but you are obviously hoping that it will, which is why you keep BIG LYING like no tomorrow.

        “Your decision to focus intently on accusing me of a lie (without substantiation) speaks volumes.”

        EVERY EFFING WORD YOU TYPE IS DISHONEST IN AT LEAST ONE WAY, IF NOT SEVERAL! I’VE ILLUSTRATED IT AD NAUSEUM. ALL YOU CAN DO IN RESPONSE IS:

        “HYSTERICAL BLINDNESS LIE”

        “It shows that you are trying to create a diversion from the fact that you cannot engage with the issue.”

        B_I_G_ _L_I_E_!!! “HYSTERICAL BLINDNESS LIE” “CENSOR THE REBUTTAL LIE”

        “Why would Dawkins (and several other prominent atheists) endorse this hypothesis if they had a more “logical” explanation for the origin of life than theists? Why Kyle? Why?”

        B_I_G_ _L_I_E_!!!

        B_I_G_ _L_I_E_!!!

        B_I_G_ _L_I_E_!!!

        B_I_G_ _L_I_E_!!!

        B_I_G_ _L_I_E_!!!

        POST MY EXPLANATION IN YOUR VERY NEXT RESPONSE, YOU KNUCKLE DRAGGING, PATHOLOGICALLY LYING, GOOD CHRISTIAN.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Look, Kyle, I really don’t care if you think I am a liar. Believe me, I have no interest whatsoever in what you think of me. You can keep driving home the rhetoric about lying all you want. However, the more that you do so rather than engaging in the subject matter, the more it is going to be obvious to people viewing this that you are not able to furnish rationally constructed, fact-based replies to the arguments presented.

          Just for the purposes of debate, I have decided to proceed with my arguments from the generous assumption that everything you have said about evolution is 100% correct. Further, since I am feeling really generous today, I have decided to proceed with my arguments from the assumption that you are correct and that I am a BIG LIAR.

          The ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY/FALSE DICHOTOMY LIE? (As you put it): You are not paying attention to the crucial distinction between responding to an argument and merely characterizing it. Also, there is no argument from ignorance going on here. We make an inference, based upon the knowledge of the extreme complexity of life, NOT from a lack of knowledge, that a guiding intelligence is behind the phenomenon of life.

          As an illustration, consider SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Oxford mathematician John Lennox notes:

          “How does one scientifically recognize a message emanating from an intelligent source, and distinguish it from the random background noise that emanates from the cosmos? Clearly the only way this can be done is to compare the signals received with the patterns specified in advance that are deemed to be clear and reliable indicators of intelligence — like a long sequence of prime numbers — and then to make a design inference. In SETI [sponsored by NASA] the recognition of intelligent agency is regarded as lying within the legitimate scope of natural science. The astronomer Carl Sagan thought that a single message from space would be enough to convince us that there were intelligences in the universe other than our own.”

          The point is this: If scientists are willing to infer intelligence from the complexity involved in a set of prime numbers, why does the FAR FAR FAR greater complexity involved in life not also demonstrate an intelligent cause? Because of ideology, that’s why. The SETI scientists are not making an argument from ignorance. Rather, they are inferring intelligence based upon what they DO know about the complexity of a string of prime numbers.

          Your apparent belief that there can be an unintelligent explanation for the natural laws and processes that purportedly drive Darwinian evolution is a perfect example of unintelligent-explanations-of-the-gaps thinking.

          False dichotomy, Kyle? Let me introduce you to a basic philosophical concept:

          The origin of the universe and of life can be distilled to a philosophical proof that philosophers refer to as a “disjunctive syllogism” (the latin name is modus tollendo ponens).

          Here is a simple example of a disjunctive syllogism:

          Bill’s pet is either a cat or a dog.
          Bill’s pet is not a cat.
          Therefore, Bill’s pet is a dog.

          With regards to the origins of the universe and of life, we can compose the following disjunctive syllogism:

          The universe (and life) resulted from either randomness or intentionality.
          The universe (and life) did not result from randomness (as I have demonsrated in my posts).
          Therefore the universe and life resulted from intentionality.

          And intentionality requires intelligence.

          Simply put, because there are only two options with regard to this issue, ruling out one option necessarily implies the other.

          The only way to invalidate this philosophical proof is the following: Demonstrate that there exists a third option to randomness vs. intentionality. Feel free to suggest what you think is a third option.

          So, are you going to respond to the points I made about evolution in my post titled Why Darwinian Evolution Can’t Be Cited As Evidence Against God by saying that it is all lies? That’s just fine with me. You continued reference to my “pseudoscientific” views, when I have stated that I will continue my arguments from the assumption that all of the science you have cited is 100% correct, clearly demonstrates that you are evading my arguments. We will just let each reader decide whether they think your reply is adequate.

          I will ask you for a SIXTH time to respond to the essay titled Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance? Are you going to respond to this post with the accusation that it is all lies? That is also just fine with me. I will let each reader decide whether they think this is an adequate reply. Sound like a deal?

          Kyle, either continue the forceful-assertion-and-strident-rhetoric-in-lieu-of-a-rebuttal approach, or logically engage the points I make. It’s up to you.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Kyle says:

            Before I rip apart your latest travesty of logic, let me point out that you STILL won’t reference my argument regarding the Dawkins video, yet you DO keep on restating the lie that it reveals. Did you delete it? If not, find it. I should not have to seek out or recreate arguments that you censor.

            D_O_ _Y_O_U_ _G_E_T_ _I_T_ _Y_E_T?

            1) “Look, Kyle, I really don’t care if you think I am a liar.”

            It has nothing to do with what I think. I have demonstrated to anyone who might read this that you are a liar. Liars repeat arguments w/o acknowledgement of rebuttals. Liars repeat arguments immediately after they were revealed as fallacious. Liars suffer hysterical blindness when they don’t want to deal with what is presented to them. Liars censor their opponents and then badger them for not responding when they already did. Liars try to continuously change the subject in a vicious circle to evade dealing with rebuttals. Liars refuse to answer direct questions that are pertinent to the subject at hand/ Liars repeatedly ask the same diversionary questions, even after they’ve been slapped down as diversionary, to obfuscate.

            Something else a liar will do is cave on argument ‘A’, stipulating their opponent to be correct, in order to present a argument ‘B’ on different matter, yet will come back at any time presenting argument ‘A’ again in exactly the same manner as before they caved on it.

            2) “You can keep driving home the rhetoric about lying all you want. However, the more that you do so rather than engaging in the subject matter, the more it is going to be obvious to people viewing this that you are not able to furnish rationally constructed, fact-based replies to the arguments presented.”

            MASSIVE TRANSFERENCE! I have resorted to cataloging your deceptions, evasions, and sophistry because I have become exasperated by your inability or refusal to acknowledge rationally constructed, fact-based replies!

            3) “Just for the purposes of debate, I have decided to proceed with my arguments from the generous assumption that everything you have said about evolution is 100% correct.”

            Everything I’ve said about evolution IS 100% correct. If you polled a hundred each of PHD biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists, you might get a quibble or two on semantic grounds, but that’s all. Let’s face it, your position is that you and the professional liars for Jebus know better than all the scientists working in a dozen fields, worldwide, for a century, when you;e proven here that you no diddle about any of these fields except for the same intentional misrepresentations of the creatards that have been used, refuted, and reused endlessly for decades.

            4) “Further, since I am feeling really generous today, I have decided to proceed with my arguments from the assumption that you are correct and that I am a BIG LIAR.”

            Now we’re making progress. Unfortunately, I predict that you’ll renege on this admission.

            5) “The ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY/FALSE DICHOTOMY LIE? (As you put it): You are not paying attention to the crucial distinction between responding to an argument and merely characterizing it.”

            I have explained how it is precisely that. Your lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem.

            6) “Also, there is no argument from ignorance going on here. We make an inference, based upon the knowledge of the extreme complexity of life, NOT from a lack of knowledge, that a guiding intelligence is behind the phenomenon of life.”

            BS! This is the std creatard defense of their incessant Arguments from Ignorance. It is also but one of the many reasons that ID is BS as well. Let’s really define “inference” as creatards ACTUALLY apply it:

            INFERENCE OF DESIGN – “It looks designed to me.” That is NO ARGUMENT AT ALL.

            7) “Clearly the only way this can be done is to compare the signals received with the patterns specified in advance that are deemed to be clear and reliable indicators of intelligence — like a long sequence of prime numbers — and then to make a design inference. In SETI [sponsored by NASA] the recognition of intelligent agency is regarded as lying within the legitimate scope of natural science.”

            “The point is this: If scientists are willing to infer intelligence from the complexity involved in a set of prime numbers, why does the FAR FAR FAR greater complexity involved in life not also demonstrate an intelligent cause? Because of ideology, that’s why. The SETI scientists are not making an argument from ignorance. Rather, they are inferring intelligence based upon what they DO know about the complexity of a string of prime numbers.”

            Ah yes, ID’s idiot brother, “complexity”. Next you’re going to use the completely bogus, baseless term “irreducible complexity”, right? Then you’ll simply assert some “laws” about information theory that are just as baseless products of rectal extraction, right?

            Your SETI example, no doubt cribbed from one of the creatard cesspools of obfuscation where you get every idea that you’ve ever expressed, is misleading. A digitally expressed string of consecutive prime numbers imposed on a radio frequency may be a dozen orders of magnitude less complex than the genome of a flatworm, but then a radio signal doesn’t (imperfectly) reproduce, nor does it have a feedback mechanism that would drive it toward a digital representation of consecutive prime numbers.

            This is ALWAYS the case every time a creatard pulls out the False Complexity Analogy LIE. No matter if the analogy is to a pocket watch, a car, Mount Rushmore, etc, ad nauseum, they NEVER acknowledge this obvious difference. You, like most creatards, long ago strategically decided to stipulate that evolution happens, you just place very conveniently defined limitations based on nothing at all except that they are needed to maintain willful ignorance. Yet every time a creatard uses the False Complexity Analogy LIE, they suddenly become hysterically blind to how evolution works. It would be funny if it weren’t another sign of their mental pathology.

            “Your apparent belief that there can be an unintelligent explanation for the natural laws and processes that purportedly drive Darwinian evolution is a perfect example of unintelligent-explanations-of-the-gaps thinking.”

            BS! Just because a creatard invents an inversion of a valid critique of creatards, doesn’t make it valid. Calling atheism a faith is an example of this wordplay nonsense. They all amount to “OK, so my position is irrational, but so is yours.” Only their argument for how the rationalists are irrational is – irrational!

            Let’s examine this particular little logical turd that you seem to like so much:

            “Belief that there can be an unintelligent explanation for the natural laws and processes of Darwinian evolution is an example of unintelligent-explanations-of-the-gaps thinking.”

            All you’ve done is invert the logic. This is precisely the same fallacy evident when some genius says, “You can’t prove there’s no gawd.” Although I shouldn’t have to explain it, I must consider who I’m writing to. The person saying, “There is a gawd”, is making the positive claim. The person who says, “I see no reason to believe in gawd(s) because there is no evidence”, is NOT making a positive claim and has no evidentiary burden whatsoever! The onus is 100% on the theist to produce evidence for their gawd.

            In this case, the creatard is asserting that, “(Feature of the universe, ‘X’) is complex in a way that proves gawd – I mean, an ID’er – exists.” This is the positive claim. The onus is 100% on the creatard to produce evidence for this conclusion. A thousand false analogies and a thousand versions of “It looks designed to me” DO NOT COUNT!

            8) “With regards to the origins of the universe and of life, we can compose the following disjunctive syllogism:

            A) The universe (and life) resulted from either randomness or intentionality.
            B) The universe (and life) did not result from randomness (as I have demonsrated in my posts).
            C) Therefore the universe and life resulted from intentionality.”

            BS squared! ‘A’ is NOT demonstrated. You have simply asserted it. Also, as per usual with creatards, the definition of “random” in use is probably pretty squishy.

            I now predict that you will use creatard logic and insist that ‘A’ is demonstrated unless I not only supply, but PROVE a third option. This is logically absurd. The onus is on you to prove that this is a true dichotomy. Repeated assertion =/= proof, or even evidence.

            Even if by some miracle you could prove that the dichotomy is valid for the origin of the universe, it would NOT mean that life resulted from either randomness or intentionality. That would still have to be proven and on that one, in spite of all the creatard misinformation, you have zero evidence.

            ‘B’ is a claim that I in no way accept. Your posts hove demonstrated only robotic repetition of long-refuted arguments, which are repeated again when freshly refuted w/o acknowledgement of refutation.

            9) “Simply put, because there are only two options with regard to this issue, ruling out one option necessarily implies the other.”

            That’s great. Now all you have to do is show that there can be no other options and rule out one of them. Saying that you have done so is not sufficient. Just because you have faithfully copy-n-pasted from the professional Liars for Jebus does not change the fact that they haven’t had a new argument in 20 years and the last new argument they produced was eviscerated 19 yrs and 364 days ago.

            10) “The only way to invalidate this philosophical proof is the following: Demonstrate that there exists a third option to randomness vs. intentionality. Feel free to suggest what you think is a third option.”

            I predicted correctly! Creatard logic strikes again!

            11) “So, are you going to respond to the points I made about evolution in my post titled Why Darwinian Evolution Can’t Be Cited As Evidence Against God by saying that it is all lies?”

            I believe this is your first attempt at this particular diversion. Besides, DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I SAID?! All of your little articles are crap. If I can’t post a reasoned argument and expect you to read it before you delete it, why the eff should you be able to argue by means of pointing me to one of your steaming piles and saying “Click here and refute it”? Eff you and the mule you rode in on.

            12) “You continued reference to my “pseudoscientific” views, when I have stated that I will continue my arguments from the assumption that all of the science you have cited is 100% correct, clearly demonstrates that you are evading my arguments. We will just let each reader decide whether they think your reply is adequate.”

            DUH! The main argument has been that creatards are 5 levels below imbeciles and lie more than all the rugs in Persia. You have now copped to it. Promise you won’t renege? Swear to your Gawd?

            “I will ask you for a SIXTH time to respond to the essay titled Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance? Are you going to respond to this post with the accusation that it is all lies? ”

            No. I will respond as I have EVERY TIME. I will not chase another rabbit trail. I will not let you argue my means of “Click here and refute it” when you won;t even read my arguments before deleting them.

            D_O_ _Y_O_U_ _U_N_D_E_R_S_T_A_N_D_ _Y_E_T,_ _Y_O_U_ _N_I_T_W_I_T?

            “Kyle, either continue the forceful-assertion-and-strident-rhetoric-in-lieu-of-a-rebuttal approach, or logically engage the points I make. It’s up to you.”

            TRANSFERENCE AGAIN! I have rebutted you. You’ve ignored , refuse to read, deleted, etc. Evading evasions is no vice either, dipsquat. And let’s not forget that in both arguments, ‘existence of sky daddy’ and ‘necessity of sky daddy to produce biological diversity’, you are the faithhead/creatard making a positive claim.

            I predict that you will now claim that my failure to be convinced (by nonexistent evidence) of either sky daddy’s existence or his necessity stemming from the (nonexistent) critical flaws in biological evolution are, in fact, the positive claims, because that’s what happens when you abandon reason.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              OK, Kyle, here is your chance to shine: SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE LIED. Repeatedly asserting that I have lied without backing it up isn’t going to cut it.

              By the way HERE IS WHERE YOU LIED! : On Sept 4th, you said that Sweden and Denmark are 80% atheist. I cited a 2005 Eurobarometer poll which demonstrates that these countries are much less atheist (closer to 23%). Inventing wildly exaggerated statistics is a form of LYING.

              Your continued reliance on strident rhetoric and accusations is very transparently a diversionary tactic. Diversionary from what? For starters, this is the 7th time I have asked you to respond to the points in my Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance? essay.

              Here is the reason that I have decided to proceed from the generous position that everything you have said about evolution is correct: Even if it is all correct, IT DOES NOTHING TO RATIONALIZE ATHEISM. I make this point in my essay titled Why evolution can’t be used to rationalize atheism post (in the “snippets” section at the top of the main page). What would be the point of continuing to assert that my science is wrong? Simple answer: You need another avenue to divert attention from the logical bankruptcy of your views.

              You say, “A digitally expressed string of consecutive prime numbers imposed on a radio frequency may be a dozen orders of magnitude less complex than the genome of a flatworm, but then a radio signal doesn’t (imperfectly) reproduce, nor does it have a feedback mechanism that would drive it toward a digital representation of consecutive prime numbers.

              This is ALWAYS the case every time a creatard pulls out the False Complexity Analogy LIE.”

              So you think that reproduction and feedback mechanisms present in living organisms do away with the need for an intelligent source? How do you explain the ability of organisms to reproduce? How did the feedback mechanism get there? Is it the case that reproduction and feedback mechanisms “just are”?

              There is no complexity in reproduction or in feedback mechanisms? Did I get that right?

              Yes, Kyle, your prediction was correct: I will insist that you come up with a third option to randomness or intentionality in order to invalidate my disjunctive syllogism. These are the only two options that have ever been proposed in all of history for the simple fact that they are the only two possible options. For you to assert that there is some third unknown option would be the very essence of ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Here is another disjunctive syllogism for you to ponder:

              Jake is either married or he is single.
              Jake is not married.
              Therefore Jake is a single.

              Kyle, should we assume that this disjunctive syllogism is invalid because it hasn’t been demonstrated that these aren’t the only two possibilities?! Interesting logic!

              You assert that “Just because a creatard invents an inversion of a valid critique of creatards, doesn’t make it valid. Calling atheism a faith is an example of this wordplay nonsense.” So there is no faith involved in atheism? Then Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, etc. KNOW that aliens brought life to earth? Is that right? Does atheist biologist Michael Ruse KNOW that life originated by a piggyback ride on crystals? Does Bertrand Russell KNOW that the universe is a “brute fact” even though it is abundantly clear that the universe had a beginning (click here) and the fact that the law of causation (without which science would be impossible) declares that everything with a beginning requires a cause.

              Next, you assert that “I have rebutted you. You’ve ignored , refuse to read, deleted, etc.” Here is another chance to really shine: Lay out for me SPECIFICALLY what you have rebutted, what I have ignored, what I have refused to read, or what I have deleted.

              I will go first by laying out SPECIFICALLY what you have ignored and refused to read:

              1) My essay titled Is there a God? What is the chance that our world is the result of chance? You refer to this as a “rabbit trail.” I refer to it as a trail that you are AFRAID to go down.

              2) My point that atheists claiming to have a more “logical” explanation for the origin of life is patently absurd because the most prominent atheists cite explanations for life such as aliens-brought-it-here-in-their-spaceship and it-originated-in-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals. These explanations are the LOGICAL ones?! There is no faith, but only logic, involved in these explanations?!

              Perhaps Dawkins, Crick, Hoyle etc. have MET THE ALIENS who brought life here!!


  7. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

    Kyle,

    Tell me which one of your replies today you want me to respond to. The others will be deleted. I am giving the choice to you. Right now it is 8:30 am where I am in Chicago. If you have not chosen by this time tomorrow, I will make the choice for you.

    I may not have time to today, but please tell me which one you want me to respond to. I will not let you hide behind the excuse of me not responding to arguments that you have presented because you have flooded me with so much spam. Pick the argument of yours that you want me to respond to. I am sure you can do it in a few paragraphs and keep out the rhetoric and insults that only make you look someone who is angry because your arguments have fallen apart.

    Scott


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      Kyle says:

      You completely bombed on your last outing. I could have declared your concession on a dozen grounds, but I was stupid enough to give you one more chance. No more.

      You have hereby forfeited every single issue we’ve ATTEMPTED to engage upon because you are some combination of too damn stupid to conduct a debate or too damn dishonest to do so when you know you’ll lose.

      You sir, are a complete waste of flesh; too stubbornly insistent on obfuscation, too willing to ignore my posts for all eternity, and either your reading comprehension is too poor or you’re just too damn dumb. What was the last thing I told you?

      GIVE 8 ANSWERS TO MY 8 QUESTIONS – IDENTIFIED AS I DID.

      You totally washed out.

      You STILL failed to even acknowledge many of my key points.

      You admitted to never reading my detailed rebuttal to the dirt-stupid protein folding creatardism. I suppose that you conveniently deleted it so that I would have to recreate it, you effing bastard!

      You have the brass ones to repeat the dishonest SJG mined quote and actually argued in its favor, WHILE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGING SJG’S EXPRESS CONDEMNATION OF IT!

      In the process, you manged to completely invert his meaning on the technical matter as well.

      You were even MORE DISHONEST in the Darwin matter, because you introduced a new mined quote! Then, inexplicably, you rolled over and admitted the proper context – AND THEN PROCEEDED TO REPEAT ANOTHER DISPROVED, DISHONEST CREATARD TALKING POINT. Your video link is a pack of lies. You like quotes; why did you post the creatard pack of lies and IGNORE the SJG quote about transitional fossils? Hmm?

      As for your latest go-to lie, the Cambrian, I suggest that you really need to read SOMETHING other than creatards:

      1) The Cambrian “explosion” lasted a few 10’s of millions of years. As a point of reference, all mammals today evolved from small, burrowing survivors of the KT extinction 65 MYA. That’s right, everything from Mexican free-tail bats to blue whales, with anteaters, polar bears, orangutangs, and giraffes in between.

      2) We have fossils of multicellular life forms prior to the Cambrian, but they are few and of a different quality because they were soft-bodied. Thanks for illustrating the obvious point that not everything fossilizes. No doubt, many of the phyla were around for some time in soft-bodied forms.

      3) An evolutionary arms race plus many available ecological niches drove rapid evolutionary change around the time of the Cambrian. The evolution of eyes – several variations in trilobites alone – repeatedly – and well documented in the fossil record – as well as the evolutionary response of exoskeletons, also repeatedly, caused an “explosion” in fossilization. The end of the “Snowball Earth” period created vast, unexploited environments and coevolution was in hyper-drive.

      4) The evolution of the Hox genes and Hox clusters resulted in segmented bodies and specialized appendages. We’ve studied the Hox in many diverse species and teased out many of their functions. Manipulation of Hox genes is the cause of “thalidomide babies” as well as the famous fruit flies with legs instead of antennae. We have then inferred the Hox configurations from the morphology of extinct species and cross-correlated with other genetic markers and their mutation rates. Indications are that the Hox genes and then Hox clusters appeared shortly before the Cambrian.

      5) As with all such newly evolved systems, there is a rapid profusion of variation initially and then some of these variations become “fixed” as redundant and non-coding sequences are lost or degraded.

      Your welcome for the remedial education.

      YOU find my N-body explanation, jerkbait, or GO TO THE ORIGINAL PAPER YOU CREATARDS ARE MISREPRESENTING AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELF! Then, as I had asked, either paraphrase the actual argument made by the paper or ask me specific questions about anything that you don’t understand.

      Since you REFUSE to answer any questions, let me again try to shame you – DID YOU ALSO FAIL TO READ MY EXPLANATION OF THE (ALREADY CRYSTAL CLEAR) DAWKINS’ VIDEO?! I suggest that you find it, read it for comprehension, and then DO WHAT I ASKED LAST TIME! Either paraphrase its meaning or quote it with questions inserted. THAT’S THE ONLY WAY I’M EVER GOING TO GET YOU TO ENGAGE HONESTLY ON ANYTHING.

      Ignore me again and show all your fellow creatards what a maximally dishonest little turd you are. You’re not fooling anybody. Do you think gawd likes it when you are a complete jerk and a pathological liar in his name? Hmm?

      You then repeated the Big Lie about the Dawkins’ video in the context of the Big Lie that atheism provides explanations for anything. SCIENCE provides the explanations. Atheism allows us to a avoid being delusional denialists about science. You also repeated your half-truth, Arguments from Incredulity YET AGAIN – “such absurd hypotheses as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis and the life-emerged-from-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals hypothesis”.

      “Please lay down for me, in concise language (without long winded rhetoric) exactly what arguments I have evaded.”

      Your brazenness is of Olympic quality. I will not dignify this with any response except that I’VE ALREADY LISTED THEM OVER AND OVER AND OVER YOU FLIPPING MORON!!!! And you yourself have just touched on some of them, WITHOUT ADDRESSING THEM.

      You then repeated Cavanaugh’s point AS IF I HAD NEVER VERY EXPLICITLY AND DIRECTLY REFUTE IT! This is classic creatard! What the eff is the point of posting ANYTHING to someone as thick-skulled as you?! And then, after repeating what I had rebutted as if I never had, you – OF COURSE – completely failed to acknowledge (or read?) the counterpoints that I made in regards to atheism and violence, INCLUDING POINTING OUT THAT IF YOU CAN GIVE RELIGION A PASS FOR CAVANAUGH’S REASON, THEN ATHEISM SHOULD GET A GOLD-PLATED PASS JUST TO BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENT! Shocking. Shocking, I say.

      You then proceed to completely miss my point about your all-too-typical creatard use of quotation as argument from authority. Repeating one example wherein you claim to have given adequate attention to the actual arguments does not relieve you are the entire creatard industry from the staggering weight of this, its primary dishonest tactic. I note that you also failed to acknowledge the key points there, which bear repeating:

      “This has been compared to the Christian theological method of prooftexting:

      Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation.
      —Radner and Radner, Science and Unreason, ISBN 0534011535”

      “You STILL evade my essay titled Is there A God? What is the Chance That Our World is the Result of Chance? I am guessing that this is about the 4th time I have asked you to engage this essay with some sort of rebuttal. You seem very hesitant to do so? Why do you suppose this is?”

      B_E_C_A_U_S_E_ _Y_O_U_ _E_V_A_D_E_ _E_V_E_R_Y_T_H_I_N_G,_ _A_L_L_ _T_H_E_ _T_I_M_E,_ _A_N_D_ _C_A_N_N_O_T_ _B_E_ _S_H_A_M_E_D_ _I_N_T_O_ _A_N_ _H_O_N_E_S_T_ _E_X_C_H_A_N_G_E,_ _T_H_A_T’_S_ _W_H_Y_!!!!! I suspect more and more that you may actually be completely fooled by the professional Liars for Jebus and that you may actually lack the intellectual capacity to carry on a debate. I further suspect that you’re ~10 yrs old.

      At this point, I do not even expect a response, and if you do respond, I fully expect it to be just as non-responsive as all your others, just as packed with repetitions of, and links to, the same laughably bad creatard arguments, and just as willfully ignorant.

      Prove me wrong. Respond to my last post as you should have. Anything else will result in me calling you what you clearly are and demanding that you engage honestly or shut the eff up. Just pick one of the two damn issues I offered up, look up my earlier response to it, and then, pretend that you’re sentient being and engage it like anybody else would.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

        Once again, Kyle, you are very transparently trying to use forceful assertions and strident rhetoric to disguise your deficient arguments.

        Regarding the Stephen Jay Gould’s “express condemnation” of creationists using his quotes: OF COURSE Gould finds it “infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists” ….Gould is a biologist who participates in the “cultural context” (to use his words) of the naturalist / materialist worldview, despite the fact that modern physics has completely dismissed this worldview. If your own quotes could be used to demonstrate the bankruptcy of your worldview, you would be infuriated to!!

        Please respond to my previous response to your attempt to insert his quotes into what you feel is a greater context. I will reiterate: The additional Gould text that you provided only demonstrates microevolution, which is something that no informed creationist denies. Gould states that the punctuation occurs at the species level: In order to demonstrate macroevolution, you must demonstrate a gradual transition from one species to another. This is the very opposite of punctuation occurring at the species level.

        My video link about the Cambrian is “a pack of lies”? So these eminent biologists are just telling a bunch of lies?

        Let’s look at your responses to my video about the Cambrian (click here if you need to view it again):

        1) The Cambrian explosion did not last a “few 10’s of millions of years,” as you assert. It lasted between 5 and 10 million years. This is a “blink of an eye” in geologic terms, as the experts in the video describe. If it was a prolonged period of time in geologic terms, why is it referred to as an “explosion” or as “biology’s Big Bang”? Please provide a scholarly citation indicating that the Cambrian explosion lasted “10s of millions of years” as you assert.

        2) Soft bodied forms? The video addresses this, Kyle… but you ignored it. There are an abundance of soft bodied sponge embryos fossilized prior to the Cambrian, so yes, soft bodied organisms do fossilize. Therefore, it the phyla were around prior to the Cambrian in soft bodied form, the fossils would be there, but they aren’t. This point is made by the experts in the video, but you ignore it.

        3) OK, so there was “rapid evolutionary change” around the time of the Cambrian. How are you going to rectify this with the fact that Darwin said, in The Origin of Species that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

        Don’t you see the contradiction between “rapid evolutionary change,” and “numerous, successive, slight modifications”? Darwin’s mechanism for evolution was such “numerous, successive, slight modifications” through random mutation and natural selection. What mechanism are you suggesting was behind the “rapid evolutionary change” in the Cambrian explosion?

        4) Hox genes? Did you really view the video? Please detail your response to what the expert in the video said about Hox genes.

        5) What is the mechanism that causes “rapid profusion of variation”? Is it random mutation, as in Darwin’s theory? If these mutations are random, what mechanism causes them to suddenly accelerate? Why are there not successive graduations in the fossil record even though we have an abundance of soft bodies sponge embryos in the fossil record?

        If you are so confident in your “N body” argument, why don’t you just copy and paste it for me to see? Why do you insist that I go find it myself? Your replies are long winded and intertwined with rhetoric and insults. It is very hard for me to sift through them.

        The same thing with your reply to the Dawkins / aliens video. If you are so confident in your argument, why not accomplish the simple task of restating it or at least copying and pasting it? Your insistence that I go find these arguments myself is highly suggestive that you don’t have much faith in them. Further, there is no room for interpretation here… Dawkins is on video endorsing a hypothesis which says that life on earth can be explained by the fact that it was brought here by aliens. Period. End of story. What needs to be interpreted?

        And I have more bad news for you regarding Dawkins. He admitted in a debate that “a serious case could be made for a deistic God.” Click here. OOPS! So much for being certain that God is a “delusion”!

        But, Kyle, I am going to bring the discussion back to the heart-of-the-matter because we have gotten off on a tangent: As I have pointed out before, the question of evolution is largely irrelevant to the topic of the existence of God. This is because, even if macroevolution were to be clearly demonstrated to be true, there remains the question of how the mechanisms which drive macroevolution came to be. Take this simple illustration: Imagine an automobile factory where all of the manufacturing is done by robots (this is not too far in the future, I suppose). Could we reasonably conclude by observing the robots doing all of the work that people have no role in automobile manufacturing? No, of course not… because the question immediately becomes: Who made the robots? Who wrote the software that tells the robots what to do? Where did the factory itself come from?

        For the purposes of this discussion, I will continue my argument from the standpoint that everything you say about evolution is 100% accurate.

        You have stated before that evolution is driven by natural laws. The crucial question (which I have asked you before, but which you did not respond to) is this: How can it be that inanimate matter can be induced to obey a set of laws? Please note that this is not a scientific question. Rather, it is a meta-scientific or ontological question. Therefore, any references to me or anyone else practicing what you refer to as “pseudoscience” are irrelevant because we are not even dealing with science.

        I will restate the question again so that you don’t miss it or attempt to evade it: HOW CAN IT BE THAT INANIMATE MATTER CAN BE INDUCED TO OBEY A SET OF LAWS? (Such as the laws of chemistry, physics, or thermodynamics?) How, Kyle? HOW?

        Regarding Cavanaugh, you still have not responded to his point, which I will again copy and paste:

        What would be necessary to prove the claim that religion has caused more violence than any other institutional force over the course of human history? One would first need a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of human history. …The problem is that there was no category of religion separable from such political institutions until the modern era, and then it was primarily in the West. What meaning could we give to either the claim that Roman religion is to blame for the imperialist violence of ancient Rome, or the claim that it is Roman politics and not Roman religion that is to blame? Either claim would be nonsensical, because there was no neat division between religion and politics.

        It is not simply that religion and politics were jumbled together until the modern West got them properly sorted out. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed in his landmark book, The Meaning and End of Religion, religion as a discrete category of human activity separable from culture, politics, and other areas of life is an invention of the modern West.

        Your last response to Cavanaugh simply assumed that there is “a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of human history.” You did not make a case for “religion as a discrete category of human activity separable from culture, politics, and other areas of life” as anything more than “an invention of the modern West.”

        Here is a copy and paste of your last reply regarding Cavanaugh’s arguments about religion and violence:

        “First, you used the excuse of religion infusing all aspects of life until modern times to dismiss any and all religious causation of violence because it couldn’t be disentangled. Are we to assume then that none of it was religious? This misses the key concept that even if the underlying motives were economic or political, people routinely were swayed to act by religion and often to act in ways that only religion can justify.” (Bold added by me).

        Your arguments continue to assume the existence of a discrete category of human activity known as religion, despite the fact that Cavanaugh’s very argument is that there is no such discrete category. That is not merely a bad reply, rather, it is no reply at all!

        This is the fifth time (if my count is correct) that you have evaded responding to my essay titled Is there A God? What is the Chance That Our World is the Result of Chance?


    2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      Kyle says:

      It’s hard to say what most people reading this think of it, but it is perhaps likely that your readership is primarily self-selected creatards. If so, they are already used to extreme cognitive bias and may well see things as you describe them. If they were rational people, they would see that I must be making some pretty good arguments, since you generally evade them, erase them, or fail to acknowledge that they ever appeared here.

      Assuming that your reading comprehension is worth diddle, by all rights I should just declare that you have conceded a dozen different ways, because you did almost everything I said not to do and didn’t do anything that I said to do. In fact, you (shocking!) didn’t even acknowledge any of them. It’s almost like you never read the above post. Of course, it seems the same in regards to most of my posts. You even had the nerve to delete my posts on the basis that I’M THE ONE WHO WOULDN’T NARROW THE DISCUSSION DOWN TO ONE ISSUE. Hell, I WAS INSISTING ON IT, and I went further and gave you two from which to choose. You couldn’t get that right either; you addressed (using the term in the loosest sense) both of them!

      I did not set the conditions randomly nor were they to be unfair; they were to pin your slippery butt down long enough to actually have a discussion. The most obvious conclusion is that you are willing to do anything and everything that you can to prevent that from happening. However, since I’m a nice guy and since some possibility does exist that your reading comprehension and/or reasoning skills are this poor, I will hold your hand a little longer. But if you’re not kidding when you misunderstand a basic explanation or fail to grasp that one was even given, that doesn’t square with the apparent grasp of language displayed in your blog. The only explanation is that you merely copy-n-paste verbatim from other creatard sources, but then that’s absolutely std creatard behavior.

      Before I begin, do you have the integrity to admit that I not only fully agreed to narrowing the discussion to one item, I gave you two to choose from (which you failed to do)? If you can (I’m not holding my breath), do you have the integrity to reinstate the posts that you censored?

      OK, how do I get you to actually be responsive? I’ve tried so many ways to no avail. Shaming you doesn’t work. How about this? I’ll start a new paragraph and lead off with a Roman numeral immediately prior to every key question. I won’t for minor questions, rephrased questions, sub-questions, or rhetorical questions. That way, when you respond, you can simply repeat the same with your answers. When you’re done, you should have a the same number of answers as I had questions. No more excuses.

      I am going to give you several benefits of doubt, though you really don’t deserve them and I’m going to expend considerable time and effort repeating myself and explaining simple things that should not require it. I would like, but do not expect, some appreciation for expending this extra effort and for turning a blind eye to your likely willful refusal to grasp or even acknowledge what I have posted in the past. If you continue your behavior to date and remain willfully ignorant and/or simply fail to respond to these questions, you will be in danger of being so transparently disingenuous that even your fellow creatards will catch on.

      “Since you did not pick a comment-of-the-day for me to respond to, as I requested, I have deleted your other comments for today. Since this is your latest one, it is the one I will respond to. The one comment per day rule stands. I would not have to do this if you subtracted the angry rhetoric and insults…. and just provided some sort of argument.”

      I. Please name the two topics from which I asked you to pick one. (Answer should list two topics)

      You failed top acknowledge my question:

      II. Will you also be limiting yourself to a single daily response in regards my posts? (Yes or no answer)

      I gave arguments for both of these topics prior. For one of them, I also did a “Dick and Jane” version trying to shame you into acknowledging the original.

      IIIa. For the first of the two suggested topics, paraphrase my argument.

      OR

      If you claim to not understand my argument well enough to paraphrase it,

      IIIb. Quote my argument, interrupting to insert questions regarding it.

      IVa. For the second of the two suggested topics, paraphrase my argument.

      OR

      If you claim to not understand my argument well enough to paraphrase it,

      IVb. Quote my argument, interrupting to insert questions regarding it.

      “Regarding your connection of religion with violence, you have still not responded to my essay entitled “Doesn’t religion cause killing?,” in the snippets section. You can also click on the preceding link that I created for you.”

      YOU NEVER ASKED ME TO RESPOND TO THIS BEFORE! That said, I just looked at it and found exactly what I expected. First, you used the excuse of religion infusing all aspects of life until modern times to dismiss any and all religious causation of violence because it couldn’t be disentangled. Are we to assume then that none of it was religious? This misses the key concept that even if the underlying motives were economic or political, people routinely were swayed to act by religion and often to act in ways that only religion can justify. Then you went into the thoroughly refuted – a million times – argument that communists were atheists, therefore all communist violence is atheist violence, which is prima facie wrong, IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the argument you just used to dismiss all religious violence, and was thoroughly destroyed by danno, whose rebuttal you – of course – simply denied.

      “Argument by quotation? Really?! How, other than by quotations, does one communicate an individuals views? Secondly, at no point do I make any statement resembling “such and such is true because such and such expert says it is.” Rather, I provide the reasons why such and such expert has come to such and such conclusion.”

      Your first two concepts are in conflict. You seem to be fixated on others’ views, but then seem to imply that you don’t intend to imply that others’ views are evidence. You now claim to resolve the conflict by quoting their views! That is what you’re doing after all; it would take volumes to actually go through the arguments, thus the appeal of Arguments from Authority, which is all Argument by Quotation is, whether you admit it or not (and you won’t).

      “Citing “quote mining” (whatever this means) and “argument from quotation” is what one resorts to when one is not able to respond to certain quotes or facts that conflict with their worldview. It is a way to HIDE from the quotations rather than engage with them. This is utterly transparent. For the record, what exactly does quote mining mean? Does it mean, “selecting quotes that bring the atheist worldview into doubt”? Does it mean that I have taken a quote out of context? If so, then please tell us what you feel is the greater context. I would love to hear. Saying that something was taken out of context without providing a convincing case for what you feel is the correct context is utterly meaningless.”

      You are here we are left to believe one of two things. Either that you’re so incredibly green at Lying for Jebus that you have never, ever read a single thing by your opponents, or that you lie as easily as you breathe. In this post’s spirit of generosity, I will assume the former, but that is NOT something you should be proud of. It would, however, go a long way toward explaining how you can repeat the same, lame, 20 yr old creatard talking points as if they were fresh and unscathed and summarily dismiss all rebuttals. You may honestly not know how tired or how thoroughly destroyed they are.

      To avoid looking like the greenest noob in the world, I suggest that you begin reading your opposition. Perhaps you have been warned not to by the professional Liars for Jebus that know that the rationalist responses are 1000 times better than the creatard criticisms and reveal the insane dishonesty that infuses ALL creatard arguments. You should begin by Googling “The Quote Mine Project”. You will find links to an almost comically vast database of dishonest creatard quote mines along with a thorough explanation of this, the number one creatard deception tactic. You’ll also find references to a couple of feeble and transparent attempts by creatards to justify the practice, but they’re so bad that they have to know that only those who’ve drank the Kool-aid like yourself will buy them. The practice is so widespread as to warrant a large portion of the Wikipedia article “Fallacy of quoting out of context”. Don’t you dare try to dismiss the content because it’s wiki; deal with the content or just fail to acknowledge per usual:

      “Quote mining and the creation-evolution controversy”

      Scientists and their supporters used the term quote mining as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain creationists.[10][11][12] It is used by members of the scientific community to describe a method employed by creationists to support their arguments,[13][14][15] though it can be and often is used outside of the creation-evolution controversy. Complaints about the practice predate known use of the term: Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in his famous 1973 essay “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” that

      Their [Creationists’] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

      The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) described the use of “[a]n evolutionist’s quote mistakenly used out of context” to “negate the entirety of [an] article and creationist claims regarding the lack of transitional forms” as “a smoke screen”.[16]

      Both Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Henry M. Morris (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. TalkOrigins Archive (TOA) states that “entire books of these quotes have been published” and lists prominent creationist Henry M. Morris’ That Their Words May Be Used Against Them and The Revised Quote Book (published by Creation Science Foundation, now AiG, and available from the AiG website)[17] as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.[18] Both AiG and ICR quote mine Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms.[19]

      This has been compared to the Christian theological method of prooftexting:

      Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation.
      —Radner and Radner, Science and Unreason, ISBN 0534011535

      [edit] Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms

      The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.

      — Stephen Jay Gould[19][20]

      The full context shows that Gould only states this argument in order to reject it:

      Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in [“The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change”]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.[20]

      Knowing that creationists are quoting him as if he were promoting this position, Gould responded with this scathing remark:

      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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.[21]

      [edit] “Absurd in the highest degree”

      Since the mid-1990s, scientists and their supporters have used the term quote mining to describe versions of this practice as used by certain creationists in the creation-evolution controversy.[10] An example found in debates over evolution is an out-of-context quotation of Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species:

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

      This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase “absurd in the highest degree”, is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself believed that natural selection could not fully account for the complexity of life.[22] However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.

      The quote in context is

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

      Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
      —Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

      Va. Did you read the above?

      Vb. Do you understand it?

      Vc. Do you still wish to contend that you had no idea what quote mining was, even though it has been the number one tactic used by your ilk for half a century?!

      “A) Regarding the Dawkins video: I have always used the term “hypothesis” with regards to his endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth suggestion. It should not be understood to mean that he has firmly concluded that it is the case.”

      This is a LIE. I will allow you to recover some credibility by fessing up and posting the evidence of it. Failure to do so will result in me going to the effort and you looking even less honest that you do already.

      VI. Quote yourself in this very exchange quite clearly putting the lie to your above claim.

      “I will let other readers view and read these links and then decide for themselves if I am lying. Does that sound like a fair deal? How you are going to make the case that I lied about this, when the evidence is right there in front of you, is beyond me.”

      Those other links are smoke screens, that’s why I continue to try to nail you down to just the Dawkins video Big Lie. And you’re going to make the case for me or look all the more the liar when I do it.

      REMINDER: IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY, ANSWER QUESTION III.

      “B) So you think that computing how a protein is folded is more complex than actually folding the protein? Did I get that right?”

      No, you got that entirely wrong. I ask again – did you read my explanation? What do you not understand?

      “Is computing how the space shuttle was made more complex than actually making a space shuttle? Any reasonable person can see that the reverse is true.”

      Did you choose a known designed item because you’re stupid or because you’re dishonest?

      “Are you going to take the stance that life isn’t really that complex after all? That would be a novel approach.”

      PROOF that you don’t even read my posts – You asked me this before – VERBATIM – and I already denied it!

      Now, I wonder why you cooked up the retarded Space Shuttle analogy instead of the perfectly analogous N-body problem, which was one of the other examples in the paper that the creatards were dishonestly misrepresenting AND THAT I USED AS WELL! It is, after all, a perfectly natural process that I don’t think even you would insist requires an omnipotent being to direct.

      VII. Explain what it is about the N-body problem analogy that you do not understand.

      “You say: the natural process that I “routinely characterize as random are decidedly not, nor is the associated False Dichotomy valid”. OK, you don’t think that the natural processes are random. I guess I assumed too much. What then guides these natural processes if it is not randomness and it is not higher intelligence? Please free me from the “false dichotomy” by citing what you feel is the option I have been missing. You invoke this “false dichotomy,” but then you don’t even mention what option I have been failing to consider. If it is not random processes or higher intelligence, then what is directing these natural processes? What Kyle? What? I am not saying that there cannot be a third option, I am just curious as to what you think it is.”

      I can safely conclude then that you’ve never had any exposure to any basic science – ever. This will make it difficult to explain to you since you can always use your ignorance to avoid understanding, but I’ll try anyway:

      The third possibility, besides random and intelligently directed, is by the laws of physic, you moron! Proteins would not fold randomly if gawd wasn’t deciding every move! Chemical elements and compounds don’t react randomly either! If they did, why would there be a field of study called “Chemistry”? There would be nothing to study!

      VIII. Do you understand this insanely obvious point? If not, what will it take to get through to you?

      Since your reading comprehension is so poor, let me tell you now that I already preempted your next predictable weasel maneuver – Skipping all the way back to the Big Bang in every case is a cop-out, a blatant admission that your “random processes” argument fails in every case, and a comical, knee-jerk reversion to the same lame argument to evade your failed arguments in each case.

      “Lastly, Kyle, I want you to again seriously consider the following question: How do you think it makes you look when you utilize so much angry rhetoric and so many insults? Does a person who has strong arguments need to resort to such tactics? In other words, if an argument is strong enough to stand up based upon its logical persuasiveness, then why would a person need to prop it up with verbose rhetoric and insults? Most people reading this will be smart enough to see through this.”

      I HAVE VERY STRONG ARGUMENTS. You prove it every time you evade them.

      Now, your next post should either include eight clearly identified answers that are actually responsive to my clearly identified eight questions or an apology for wasting my time and being a waste of flesh.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

        OK, Kyle, let’s make this really simple. Take a quote that I produced which you feel is “out of context” and re-insert it into what you feel is the correct context. As I have said to other commenters, suggesting that a quote is out of context without providing a convincing case for what you feel is the correct context is utterly meaningless.

        Let’s take the additional text of your Gould quote: “The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.” The key words here are “punctuations occur at the level of species” and “transitions within major groups.” This is the very definition of microevolution. To demonstrate macroevolution, one must demonstrate a gradual transition that is NOT “within major groups,” but rather a gradual transition from one group to another. “Punctuations occur(ing) at the level of species” is the precise opposite of one species gradually transforming into another.

        Did you really read this expanded Gould quote that you furnished? Please pay attention to the difference between furnishing greater context and merely furnishing additional text.

        Now let’s look at the additional Darwin text that you provided:

        “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”

        Well, who could argue with that? But the problem is, “numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor” have NOT BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST. If you review the video I link to about “what the fossil record REALLY shows,” you will see that all of the major phyla appeared suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, with no hint of ancestors, during the Cambrian period. Click here to review. The sudden emergence of ALL of the major phyla during the Cambrian in what amounts to a “blink of an eye” in geologic terms is not in dispute among paleontologists.

        Darwin admits the severe threat that the fossil record posed to his theory, but he hoped that further study of the fossil record would vindicate his theory. But, in fact, the opposite has occurred. The fossil record has made things MUCH WORSE for Darwin’s theory. Below are Darwin’s own words:

        “Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

        Regarding the Cambrian explosion of life, Darwin writes: “The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

        “The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

        Detail for us again what the “N-body program” is. Apparently I lost it somewhere in the huge volume of text that you produce which is comprised mostly of long winded, strident rhetoric and insults.

        You seem to keep going back to the accusation that I lied about the Dawkins / aliens video. If you want to think that I told some sort of lie, that is fine with me. But you just keep evading the important question: If atheism provides a more logical explanation for such things as the origin of life, then why do the most prominent atheist thinkers cite such absurd hypotheses as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis and the life-emerged-from-a-piggyback-ride-on-crystals hypothesis?

        OK, Kyle, is it the laws of physics that cause proteins to fold and life to form? Fine. How can an inanimate thing be made to follow a law? (Such as the laws of physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics). How can such a structure of laws (or “regularities” if you prefer) that govern the universe devoid of a conscious and intelligent source? Please note that this is a question that science can never answer because it is not a scientific question. Rather, it is an ontological question. The only road that an atheist can take to explain this is to cite one of the “just so” or “it just is” explanations that serve as the foundation for the atheist belief system. Atheism and “just so” storytelling go hand-in-hand.

        Regarding religious violence: Please refute Cavanaugh’s arguement:

        What would be necessary to prove the claim that religion has caused more violence than any other institutional force over the course of human history? One would first need a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of human history. …The problem is that there was no category of religion separable from such political institutions until the modern era, and then it was primarily in the West. What meaning could we give to either the claim that Roman religion is to blame for the imperialist violence of ancient Rome, or the claim that it is Roman politics and not Roman religion that is to blame? Either claim would be nonsensical, because there was no neat division between religion and politics.

        It is not simply that religion and politics were jumbled together until the modern West got them properly sorted out. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed in his landmark book, The Meaning and End of Religion, religion as a discrete category of human activity separable from culture, politics, and other areas of life is an invention of the modern West.

        Cavanaugh is saying that “religion” as a separate category only exists in people’s heads, not in reality. You have done nothing to furnish “a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of human history.” How has Danno refuted this? Please keep in mind that religious scholars have been completely unable to come up with anything close to an agreed upon definition of “religion.” If “religion” cannot be defined, how can it be cited to induce violence? Don’t you get it? Please read this post to grasp the difficulty with defining religion.

        Please lay down for me, in concise language (without long winded rhetoric) exactly what arguments I have evaded.

        Your understanding of “argument from authority” is completely flawed. A statement that commits this logical fallacy would be something to the effect of “such and such is true because so and so says so.” But at no point do I do this. In my Is There A God? What is the Chance That Our World is the Result of Chance? essay, for example, I cite numerous experts regarding the anthropic fine tuning data. But I also cite many examples of the values that are subject to this fine tuning. A statement to the effect of “so and so expert believes such and such for such and such reasons” is not committing the logical fallacy of “argument from authority”. You seem to think that merely citing an authority is committing the logical fallacy of “argument from authority.” This is a bizarre stance.

        Take the following statement: “The Surgeon General declares that smoking is hazardous to your health.” Does this statement commit the logical fallacy of “argument from authority” because it cites an authority? If one argued that the statement is true only because the Surgeon General said so, then one would be committing the logical fallacy of “argument from authority.” But if one merely cited the scientifically demonstrated link between smoking and several diseases, one would clearly not be committing such a logical fallacy.

        You STILL evade my essay titled Is there A God? What is the Chance That Our World is the Result of Chance? I am guessing that this is about the 4th time I have asked you to engage this essay with some sort of rebuttal. You seem very hesitant to do so? Why do you suppose this is?

        Yes, I intend to limit my responses to your comments to one a day.


    3. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      Kyle says:

      Scott the Liar,

      First, let’s take a moment to reflect on the lives lost and families torn apart ten years ago today. We can do nothing more productive in this regard than to shed the light of understanding on how such things can happen; thereby perchance reducing the potential of future slaughter by some tiny increment, be it on such a large scale or small, as well as the countless lesser related injustices and dangers.

      On this, the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, let us all remember that they, like the Inquisition, Crusades, centuries of witch burnings, slavery, the intimidation, house arrest, and censoring of Galileo, the torture and execution of Bruno, the millions of unnecessary HIV deaths in sub-Saharan Africa, etc., were made possible and sanctioned by irrational faith. Except for true psychopaths, which no one even suggests the hijackers were, all humans possess strong, evolved moral instincts against such behavior. This is confirmed by large bodies of scientific research in humans, other primates, other mammals, and non-mammal social species.

      One can conceive of no argument that would convince atheists to similarly commit suicide in order to kill thousands of randomly chosen individuals. There is real truth in the old adage, paraphrased as:

      “Bad people are prone to doing bad things. Good people are prone to doing good things. It’s a trivial matter to get bad people to do good things. To get good people to do truly bad things requires religion.”

      It is not a trivial matter to get good people to do truly horrible things. This requires invoking the evolved “in group vs. out group” distinction that negates the evolved moral instincts that otherwise apply. This is likewise confirmed by large bodies of scientific research in humans, other primates, other mammals, and non-mammal social species. Anyone with a true desire to learn and a desire for truth, rather than merely supporting their dogma at all costs, may Google “kinship selection” to gain some understanding of the evolutionary psychology involved.

      One of the most powerful drivers behind the phenomena of religion is its effectiveness in simultaneously drawing a stark “in group vs. out group” distinction and rationalizing irrational decisions and actions based upon that distinction. Divine command theory makes any belief or action attributable to one’s chosen man in the sky intrinsically good.

      Scott Youngren cannot logically or rationally find fault with the beliefs and actions of the 9/11 hijackers other than that they either prayed to the wrong man in the sky or accepted mistaken interpretations of dogma concerning their man in the sky. Scott cannot logically or rationally find fault with the manner in which they reached their decisions – via faith and dogma – without being plainly hypocritical. Scott cannot logically or rationally find fault with their morality – objectively derived, as theists like to claim, from supernatural authority – without being plainly hypocritical. His only out is to declare his faith-based worldview valid and theirs invalid and he can only do so on faith-based grounds. He will deny this, of course, because the alternative is to admit to both the irrationality and the dangers of faith and faith-based worldviews and Scott is all about justifying his beliefs, not open inquiry.

      In memory of 9/11, I ask everyone to please strive daily to be rational in ALL things, not all things except when religious dogma interferes, and to cease being intimidated into giving faith an undeserved pass. Now moving on:

      “I will not let you hide behind the excuse of me not responding to arguments that you have presented.”

      GASP! Egad, the brazenness! You’re ability to post this kind of thing over and over is jawdroppingly brazen. Thanks again for doing my job for me, i.e., demonstrating the total reliance of apologetics, and especially creationism, on dishonest means of discourse.

      “Tell me which one of your replies today you want me to respond to. The others will be deleted. I am giving the choice to you. Right now it is 8:30 am where I am in Chicago. If you have not chosen by this time tomorrow, I will make the choice for you.”

      It seems that the wielding of gawd-like powers is a deeply engrained concept in your worldview. Unless anyone should fail to see the obvious, let me point it out – You are hoping that since it’s the weekend and that I may be getting discouraged by your censorship and intractable stonewalling, I might miss your, no doubt gawd-given, deadline. I will not be cowed this way.

      I also reserve the right to skip a day or more to suit my schedule without you declaring victory and/or deleting further evidence of your inability to defend your arguments. I have other demands, however, unlike your arbitrary and essentially dishonest ones; mine are all rational and defensible:

      1) If I am limited to a single response per day on said topic, then you should be also. Failure to comply will be a de facto admission of defeat and just another example in a long line of your intellectual dishonesty. It will be treated as such.

      2) Any use of the Big Lies that I will list later will be de facto concessions, whether you admit it or not, and will be treated as such. You have not only lost the debate here on these Big Lies (or conceded them by refusal to engage on them honestly), they were exposed many times and long ago, not to mention that they were prima facie lies before the first creatard used them. Don’t like that condition? Well I don’t like many of the conditions you’ve been imposing from the get-go either, but there’s a difference. As with all of mine, I impose this one – invalidating repetitions of transparent lies that you are too dishonest to acknowledge – in the interest of furthering the discussion rather than shutting it down.

      3) Argument by Quotation, whether blatant quote mining or more subtle, is still not a valid argument, though the unsupportable creatard position is so reliant upon this logical fallacy that they will never admit it. Whether you admit it or not, invoking it will be a de facto concession and will be treated as such. As an example, if you choose to continue any of the herein enumerated Big Lies instead of honest engagement, your concession will be a compound concession if you argue for the validity of the Big Lie by means of quotes that reference it.

      4) All diversionary tactics are disallowed. In your blog, you constantly jump willy-nilly among your short list of arguments instead of honestly engaging rebuttals to any one of them. I won’t declare it a concession if you do, though I should, but I will point out such childishness and reiterate my refusal to take the bait in such a sophomoric trap.

      What to discuss? Well, I don’t see the initial posts wherein I rebutted many of your mistakes; those you have studiously ignored while flailing to change the subject and otherwise dissembling. I should not have to recreate them and I won’t, so you win on most by means of maximum intellectual dishonesty. Your thirst for truth must make your gawd so proud of you.

      I’ll list a couple of topics, perhaps censored and gone, or perhaps not, and let you pick the one that we’ll discuss, in the likely vain hope of shaming you into remaining on topic when you inevitably try to evade it. (Likely by your all-purpose invocation of the problem of first cause, aka The Ultimate Argument from Ignorance, aka The Ultimate False Dichotomy, aka The Weakest, Most Desperate “Proof of God’ Ever, aka the effective admission that all other apologetic arguments, from which you incessantly launch this evasion, must not be much better.)

      Your choice. Shall we discuss:

      A) Your brazen, breathtaking inanity and willful ignorance, for which you’re willing to appear retarded, regarding the Big Lie that the Dawkins video is properly interpreted as Dawkins believing that aliens seeded life on Earth.

      So far, you have simply repeated the Big Lie several times while evading all my attempts to get you to deal with the crystal clear context and my multiple explanations of it. See condition #3 above. Further use of the Big Lie technique without engaging honestly will be a concession. Making me first repeat my argument from scratch yet again will be allowed, but the inevitable conclusion that you’re stalling and incapable of honest engagement would discourage most sane people from doing so.

      B) The Big Lie that the difficulty of computing how a large protein will fold according to the laws of physics is equivalent to the difficulty of it actually folding according to the laws of physics. Also, the associated Big Lie that actual scientists discussing the difficulty of said computation are actually discussing the difficulty of the actual occurrence of said folding, absent supernatural intervention, of course.

      As of this time, you have only repeated this Big Lie in the course of posts to others and have ignored, and possibly censored, my clear explanation of the desperate, dead obvious, fallacious, bait-n-switch nature of this Big Lie. In my response, I went directly to the primary source – the paper which the creatards were wholly misinterpreting – and explained the nature of the Big Lie both in terms of protein folding and by analogy in terms of one of the paper’s other examples OF ITS ACTUAL THESIS IN ITS ACTUAL FIELD. It’s quite predictable that you would, being a typical creatard, repeat the Big Lie in the absence of addressing the explanations just as with the Dawkins video, so I am preemptively invoking precisely the same condition – Further use of the Big Lie technique without engaging my rebuttal honestly will be a concession.

      Two additional Big Lies, both used incessantly, can be predicted to be used in the context of this topic and any further use of these Big Lies to avoid engaging honestly will also be a concession – The natural processes that you routinely characterize as random are decidedly not, nor is the associated False Dichotomy valid. At this point, it is a metaphysical impossibility that you do not know that you are being deceptive when you repeat these errors, therefore:

      • Any statement that effectively repeats your deliberate Big Lie False Dichotomy between “the result of “random processes” or necessarily “intelligently directed”” will be a concession.

      • Likewise, using near infinite regression, as you have done many times, to evade any given topic at hand by asserting this same dichotomy in regards to the ultimate first cause in the universe, is STILL a false dichotomy. You simply arbitrarily define terms and assign attributes on unfounded philosophical assertions, precisely as William Lane Craig does and has for many years. (Shockingly (not), he never addresses the rebuttals and repeats the arguments as if the rebuttals did not exist. Another fine example of the kind of “reasoning” and “truth-seeking” that this world can no longer allow a free pass.) In addition, this particular usage of this Big Lie is a most obvious evasion of the topic at hand, displays a knee-jerk reliance on a single, very weak argument, and is therefore a concession on multiple grounds.

      • Any statement that effectively repeats your deliberate Big Lie that the mechanisms of biological evolution, the hypothesized mechanisms relating to abiogenesis, the mechanisms at work in protein folding, or any other OBVIOUSLY non-random process, are in fact random, will be a concession.

      Should you choose to concede by ignoring or objecting to any ONE of my conditions – and only ONE will be considered at any ONE time – BESIDES CONCEDING YOUR CHOSEN ARGUMENT, you will have also instantaneously changed the subject of our exchange ENTIRELY to the ONE and only ONE dishonest tactic, invalid argument, or Big Lie that you chose to employ or whose rejection you refuse to accept.

      This totally invalidates your near-certain objections that I am unjustifiably rejecting your dishonesty and sophistry. To the contrary, you will have the opportunity to debate the validity of the tactic of your choosing and to do so with all diversionary tactics disallowed. I predict that you will go this route, though I can only guess which dishonest tactic/sophistic argument you will choose to defend rather than engage honestly on the topic you choose.

      The above process is sure to be very long and very trying, though it would be a cinch if you were rational and intellectually honest. There’s another, easier, and quicker step that you could take toward refuting the pathological nature of, and the dangers associated with, the theistic mind:

      C) Alternatively, it would be an interesting test of your religiously-based mental pathologies to see if you can allow even the slightest crack in the bulwark of dogmatic denialism and thereby show some evidence that your purpose is truth rather than winning by any means. If you were arguing from the standpoint of positions arrived at by evidence and logic, it would be a trivial matter for you to admit to ONE error of yours; ONE that I identified; just ONE admission that a rebuttal was correct. It could be ONE admission of factual error, ONE admission of obfuscation, ONE admission of evasion, ONE admission of Argument by Quotation, ONE admission of dishonest quote mining, ONE admission of an argument based upon a logical fallacy such as a non sequitur conclusion, an Argument by Bare Assertion, a false Dichotomy, a bait-n-switch, etc. A trivial admission of error would be obvious deception; the error must be in the context of conceding that your argument failed because of it.

      You are free to make said admission regarding any rebuttal I have made, be it still on your blog or one that you censored. Just ONE. If you should actually take this route, I further predict that you will only do so if you can find an error that does not, by extension, reveal that the entire professional creatard science-denial community is in error as well. That would be unthinkable.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

        Kyle,

        Since you did not pick a comment-of-the-day for me to respond to, as I requested, I have deleted your other comments for today. Since this is your latest one, it is the one I will respond to. The one comment per day rule stands. I would not have to do this if you subtracted the angry rhetoric and insults…. and just provided some sort of argument.

        Regarding your connection of religion with violence, you have still not responded to my essay entitled “Doesn’t religion cause killing?,” in the snippets section. You can also click on the preceding link that I created for you.

        Argument by quotation? Really?! How, other than by quotations, does one communicate an individuals views? Secondly, at no point do I make any statement resembling “such and such is true because such and such expert says it is.” Rather, I provide the reasons why such and such expert has come to such and such conclusion. For example, in the “Is there a God? What is the chance that our world is a result of chance?” essay, several of the specific values subject to anthropic fine tuning are cited. I do not merely say, “such and such expert says that the universe was finely tuned, therefore it must be.”

        Citing “quote mining” (whatever this means) and “argument from quotation” is what one resorts to when one is not able to respond to certain quotes or facts that conflict with their worldview. It is a way to HIDE from the quotations rather than engage with them. This is utterly transparent. For the record, what exactly does quote mining mean? Does it mean, “selecting quotes that bring the atheist worldview into doubt”? Does it mean that I have taken a quote out of context? If so, then please tell us what you feel is the greater context. I would love to hear. Saying that something was taken out of context without providing a convincing case for what you feel is the correct context is utterly meaningless.

        A) Regarding the Dawkins video: I have always used the term “hypothesis” with regards to his endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth suggestion. It should not be understood to mean that he has firmly concluded that it is the case. But it certainly does mean that he (and other prominent atheists such as Francis Crick) really do take the idea seriously. Here again are the links to the Dawkins / aliens video and the article which discusses Crick’s endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth hypothesis (known as “directed panspermia”) in his book Life Itself. And there are other prominent atheist besides Dawkins and Crick who endorse the idea…. as I mentioned before. I will let other readers view and read these links and then decide for themselves if I am lying. Does that sound like a fair deal? How you are going to make the case that I lied about this, when the evidence is right there in front of you, is beyond me.

        B) So you think that computing how a protein is folded is more complex than actually folding the protein? Did I get that right? Is computing how the space shuttle was made more complex than actually making a space shuttle? Any reasonable person can see that the reverse is true. Are you going to take the stance that life isn’t really that complex after all? That would be a novel approach.

        You say: the natural process that I “routinely characterize as random are decidedly not, nor is the associated False Dichotomy valid”. OK, you don’t think that the natural processes are random. I guess I assumed too much. What then guides these natural processes if it is not randomness and it is not higher intelligence? Please free me from the “false dichotomy” by citing what you feel is the option I have been missing. You invoke this “false dichotomy,” but then you don’t even mention what option I have been failing to consider. If it is not random processes or higher intelligence, then what is directing these natural processes? What Kyle? What? I am not saying that there cannot be a third option, I am just curious as to what you think it is.

        Lastly, Kyle, I want you to again seriously consider the following question: How do you think it makes you look when you utilize so much angry rhetoric and so many insults? Does a person who has strong arguments need to resort to such tactics? In other words, if an argument is strong enough to stand up based upon its logical persuasiveness, then why would a person need to prop it up with verbose rhetoric and insults? Most people reading this will be smart enough to see through this.


  8. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Kyle says:

    Scott,

    For some reason (maybe your doing?), there is no reply button to your 5:35PM response to me. This will not prevent me from responding:

    “And again, Kyle, your use of strident rhetoric and insults instead of cool rational language absolutely betrays the fact your worldview is threatened.”

    It is very rational, though you’ll never admit it. So what if it’s strident, at least my conclusions are rationally supported. And the stridency is way overdue. My “worldview” is not threatened by your irrationality, my WORLD is!

    “Under no circumstances does an informed God-believing person think that we should cease rational inquiry and just say “God did it” when a more detailed understanding of how God did it can be determined.”

    1) They effectively do so all the time; you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. If you disagree . . .
    2) . . . please point me to the vast volumes of scientific research into gawd’s mechanisms. That’s a trick question; there is not only no real ID research, there is no scientific research into any other aspect of religion . . .
    3) . . . except for the anthropology, neuropsychology, neurology, etc. that clearly shows that religion is a purely natural phenomenon.
    4) Your theistic assumptions are showing. What justifies investigating gawd’s mechanisms without evidence that goddidit?
    5) Or that gawd exists?
    6) Or that anything supernatural ever existed or occurred?

    “You are persistently confusing two concepts:”

    Your theist assumptions are showing again. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that the first question must invoke an ultimate cause and neither does science. Many, including some scientists, do explicitly or implicitly state that the second question necessarily invokes an ultimate cause, but you yourself have discussed the multi-verse concept, which does not – unless you invoke one of those obtuse evidence-free exercises in mental masturbation like the BVG theorem.

    The third question reveals even more about your theistic assumptions than the first as the data is infinitely greater. Our only examples of consciousness are all associated with physical brains, i.e., matter whereas we know conclusively that brains can exist without consciousness and that material damage to the physical matter correlates to impairment or loss of consciousness. The impairment or loss is caused by the damage, not the inverse. We know in ever increasing detail the functions of the various bits of neural circuitry. I find it fascinating that Jeff Hawkins, in the book “On Intelligence”, appears to have sketched out the universal hardwired algorithm of the neocortex and functionally defined cognition and consciousness by extension. There is no more reason to think that consciousness is “more fundamental” than matter than there is to think that orange juice is more fundamental than oranges.

    “Because atheists disbelieve in a conscious creator behing everything, but instead believe in randomness and inert matter as the most fundamental plane of reality, they persistently invoke “no-God-of the-gaps” or “random-processes-of-the-gaps” assumptions.”

    You are over-using the tired IDiot ploy of defining “not gawd” as “randomness.

    “ In other words, it is necessarily the case that a person’s beliefs about ultimate causes directs his or her assumptions about unexplained intermediate causes. A perfect example of a “random-processes-of-the-gaps” explanation exists in the Richard Dawkins / aliens video that I linked you to.”

    Ignoring for the moment your apparent continued complete misrepresentation of Dawkin’s position, let me see if I understand your theistic assumptions correctly. Are you saying that since Dawkins hypothesized that any alien life would likely have arisen by natural processes (as it likely did on Earth), he is just as blinded by BELIEF as you are for “hypothesizing” (sic) that it arose by magic because we lack knowledge and you are incredulous? Do you not see that all “god-o-the-gaps” arguments are both variations on Arguments from Incredulity as well as variations on Arguments from Ignorance and variations on False Dichotomies? Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean it can never be known. Your inability to conceive of something happening is not evidence that it cannot happen. “It’s a miracle” is not only not the sole valid alternative to “We don’t know”, it is the least valid of all.

    “Another great example of a “no-God-of-the-gaps” explanation would be the prominent atheist philosopher Bertand Russell’s statement that the universe is “a brute fact.” By declaring the universe to be a “brute fact,” Russell is basically urging us to cease rational inquiry and assume that the universe “just is” and that it has existed eternally.”

    Is that his explanation of what he meant, sourced from “Quote Mine Central”, or your own personal attempt at Argument by (Misleading) Quote?

    “But, as I demonstrate in my post entitled “Isn’t the universe eternal? (Thus doing away with the need for a creator) [found in the “snippets” section],” the laws of mathematics and physics clearly demonstrate that the universe in NOT eternal.”

    I understand now! Therefore – an eternal, omnipotent being (for which no other evidence exists whatsoever), possessing infinite supernatural abilities (although nothing supernatural whatsoever has ever been observed). What could be more logical than that?

    “So the question we need to focus on if we are to keep this discussion about the theism / atheism debate is: What does logic suggest is the best explanation for ultimate causes?”

    All “Arguments from Best Explanation” are both bogus and embarrassing to your cause! All they do is open the door to an infinity of contorted “proofs”, replete with unfounded and even unstated premises, tangled logic, etc. that could “prove” anything. Aren’t you at all embarrassed by these convoluted mash-ups of QM, philosophy, theoretical cosmology, etc. that read like Prof. Irwin Corey’s version of a medieval argument about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? If such evidence-free arguments are your best ones, you should just concede and abandon your blog.

    “Are the ultimate causes intelligent, or unintelligent and random?”

    False dichotomy . . . again.

    “Is matter more fundamental or is consciousness?”

    All EVIDENCE says “matter”. You have no EVIDENCE for the inverse whatsoever.

    “Well, to start with, when modern physics declares that consciousness is more fundamental than matter, those supporting mindless/material explanations have a lot of explaining to do. To this end, I will rehash some quotes:”

    1) Plank and Einstein represent “modern physics”?
    2) If you must insist upon the fallacious Argument by Quotation, would you please provide the statistics on the relative numbers of world-class physicists that declare that consciousness is more fundamental than matter and those that declare that matter is more fundamental than consciousness? You can’t? Then shut the eff up, moron.

    “Did you get that last quote Kyle?”

    Did you get mine?

    “With regards to evolution Kyle, yes, microevolution has been very conclusively demonstrated. But macroevolution is nothing but an extrapolation of microevolution that has not been supported by the fossil record.”

    That is a bald-faced lie. Since you claim that the two differ such that one “has been very conclusively demonstrated” while the other “has not been supported by the fossil record” (as if the evidence were limited to the fossil record!):
    1) Please provide your operating definition of the difference(s) between micro and macro evolution.
    2) Please explain how the mechanisms differ.
    3) Please explain how one distinguishes between them.
    4) Please explain what constraint(s) prevents micro + micro + micro + micro from = macro.
    5) Please provide evidence for this constraint. (And no, cribbed BS, IDiot, pseudoscientific, pseudo-philosophical word salad =/= evidence.)

    “If you review my discussions with the commenter named Nick, you will see that we are in a tit-for-tat about macroevolution, which is a discussion about intermediate causes and is therefore not relevant to the theism vs. atheism debate.”

    Tit-for-tat seems to imply that you and Nick are in a dead heat. You wish. You neglect that that discussion would have definitely been considered about ultimate causes, like damn near everything else, when your mythologies were being hashed together or even 200 YA, which was the point I was making earlier that went cleanly over your head.

    What’s relevant here is irrationality, more specifically, yours since this is your blog. If your variety of irrational thoughts were unrelated, then my remarks would not be relevant, but my entire point is that they are intimately related. Sky daddy beliefs correlate to belief in conspiracy theories, several varieties of science denial, and magical thinking in general. Irrationality conditions you to accept or even produce more irrationality. Irrationality has always made the world a worse place, but we are at a point where it is too dangerous to allow it to go on uncontested.


  9. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Rich P. says:

    I use the existence of Geese (though there are also other things like DNA to think about), as proof there is a God. I am NO super brained person, but still I can not fathom how all that is known about Geese and how they migrate, that it could occur from chance, or years of Geese practicing to get things right. How Geese fly in a V formation, at an altitude, rotating, where they are going, when they go, etc. What, did they brake out some books, picked the right letter of the alphabet, checked the weather on TV, one of them happened to have a compass and a map, and they all agreed to keep doing it each year thereafter.


  10. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Jake says:

    You had me going for a little while, but the truth has came to light EINSTEIN WAS AN ATHEIST. Yes he was born into a Jewish family but actually this is a great case of nicks “I hate pizza” argument. Enstien uses the word religion with a different meaning after religious folk set about using the heavy weight scientist, well like propaganda. he wrote a article to clear any confusion that he believed in god. Sources http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=einstein+and+god&aq=4s&oq=einsten+and but more profound and recently http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/05/was-einstein-religious.html or perhaps a quote “Why do you write to me “God should punish the English”? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      So you are going to continue believing that Einstein was an atheist despite the fact that he made the following categorical statements?:

      “I am not an atheist” and “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214

      Jake, that is called believing in something in spite of the facts rather than because of them.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Kyle says:

        I find it quite revealing that you ignored Jake’s links entirely while expressing bewilderment that everyone doesn’t agree with you. Very telling indeed.

        Albert Einstein’s religious views have usually been expressed in subtleties and with rhetorical flourishes and idiosyncratic use of language, but anyone truly interested in his actual positions could have easily and unambiguously determined them 70 yrs ago.

        He only rejected the term “atheist” because he seemingly associated it with only strong atheism and did not want to be associated with the (still rampant, as Scott proves) negatives falsely attributed to atheists and his inexplicable belief that atheism denies a sense of wonder.

        He absolutely and repeatedly denied any belief in a personal god and was generally disgusted by religions. His god was “Spinoza’s god”. From Wikipedia’s Spinoza entry – “Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word “God” [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. “Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law….” Thus, Spinoza’s cool, indifferent God is the antithesis to the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.”

        Anyone dispassionately interested in the truth about Einstein’s religious beliefs has no reason whatsoever to be misinformed on the matter. In almost anyone’s modern usage of terms, Einstein was certainly not a theist, or even a deist. Ten minutes on the internet, assuming you have the sense to avoid the sites of the clearly biased, is enough for anyone to conclude that if the choice is between agnostic and atheist, atheist fits far better, your quote notwithstanding.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Kyle, you are using Wikipedia again. You will have to find a source much more reputable than that. Click on this article again about the unreliability of Wikipedia.

          No, Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he very definitely did believe in God. Otherwise he would not have said things such as “I am not an atheist.” And ““In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”


  11. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Jake says:

    okay your first link is worthless not knowing the questions asked perhaps a majority were not sure. Look im a science student im say that you have not put evidence forward by definition, scientist x says.. that’s opinion. “the majority of the most important contributors to modern physics believe in god” wait that’s no really true, I care not for the philosophy of the scientists but there findings. ENOUGH QUOTES anybody can cherry pick a life time of speeches to back there own side. Who believes in god shouldn’t be considered when assessing the likelihood of his existence its bad practice you have to go with the evidence. In case anybody reading believes that science leads to theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    And your arguing that biology as faculty that has been responsible for countless life changing break threws, cured 1000s of diseases, is wrong.. You mistake the fact that biology is too complex to simply calculate for it being materialistic.

    Evolution is not a theory anymore its proven fact thanks to DNA, complete fossil records which i thought you would have known are carbonated amongst other more accurate dating methods into order, look at the gradual evolution of the horse. Evolution is taught in school because its no longer theory.

    Yes wrong link, i was looking at both sides as You Should.

    My logical reason for not believing in god, there is no hard evidence only opinion. You may argue there is no evidence against god however i cannot believe in something that is not backed up, otherwise perhaps father Christmas is real or my finger holds the world together. Our beginnings dawning from Alien life has never been my argument im afraid.

    “The universe is about 15 billion years old as viewed from earth, but it is only six days old as viewed from the position of an observer at the locus of the Big Bang. Hence, the biblical six days of creation.” okay first off how do we know this calculation is correct its just a prediction nobody has been to the locus of the big bang however ill presume its correct. the second day the god made the earth so thats 2/6’s in 2/6s of 15 mill is 5million so therefore 15 mill minus 5 mill means the world would be 10 million years old which is wrong SO dissproven. Anyway the universe stoped been created along time ao so its out anyway


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      No, Jake, it is not a matter of “scientist X says such and such, and therefore such and such must be true.” Rather, these scientists (as presented in my “What it all boils down to” essay) believe in God because they have determined that consciousness is most fundamental, not matter. If you were to watch the video of the double slit experiment, you would get a glimpse of the research that has led these scientists to this conclusion.

      As I said before, one must examine why a particular scientist draws a particular conclusion so as to determine whether that conclusion is based upon logic or upon ideology.

      We can be certain that the atheistic conclusions arrived at by many biologists are based upon ideology and not logic. Why can we be certain? Because if they had a logically sound explanation for the origin of life, they wouldn’t need to resort to profoundly ridiculous explanations such as “aliens brought it here.” Do you suppose that they have any evidence that aliens brought life here? No, of course not. So it is perfectly transparent that no biologist has any logically based biological reason for disbelief in God.

      But the physicists in my “What It All Boils Down To” essay DO have a logical reason for belief in God (as I describe above). Further, many physicists such as Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington came to theistic conclusions despite admitting to be ideologically opposed to theism. In fact, Einstein admitted that the biggest mistake of his career was when he introduced a sort of “fudge factor” into his equations so as to avoid the inescapable conclusion that the universe had a beginning and therefore requires a Beginner.

      You assert that, “My logical reason for not believing in god is that there is no hard evidence only opinion.” ONCE AGAIN, you have displayed the common tendency that I have often observed among atheist commenters to this site: You assert that “there is no evidence” while simultaneously ignoring the evidence that I present to you. Start off by responding to the “anthropic fine tuning” evidence as presented in my “Is there a God?” essay.

      Many atheist commenters to this site (such as yourself) seem to think that if you assert something often enough or forcefully enough, it will become true. If you just keep repeating “there is no evidence” while simultaneously ignoring the evidence presented, then the evidence will go away. It is like believing that if I keep repeating “the earth is flat” often enough and loud enough, the earth will become flat.

      So, I will ask you again, what is your reply to the anthropic fine tuning evidence? WHAT IS YOUR REPLY?! WHAT IS IT? Stop evading the question being asked of you.

      Judging from your last paragraph, I seriously doubt that you watched the videos or read the essay by MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder. You are not grasping what Einstein taught about time dilation. Please review the video I provided a link to. Time movers faster or slower based upon the velocity and gravity of the observer.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Jake says:

        Mass can be created from energy without god this proves there is a godless natural mechanism for creating matter, and can and did form the universe


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          OK Jake, where did the energy come from? Where did the natural mechanism come from? The atheist belief system relies on “it just is” or “just so” leaps-of-faith. Therefore, an atheists only possible reply to the questions I have just asked you are to either A) make an “it just is” statement such as “energy and natural mechanisms just are” or B) Delay answering the question by referencing something else such as “energy came from a quantum vacuum fluctuation.”

          If the atheist answers A), the question immediately becomes, “How can it be that energy just is?” The only feasible reply is that the atheist is making a leap-of-faith.

          If the atheist answers B), the question immediately becomes, “where did the quantum vacuum fluctuation (or whatever) come from?”


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Kyle says:

            OK Scott, to your questions regarding where the energy came from, how it “just is”, or where quantum fluctuations come from – what’s wrong with the answer, “We don’t know”, especially to questions regarding the earliest beginnings of the universe? To a rationalist, there’s nothing at all wrong with it. It’s the only answer that leads to further inquiry. (Which is a good thing for all but medieval-minded faith-heads) In fact, it is irrational to claim certainty when nothing close to it is available.

            However, humans being irrational, it is common as dirt for people to choose to believe – even rabidly – wholly unsupported conclusions. See any religion, supernatural belief, or loopy conspiracy theory as an example.

            Your above post is a classic, unapologetic (or unwitting), and utterly fallacious “god-o-the-gaps” argument. 100% of it, in fact. It is also the weakest version of it, which I note that creatards of all stripes are using more and more. When you loons fall back on a gap that occurred in the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe 13.73 BYA, and often use it as the opening volley in a debate of anything related to biological evolution, I laugh out load at the lengths the human mind will go to maintain irrational beliefs.

            It is grossly irrational to criticize the “atheist belief system” (sic) for relying on “it just is” or “just so” leaps-of-faith, while you invoke for the zillionth time the hilariously obvious false dichotomy that we either know all the answers with certainty or your particular version of the omnipotent invisible sky fairy just HAS to be the answer.

            Who’s making the leaps of faith here?

            We all know you’re far too deluded and/or dishonest to engage productively on any of these matters, so I do so primarily for the potential 3rd party who might be swayed by your propagandizing for irrationality. However, I hate to give up on anyone, so I’m reaching out to help you. I recommend that you do the following quietly and just for yourself.

            Imagine life in an ancient civilization. Contemplate all of the things that were not known. Think of all of the blanks that were likely (or are known) to have been filled in by “goddidit” or some other supernatural explanation. We know from study of history and primitive cultures that nearly every phenomena but the most mundane and obvious was routinely explained in just this way.

            Now consider all of the gaps that got filled in over the centuries; the rate increasing exponentially. In the past, you wouldn’t have ever heard of a big bang or quantum fluctuation, so you would be making the exact same (astoundingly fallacious) argument as you did here, except the questions might have been, depending upon the date:

            “OK Jake, where does the rain come from?”

            “OK Jake, why did lightening strike our village?”

            “OK Jake, why did uncle Grog get sick and die?”

            “OK Jake, why don’t the stars fall from the sky?”

            “OK Jake, where did those giant bones come from?”

            “OK Jake, how do the characteristics of parents carry over to offspring?”

            “OK Jake, how does a small cow plus grass make a big cow?”

            “OK Jake, how does fire make wood disappear?”

            “OK Jake, why do the planets follow predictable paths?”

            “OK Jake, why did the volcano erupt?”

            You get the idea. You know very well that something akin to “goddidit” was the default position for virtually everything. There was resistance to some, but most of these claims were abandoned quickly when the answers were found. Not once have non-magical explanations been abandoned because of evidence for the supernatural. Do you not feel the least bit stupid for grasping at the same fallacious “if we don’t know, it’s magic” conclusion after rational inquiry’s perfect record?

            The existence of the universe isn’t the only unresolved issue in science. We also don’t know how gravity exerts forces across distance. We don’t know why the spin of galaxies and the expansion rate of the universe are as they are, though we hypothesize types of matter and energy that might account for them.

            You clearly ascribe the “1st cause” in our universe to sky daddy, adamantly enough to ridicule anyone who doesn’t see the “logic” of it (snicker). Would you just as vociferously claim that the man in the sky pushes everything toward everything else with a force based upon its mass and the inverse square of the distance? Including 5 times more invisible matter than the visible? Or is there no dark matter and he’s just pushing arbitrarily harder here and there? All the while pushing them all away from each other on larger scales?

            If your answer is, “No”, then why not? Is it because they’re simply too blatant “god of the gaps” arguments, whereas it seems somehow less obvious when discussing “1st cause”?

            If so, refer back to my (one would think unnecessary) explanations of both the 100% failure rate and the grossly illogical false dichotomy of all such arguments.

            Then there’s evolution, whose fundamental facts are fully, coherently, and mutually supported by trillions of data points across a dozen scientific fields of study, an understanding of which underlies a large body of fruitful scientific advancement in every one of them. It’s at the opposite end of the spectrum from “We don’t know”. All we don’t know are inevitable (and in no way threatening) gaps in the historical record of how it all came down and the finer details of some of its mechanisms.

            That it happened, happens, and is the source of biological diversity is as established a fact as the proportionality of gravity to the product of the masses and the inverse square of the distance. And we know infinitely more about the mechanisms, too. Yet you don’t see gravity denialism. Why is that?

            Isn’t it true that you attack the fact of evolution with all your being and every deluded and deceptive tactic at hand while ignoring the mysterious matter of gravity (and expansion, etc.) because the buybull doesn’t have a couple of chapters that can be interpreted as gawd perpetually pushing everything together? Yet you recently leveled a baseless charge of blind faith in a priori conclusions towards me!

            Think about it, Scott. You might want to take a page from St. Francis of Assisi and devote a little less of your life to lying for Jebus and associating xtianity with reality denial.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              And again, Kyle, your use of strident rhetoric and insults instead of cool rational language absolutely betrays the fact your worldview is threatened .

              Under no circumstances does an informed God-believing person think that we should cease rational inquiry and just say “God did it” when a more detailed understanding of how God did it can be determined. You are persistently confusing two concepts: Intermediate causes and ultimate causes. Questions such as “why did the volcano erupt?” and “where does rain come from?” are questions that can be answered by citing intermediate causes. The specific intermediate causes in these cases would be the release of pressure in a magma chamber and the condensation of cloud vapor, respectively. Both theists and atheists would agree on these intermediate causes.

              Theists and atheists only come to disagreement when it comes to ultimate causes. Ultimate causes are invoked in such questions as “How did life originate?” and “What is the cause of the universe?” and “What is more fundamental, mater or consciousness?”

              Because atheists disbelieve in a conscious creator behing everything, but instead believe in randomness and inert matter as the most fundamental plane of reality, they persistently invoke “no-God-of the-gaps” or “random-processes-of-the-gaps” assumptions. In other words, it is necessarily the case that a person’s beliefs about ultimate causes directs his or her assumptions about unexplained intermediate causes. A perfect example of a “random-processes-of-the-gaps” explanation exists in the Richard Dawkins / aliens video that I linked you to. Where does Dawkins suppose the aliens came from? Answer: “Some sort of Darwinian process.” (If I didn’t get his words exactly, I am at least very close).

              Another great example of a “no-God-of-the-gaps” explanation would be the prominent atheist philosopher Bertand Russell’s statement that the universe is “a brute fact.” By declaring the universe to be a “brute fact,” Russell is basically urging us to cease rational inquiry and assume that the universe “just is” and that it has existed eternally. But, as I demonstrate in my post entitled “Isn’t the universe eternal? (Thus doing away with the need for a creator) [found in the “snippets” section],” the laws of mathematics and physics clearly demonstrate that the universe in NOT eternal.

              So the question we need to focus on if we are to keep this discussion about the theism / atheism debate is: What does logic suggest is the best explanation for ultimate causes? Are the ultimate causes intelligent, or unintelligent and random? Is matter more fundamental or is consciousness?

              Well, to start with, when modern physics declares that consciousness is more fundamental than matter, those supporting mindless/material explanations have a lot of explaining to do. To this end, I will rehash some quotes:

              Max Planck (the Nobel Prize winning physicist who founded quantum theory):

              “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

              Albert Einstein:

              “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

              Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner:

              “When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again; it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”

              Did you get that last quote Kyle? It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. I encourage you to read The Matter Myth by physicists Paul Davies and John Gribbon. In this book, they explain why the belief that matter is most fundamental (“materialism” or “naturalism”) is not scientifically supportable.

              With regards to evolution Kyle, yes, microevolution has been very conclusively demonstrated. But macroevolution is nothing but an extrapolation of microevolution that has not been supported by the fossil record. But the question of whether or not macroevolution is true would be a discussion of an intermediate cause, not an ultimate one. Therefore, to go off on a tit-for-tat about macroevolution would be tangential to the main subject of the theism vs. atheism debate. If you review my discussions with the commenter named Nick, you will see that we are in a tit-for-tat about macroevolution, which is a discussion about intermediate causes and is therefore not relevant to the theism vs. atheism debate.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Jake says:

            You are implying that god created an mass energy equivalence with no evidence not even the bible suggests this. And im making a leap of faith? You misunderstand, im saying that mass and energy are equivalent, which makes it possible to create a universe without god. There is no mechanism, that was a reference to the fact the universe can be created without god, energy and mass are the same thing in different forms.

            Okay first off there are many scientific theory’s behind the origin of the energy. Personally i would agree with as the most constant law in physics, which is correct on every scale. That would be the law of conservation of energy. “energy is neither created nor destroyed” So this scientifically proves the energy has to be from one of two possiblitys. Always has existed or the total energy of the universe is zero.

            Quantum vacuum fluctuation, is where an antiparticle and a particle appear in a vacuum and annihilate, which is a phenomenon which can be observed in a man made vacuum.

            By the way Einstein was religious before his research don’t imply science turned him to god as this is a falsehood.

            Heres some scientific facts that disagree with the bible

            The Earth was not the first planet created, in fact the planet PSR B1620-26 b is actually 12.7 billion years old being the oldest planet we know off.

            The is no geological evidence of Noah ark, in fact if it did happen there would be no fresh water fish as as water would be cross contaminated.


      2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Jake says:

        These scientists (as presented in my “What it all boils down to” essay) believe in God because they have determined that consciousness is most fundamental. So what just because they think that doesn’t mean anything, your not talking about there findings but there philosophy. I bet there is a chance some scientists believe in ghosts does that provide evidence for ghosts… nope. And the same is true in your case. For something to be fact in the scientific community it must be rigorously tested, not an opinion poll. That includes biology, im afraid ideology is left behind in the name of the evidence before you. You obviously dont know much about biology or science even if a scientist has an ideological bias if the conclusion doesn’t fit the data it will not be published in a journal or acknowledged.
        The logical disbelieve in god from a biologists point of view, evolution (which is fact now but lets not cover old ground) proves that each stage of life evolved from ancsetors if you follow it back you get a common ancestor. This removes the need for god. To believe in something there is simply no hard data or facts for is illogical. Im not after cherry picked opinion but something that is proven to a scientific standard god is not. You clearly do not understand what a fact is
        Einstin was raised jewish surprised he believed in god, to be honest not really. Funny you should talk of Einstein, the famous equation E = mc2 proves that energy and mass are equivalent to each other as Energy = mass x speed of light in a vacuum. Where it gets interesting is rearranged mass = energy/ speed of light in a vacuum squared. Although not in his life time scientists using the LHC and the tevatron prove that mass can be created without a god. Particles are accelerated round a circuit an smashed together with enormous kinetic energy compared to there size, and more mass is produced than initially collided, just so were clear do you deny this? Its been done many times in repeatable experiments here’s a clip from BBC explaining it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6cbaMj883c
        No I get it what Gerald Schroeder is saying but the thing is that’s measured to not the universe stopped been created billions of years ago, not now. What I was saying was even if it were true the proportions of time in accordance to the bible do not work.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Let’s do a little review. Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner says:

          “When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again; it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”

          This means just what it says. Namely, it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. That is not a statement of Wigner’s religion or philosophical preference. It is a research conclusion.

          Quantum physics is the most rigorously tested scientific scientific theory to date.

          Darwinian evolution, however, is not rigorously tested. In fact, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper, declares that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is not even testable. He says: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”

          Since you assert that evolution “proves that each stage of life evolved from ancestors if you follow it back you get a common ancestor,” I will have to rehash some citations.

          First of all, no informed God-believing person denies that MICROevolution happens. Evolution has been very conclusively demonstrated within a given species. But MACROevolution (one species evolving into another) has not been demonstrated.

          Evolutionary biologist and paleontologist Henry Gee (senior editor of the science journal Nature) said it best (in 1999): “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way…To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

          The Curator of the invertebrates department at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge, who was also the adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is a vigorous supporter of evolution. Dr. Eldredge openly admits that the traditional evolutionary view is not supported by the fossil record. He says, “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long,” as he writes, “It seems never to happen. Fastidious collecting of fossils, from the bottom upward, up sheer cliff faces, zigzags, minor oscillations…all showing the same results. That life forms all appear, fully formed, complete in body parts, at their first discovery”. “When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.“

          Keith Stewart Thomson (B.SC. Birmingham, AM, PH.D. Harvard) is currently a senior research fellow of the American Philosophical Society and an emeritus professor of natural history at the University of Oxford. He was appointed director of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History in July 1998. In 1987 he was appointed president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the oldest American natural history institution. He had earlier been a dean at Yale University and director of Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is the author of several books and essays that deal with paleontology, the history of science and evolution.

          And here is what Thomson said to the American Scientist in 1997: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun… The smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”

          Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis (winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”

          Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolph Raff, in the Journal Developmental Biology write: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest… The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”

          Similarly, evolutionary biologists Martin Jones and Mark Blaxter write, “Despite the comforting certainty of textbooks and 150 years of argument, the true relationships of the major groups (phyla) of animals remain contentious.”

          Below is a copy and paste of what the late, great Harvard University paleontologist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould said:

          The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with [Darwinian] gradualism:
          1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
          2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’ (Gould, 1977).
          Gould honestly admits that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is not supported by the fossil evidence and
          “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy” (Gould, 1980).

          Johns Hopkins University paleontologist Stephen Stanley says, “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

          David Raup, former curator of geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, put it this way:

          “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information” … (Raup, 1979).

          The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (who was perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century) states:

          “…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)

          Evolutionist biochemist Philip Handler claimed that:

          “Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the animals, and in virtually not a single case is there fossil evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any two phyla looked like.” (Biology and the Future of Man, 1970 p. 506)

          Lee Spetner, who holds a PhD in physics from MIT and served a fellowship in biophysics at Johns Hopkins. His 1997 book states:

          The neo-Darwinians presume that a long chain of random changes can lead to a large evolutionary change. This conjecture is an essential point of their theory…. Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands… The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.”

          Jake, IF ANYONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH AN ARGUMENT MORE SUBSTANTIVE THAN “THESE ARE JUST QUOTES.” Yes, these are quotes…. because quoting someone is how you make direct reference to that person’s research conclusions and analysis. And if these renowned experts are convinced that the fossil record cannot be cited as supporting evidence for Darwinism, then we need to take such assessments seriously.

          Einstein very clearly DID believe in God, which is why he said, categorically, “I am not an atheist” and, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” If you don’t believe me, just Google it.

          Yes, the earth is done being created. If you had watched the Schroeder videos, you would realize that the universe is in its 7th day as observed from the locus of the big bang.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            There is an ideological framework, but it is not atheism, it is Darwinism. The evidence supports this ideological framework and you just refuse to believe this.

            You have not answered my further points and seem to simply be dismissing and ignoring them. To your two quotations, the first regarding ‘extrapolations’ and the other regarding a full transitiion being unlikely, the man is explicitly clear that many transitions in the fossil record have been undoubtedly proven.

            To this you have not answered. For these examples, there is no need for data extrapolation or perhaps statistical fiddling as you seem to believe, he offers the affirmative fact that transitions exist, have been found and have been proven.

            I am not surprised that you seem to be so resistant to this data, but it still shocks me, if that makes sense.

            A huge example in contrast to this commitment to materialism that you seem to be so sure of are cases such as Ken Miller. He is a renowned Christian. He shares the same belief system as you, he ultimately believes in God and is a theist.

            He, and others like him, believe that Darwinism and the fossil evidence are clear. This is agreement with the fossil record without commitment to atheism. Non scientific academics will share his view. For example, I know that the official line of the cathoilic church accepts Darwin and does not oppose the science. Most of the clergy within it will accept the reality of evolution but still maintain their faith. I know that the last Pope John Paul was a popular pope and an open Darwinist, as is the new pope.

            Rowan Williams, who I linked you to once before is the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, the 2nd highest rank in the Church of England (behind the queen, I think) accepts Darwin. I think that he is a very good and intellectual man and appears on the same list of multiple honorary degree holders as David Attenborough who we once talked about. Williams is renowned and respected.

            The Simpson quote has been removed from its context where he re-asserts his world view is what you say. With this quote, the very short preface has also been snipped. This preface is not of a world view, but refers to counter examples of what he says in the quote. Even if there are only a few, how academically significant and relevant that they should be snipped. In research and study we should not just discount such majorly important data, with such relevance to the issue.

            Please reply with regards to the above issues. Solid examples of transitions cannot be explained away as commitment to atheism.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            You seem to have had a sudden influx of posts, allthough I am curious as to your response to this. I think immediate denial would be far too easy. Reread Simpson’s words and consider why the quote you use was snipped and taken out of the context of what he was saying. The evidence of the sequences he talks of should be readily available too.

            Consider also, that this is just one quote that I have re-inserted into its context. There are many others where the same can be done, such as Gould, Stanley, Eldridge and more. Please note that I am only referring to biological quotes here related to your arguments about evolution, not others about personal belief in God or astronomy. This stuff does not disprove God and I am not trying to.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              Nick,

              You are just reasserting what you said before… without replying to my response. The sequences he talks about were “extrapolated” and “inferred.” Using extrapolation and inference to move from the observed to the unobserved is fertile ground for projecting one’s worldview onto the fossil record. It is clear that microevolution has been very conclusively demonstrated to be true. But is also true that macroevolution is nothing more than an extrapolation from microevolution. It is not something that has been demonstrated in its own right either from the fossil record or otherwise.

              And, keep in mind that George Gaylord Simpson is just one of many paleontologists to make this point.

              Also, I will reiterate: Gould, Stanley, Eldredge, and Simpson and the like are clearly people who adhere to the materialist / naturalist worldview. That is why it crucial to distinguish between what they can demonstrate scientifically and what they merely infer as a projection of their worldview. Many of the supposedly “out of context” quotes are only out of context in the sense that they are removed from the text in which the individual re-asserts his worldview.

              The Simpson quote we just discussed is an excellent case-in-point. He says, “most of them [paleontologists] recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation.” Well OF COURSE they make that assumption… that is why they are called “naturalists” or “materialists.” It is impossible to conduct science without a philosophical framework underlying the science. The problem is that ideological commitment prevents many people from changing their philosophical framework when the evidence says that they should.


          3. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            The contextualising of Simpson’s comment changes much.

            Primarily, on a comparible note to my pizza example, the start of the sentence you have quoted has been excluded. The sentence begins, ‘In spite of these examples…’

            Why is it neccessary for a quoter to ommit these words? What examples is he talking about? It detracts from the content of the quote, but such an ommission is not honest or a complete reference to what he is saying. So, as with my pizza example, why the dishonest quoting? What are these examples Simpson talks about?

            The two paragraphs leading up to the quotation, he is explicitly clear in stating that there are many transitional sequences and fossils. Requoting:

            ‘Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms.’

            This could not be any clearer or explicit. Nor could it be false. He states emphatically that we have many examples of gradual speciation and evolution occuring, micro and macro.

            This is a man who you quoted as being a hugely qualified paleontologist, of huge reputation and distinguishment. Why would he lie about these fossils and if these fossils don’t exist then what is he talking about?

            He directly contradicts any notion that macro evolution does not take place. He says that we have undoubted fossil record evidence of gradualism.

            Yes he finishes by saying that the fossil record is incomplete. I thought that you would interpret this as materialism. He is an atheist I think, but many who are theists or deists do not see this incompleteness as counter evidence of Darwin. This is not exclusive to materialism. Do you think that every species of animal that ever existed was framed in rock for our discovery?

            This incompleteness is due to the fact that the majority of animals are not fossilised, still lie buried, or are destroyed in geological and tectonic processes. This is something that any theistic Darwinist will attest to as well with little question, as it is common sense that we will never have a complete fossil record.

            This quote is very revealing as it shows just how much is ommited by simply using a small paraphrase.

            What gives this case increased need for investigation, is the fact that so many of the quotes that you use are extracted from similar pieces, conversations and situations. These are not neccessarily people who are even discussing God, so it is not materialism that they are trying to justify, you will find that these quotes all come from discussions about science and I’m sure that plenty of these people will believe in God, so they are not trying to validate atheism, but understand the natural world.

            The reason that I have referenced Ken Miller in a separate post, is precisely because this incompletess in the fossil record does not only lead to atheism and materialistic conclusions only. Philosophy leads to a world view. Interpretation of the facts is philosophy. Establishment of facts is science and Darwinism is so far beyond dispute, it is the philosophy of how we interpret this mechanism that should be discussed, not whether it is true or not.

            I’m sure that by reviewing Simpson’s works, research and even just this specific book, we can find many of the examples of evolutionary gradualism that he he talks about. This is a stark contrast to the idea that the fossil record is devoid of any gradualism and contradicts Darwin. This is why a small quote does not do justice to the extent that an individual scientist tells us.


          4. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            “The chances that the remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they disintegrate are extremely small, practically infinitesimal. The discovery of a fossil of a particular species, out of the thousands of millions that have inhabited the earth, seems almost like a miracle even to a paleontologist who has spent a good part of his life performing the miracle. Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth’s extinct species, and even for groups that are most readily preserved and found as fossils they can never expect to find more than a fraction.

            “In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.

            “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance.”

            (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              OK, please paraphrase how the Simpson text that you added has changed in the slightest the meaning of the more brief Simpson text that I provided.

              The simple fact is that the fossil record cannot be used to justify Darwinism. Rather, one must use “controlled extrapolation or a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest,” in order to come up with “examples of “a species or genus [that] has been gradually transformed into another,” as Simpson says in the text that you added.

              As Oxford mathematician John Lennox points out, “one problem here is clearly that extrapolating from the observed to the unobserved is fraught with danger. S.F. Gibbert, J.M. Opitz and R.A. Raff maintain that ‘Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.’ As Goodwin (1995) points out, ‘the origin of species — Darwin’s problem remains unsolved,’ thus echoing the verdict of geneticist Richard Goldschmidt: ‘the facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution.'”

              What Simpson is doing here is extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution, not providing evidence for macroevolution. This is a crucial distinction.

              Furthermore, since Simpson’s time, our grasp of the fossil record has gotten much better. You will recall from the videos I link to about the Cambrian explosion that we have a remarkably good fossil record of the Cambrian which even includes fossilized sponge embryos, which have no solid parts but are fossilized nevertheless. Despite the remarkably good fossil record, the transitional forms just are not there. And you will recall my quote from the curator of the Field Museum, Raup, which shows that we actually have less fossil evidence to support Darwin’s theory than we did during Darwin’s day.

              So to summarize, the Simpson text that you added in reality adds nothing and subtracts nothing to the main point made in the categorical statement by Simpson that I provided. What you have added amounts to three things. First, we see the naturalist/materialist Simpson’s rationalization of why the fossil record does not support his views (he believes that it is inadequate).

              Second, we see how naturalist/materialists have come to their conclusions: Through “controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena.” Some of the key words here are “extrapolation” and “inferences.” Nick, scientific evidence is scientific evidence, not extrapolation and inferences.

              Third, we see the naturalist/materialist reaffirming his worldview. He says, “most of them [paleontologists] recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation.” Well OF COURSE they make that assumption… that is why they are called “naturalists” or “materialists.” But please note that they have not provided any fossil evidence to support this view, but rather “extrapolation” and “inference” that reflects (or rather “projects”) their worldview.

              This is what I mean when I say that Darwinism is a projection of the naturalist/materialist belief system, nothing more.


          5. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            I am not claiming that you have intentionally misrepresented these quotes or placed them out of context yourself. Many of them I’m sure are correctly referenced and in context such as Spetner’s and others. I may well be saying that whatever resource you have retrieved these quotes from may or may not have referenced them in their entire context and may or may not have referenced the entire phrases or sentences from their origin.

            As you say my, pizza example displays deliberate misrepresentation of a statement. I am not saying that all, or perhaps any of your quotes are misrepresented to this extent.

            However, some of them have been extracted from a different context and wielded to demonstrate something different from the speakers views.

            I think what you are trying to say in general with these many quotes is that Darwin is wrong or that macro evolution is wrong or that the fossil record is not in accordance with macroevolution and probably all three together.

            This is the basis, as I understand it, that you interprate from your many quotes.

            What I also feel is inferred or understood by yourself, is that people such as Eldridge, Stanley or Simpson are claiming that macro-evolution is not true or are against the mainstream understanding in biology. This second thought of mine may be wrong and you may not think this, but it seems to come across in the references and answers that you give.

            What you understand or try to prove by using names such as Eldridge simply do not support the views that you have set out about macro-evolution, Darwin or the fossil record.

            Below I will cut and paste the location of Gaylord Simpson’s quote. It is long so I will leave it at that for the moment, but there are other similar examples that I can find. The sum of the context displays a slightly different picture to that which one might infer if I were simply to go on the quoted section.

            This is what I mean by a small quote or a sound byte being insufficient or incomplete as a proof of a scientists world view or research history.


          6. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            If all of these quotes are representative of the research of these individuals, then context and understanding of what is meant by them from their purporters should be easy to find. Could you explain the background context and intention of each of these quotes with reference to what these scientists mean?

            A quote may give an indication of views, but does not represent actual demonstration of the research and perspective of the scientist. It is a sound byte, which is not how research is represented and may quite easily be taken out of context or be a misrepresentation of a person’s views.

            For example, I may say, ‘I hate all pizza’s with peppers on them.’

            You would be able to quote me as saying, ‘I hate all pizza’s’.

            This would be an accurate quote of four consecutive words that I have spoken, yet the meaning has been utterly changed. The context has been omitted and the actual sentence has been dissected. You are left with a short quote that is accurate, but incomplete, misleading and incorrect.

            The fact is, I love almost any pizza without peppers on it, so the above shortened quote is useless as a representative of what I had originally said or my general viewpoint. This is not to say that any quote is useless. That would also be incorrect, but understanding, meaning and context are essential to qualify and verify references if they are used as evidence.

            Could you elaborate on what was meant by the following people and the quotes you have referenced? I know where these quotations came from and their intent and meaning. Could you verify this?

            Eldridge. Gould. Gaylord Simpson. Stanley.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              Nick, to make the claim that a quote was taken out of context, it becomes necessary for the person making such a claim to then re-insert the quote into what he considers to be the correct context. Otherwise such a claim is utterly meaningless.

              In the pizza example, subtracting the words “with peppers on them” would be removing modifiers from the end of the sentence. Very few of the quotes I have provided have been chopped up in the middle of the sentence. It is readily apparent that people who have their worldview threatened by certain quotes like to hide behind the accusation of “taking out of context” or “quote mining” so as reassure themselves that their worldview is correct.

              Claiming “taking out of context” is a cure-all for atheist commenters to this site who find their worldview threatened… not that I am accusing you of being an atheist.

              Furthermore, many or most of the quotes that I provide are categorical statements. So, in other words, they mean the same thing in no matter what context they are inserted.

              For example, when Gaylord Simpson says “…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences,” no matter what context you insert this statement in, it means the same thing.

              Specifically, it means that every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

              Now when naturalist/materialist scientists such as Simpson make such a statement, often times they will conclude the quote by introducing a hypothetical explanation that rationalizes what they have just said with their naturalist/materialist worldview.

              But despite whatever naturalist/materialist rationalizations are provided, the fact remains that Simpson has admitted that every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

              How could such a quote be taken out of context? Were the words, “Just kidding, I didn’t mean that” deceitfully subtracted from the end of the quote?


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      OOOPS!! You forgot to read this one Jake!!!! Please read this link that you sent very carefully. It does not support your views.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Kyle says:

        It certainly does not support the view that droves of scientists are turning to god, which is in fact Jake’s clearly stated view, so please clarify.

        Studies show that scientists are less likely to be religious and those at the top of their fields are least likely, almost regardless of field. They also show that whereas older folks are generally more religious, the reverse is true among the academy. No one that I’ve read has been blunt enough to suggest one obvious hypothesis for fear of their ever-present indignation, but I will.

        Could it be that the more intelligent one is, especially the type of intelligence required by science, the less likely one is to be able to compartmentalize a whole raft of unfounded, “revealed” knowledge, much of which reads like fairy tales, is internally inconsistent, and/or drips with the same kind of ubiquitous supernatural claims that scientists know better than anyone have never, ever been found to have the slightest evidence behind them?


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Please provide a link to these studies. I am going to call you out and say that these studies are urban legend, nothing more.

          Could it be that the more intelligent one is, the less likely one is to believe that aliens brought life to earth? Could it be that the more intelligent one is the less likely one is to believe that life occurred through random processes even though it would take 10 to the 127th power years for a super computer to fold a short sequence of 100 proteins (and the most simple cell has 100 million proteins)? See Confronting Science’s Logical Limits from Scientific American Magazine to see what I mean.

          Scientists know that supernatural claims don’t have even the slightest evidence behind them? I have seen this tactic among atheists many many times before. You seem to think that you can forcefully assert something over and over until it eventually becomes true. Just keep asserting that there is no evidence of the supernatural while simultaneously ignoring the evidence that I present in my essays (such as “Is there a God? What is the chance the world is the result of chance?” and “What it all boils down to.”) Nobody will take you seriously if you do this.

          Here are some of my favorite quotes. (Yes QUOTES. A quote is what you use to communicate a person’s views). I know you don’t like them, and that they are damaging to your worldview, but here I go:

          “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

          –Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow. Please also see Jastrow’s book God and the Astronomers.

          “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming.”

          “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”

          –Physicist Paul Davies, winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards).

          “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

          –Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle commenting on the incredible fine-tuning necessary for life to exist.

          “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

          –Nobel Prize winning physicist Arno Penzias.

          “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”

          –The great astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington

          “A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”

          –Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III, five time nominee for the Nobel Prize, as above.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Kyle says:

            Repeating refuted arguments and ignoring evidence is LYING.

            “Could it be that the more intelligent one is the less likely one is to believe that life occurred through random processes even though it would take 10 to the 127th power years for a super computer to fold a short sequence of 100 proteins (and the most simple cell has 100 million proteins)?”

            Yep! Good thing they aren’t random processes, you moron.

            “Scientists know that supernatural claims don’t have even the slightest evidence behind them? I have seen this tactic among atheists many many times before. You seem to think that you can forcefully assert something over and over until it eventually becomes true. Just keep asserting that there is no evidence of the supernatural while simultaneously ignoring the evidence that I present in my essays (such as “Is there a God? What is the chance the world is the result of chance?” and “What it all boils down to.”)”

            Is it actual evidence or just convoluted, just so, cherry picked, unsupported premises laden, apologetics, logical abortion, arguments like every “proof of gawd” ever? An argument is not evidence. An argument is supported by evidence. What exactly is your EVIDENCE?

            Then you posted six of the moronic, yet absolutely standard “Arguments by Quotation”, as if they were not prima facie fallacious arguments. A quote can, as you say, “communicate a person’s views”. So what? Assuming that they are all accurate and in context – a big assumption with you guys, all you’ve shown is that smart people can reach irrational conclusions. You and I both know that, in the NAS for instance, such views are in the small minority. What is crystal clear to all rationalists, but you are ideologically incapable of perceiving, is that 100% of believers are being irrational.

            People have strong tendencies to irrationality, thus the power of the scientific method, which is designed to minimize the effects. So let’s use the scientific method. Present your evidence. Then I could present the Mount Everest size pile of evidence for the actual, non-magical phenomena of religion – which could include peer reviewed papers in several fields.

            You first.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              No it is not evidence by quotation. If you review my essay entitled “Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance?,” you will see that there are many many parameters that had to be just right for our universe to exist.

              You seem to be afraid of this essay…. I have asked you to reply to it many times but you apparently refuse to.


        2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          Jake says:

          Look i put the wrong link i wanted to do a balanced argument, i had a few and pasted the wrong thing. the fact is that 93 percent of scientists nas scientust are athesist


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

            OK, please provide a citation to a scholarly study which shows this to be the case. I linked you to an article about a study done by a Rice University sociologist which indicates that fully 2/3 of scientists believe in God. Click here to see that article again.

            You can’t just come up with a number (93%) and expect people to believe it just because you said so.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Jake says:

            But you are right it is a balanced it does not support the view droves of scientist are turning to god, as the site implys


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              No, I am not implying that droves of scientists are coming to God. I am implying that the idea that science supports atheism is nothing more than urban legend or “bar-stool wisdom.”


              1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
                0
                Kyle says:

                “I am implying that the idea that science supports atheism is nothing more than urban legend or “bar-stool wisdom.”

                You are also implying that quotes by scientists = science, as you always do.

                But as long as you want make Arguments from Authority, suck on this:

                Leading scientists still reject God

                Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

                The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

                Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

                In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

                Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among “greater” scientists to their “superior knowledge, understanding, and experience” [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.” [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba’s study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of “greater” and “lesser” scientists.

                Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

                Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among “greater” scientists
                Belief in personal God……..1914……….1933……..1998
                Personal belief……………….27.7…………15………..7.0
                Personal disbelief……………52.7…………68……….72.2
                Doubt or agnosticism……….20.9…………17……….20.8

                Belief in human immortality………1914………1933………1998
                Personal belief……………………….35.2………..18………..7.9
                Personal disbelief……………………25.4………..53……….76.7
                Doubt or agnosticism……………….43.7………..29……….23.3

                Figures are percentages.

                Repeating Leuba’s methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba’s day, AMS editors designated the “great scientists” among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his “greater” scientists [1,2]. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our “greater” scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as “great scientists” in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba’s method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.

                For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS “great scientists”. It asked about the respondent’s belief in “a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind” and in “personal immortality”. Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question [1]. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.

                Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 “biological and physical scientists”, with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers [1]. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members [1,2].

                As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, “Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral”[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: “There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.” Our survey suggests otherwise.

                Edward J. Larson
                Department of History, University of Georgia,
                Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA
                e-mail:edlarson@uga.edu

                Larry Witham
                3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,
                Maryland 20866, USA

                References

                Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916).
                Leuba, J. H. Harper’s Magazine 169, 291-300 (1934).
                Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
                Highfield, R. The Daily Telegraph 3 April, p. 4 (1997).
                National Academy of Sciences Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Natl Acad. Press, Washington DC, 1998).


                1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
                  0
                  syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

                  This article discusses scientists and belief in God. Key excerpt:

                  A new study by social scientists confirms that there is a secularising trend in the beliefs of the science community, but the authors question whether science has anything to do with it. “The first systematic analysis in decades to examine the religious beliefs and practices of elite academics in the sciences supports the notion that science professors at top universities are less religious than the general population, but attributes this to a number of variables that have little to do with their study of science.”
                  The lead researcher is quoted as saying: “Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform.” Furthermore, the researchers found little to distinguish social scientists from scientists, which is another indication that the sciences are not exerting any distinctive influences above those of other academic disciplines.
                  The authors flag up childhood experience of religion as a major factor in their study. “Academic science has a disproportionately large number of people raised with no religion, potentially producing many more people who do not believe in God.” The authors discuss this significant finding in their paper, offering tentative leads, and pointing to further research. I found this comment interesting: “Scientists lament a lack of scientific understanding among the U.S. population (Scientific American 2005; Lakoff 2005). While the general American public may indeed have a less than desirable understanding of science, our findings reveal that academic scientists may have much less experience with religion than many outside the academy.”


                2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
                  0
                  Kyle says:

                  Scott Youngren,

                  I’m calling you out. Explain the following:

                  1) The “Reply” button is absent from some of your posts, always a post of yours that is asking me for many, many responses rather than answering any my previous question. Be honest – Are you strategically turning off the reply feature to rig the debate?

                  2) I no longer get email notifications of replies to my posts. The same question applies.

                  3) I have thoroughly debunked your endless lying about the Dawkins video that flog in nearly every post, yet you ignore and continue to tell the exact same lies. Are you strategically ignoring it?


                  1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
                    0
                    syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

                    1) Which posts?

                    2) I have no idea.

                    3) Please describe how you have thoroughly debunked the fact that Richard Dawkins is on video endorsing the view that life on earth can be explained by the fact that it was brought here by aliens… and then his explanation for the aliens is “some sort of Darwinian process.”


  12. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Jake says:

    I hate to break it to you but you got the wrong name for your site maybe god opinion or god quote, where is the hard evidence that the name seems to suggest, no facts no figures just vague quotes. You cherry pick quotes to pretend there’s a argument like numbers of scientists are accepting god, well infact what you have been hiding is 93% of members of the national academy of sciences are infant atheist. Dont believe me?? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html or google it

    Are you Christian? You are an atheist as much as me, unless of course you believe every religion. How is it you can so blindly dismiss other religions in the name of the one you grew up with.

    Thats strange if correct which i highly doubt religion a lies tend to go hand in hand, my point been you say the days of creation compared to the age of the universe now there different things you would be foolish to believe the universe is still been created now.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      This is perhaps my favorite atheist argument of them all. Instead of replying to the evidence presented, many atheists believe that making repeated and/or forceful assertions that “there is no evidence” will substitute for a reply to that evidence. To begin, please respond to the “anthropic fine tuning” evidence as presented in my essay entitled “Is there a God? What is the chance our world is the result of chance?” When you are done, you can respond to the the remarkable similarity between the biblical and scientific accounts of creation, as presented by MIT physicist and biblical scholar Gerald Schroeder (please watch the videos and read his essay to which I link in the “Is there a God?” essay).

      If you continue to make empty assertions that “there is no evidence” instead of providing a rationally constructed, fact based rebuttal to the evidence presented….well, every reasonable person viewing this is going to see through your facade.

      As far as your article about scientists belief in God, click on this link to see a survey done by a sociologist at Rice University. According to this survey, fully 2/3 of scientists believe in God. But it is not a simple matter of a head count because, unfortunately, many people decide their worldview based upon psychological and ideological factors rather than upon pure logic.

      So in order to determine if a particular scientist or group of scientists bases their views on God on ideology or, alternately, based upon logic, it is crucial that one actually sift through that logic. As I detail in my essay entitled “What it all boils down to,” the majority of the most important contributors to modern physics believe in God because their research clearly demonstrates that consciousness is more fundamental than matter (read: God’s consciousness). This pulls the rug out from under the materialist worldview which says that matter is the most fundamental plane of reality. If a scientist disagrees with this view, it is important to examine why so as to determine whether it is for logical or ideological reasons.

      Next, let us sift through why the majority of those in biology disbelieve in God. As I detail in my essay “If the evidence for God is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced?,” the prevailing cultural context in biology is to embrace materialism despite the fact that modern physics has declared materialism to be invalid.

      Harvard University geneticist Richard Lewontin admitted in 1997 that, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin went on to say that “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

      Nancy Pearcey recounts: Michael Ruse made a famous admission at the 1993 symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ”Evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism,” he said—that is, it is a philosophy, not just facts. He went on: “Evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.” Ruse’s colleagues responded with shocked silence and afterward one of them, Arthur Shapiro, wrote a commentary titled, “Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?”

      But, ironically, in the process, Shapiro himself conceded that “there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science,” He went on: “Darwinism is a philosophical preference, if by that we mean we choose to discuss the material universe in terms of material processes accessible by material operations.”

      So because modern biology insists upon materialism, despite the fact that modern physics utterly discredits materialism, we can be certain that this is an ideologically based cultural context and not a conclusion based upon objective examination of facts.

      I have given you some of the logic for belief in God (anthropic fine tuning, remarkable similarity of biblical and scientific accounts of creation, consciousness is more fundamental than matter). NOW PLEASE GIVE US YOUR LOGIC FOR DISBELIEF IN GOD!

      Would you agree with prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, etc.. that we don’t need a higher intelligence such as God to explain the origin of life because aliens from outer space brought life here? Please watch this video of Richard Dawkins expressing his endorsement of the hypothesis in an interview. And you can read how prominent atheist biologist Francis Crick endorsed the idea in his book Life Itself by clicking on this link.

      If you agree that the aliens can explain the origin of life, please then go on to explain how the aliens got there. As Scientific American magazine points out, “It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10 to the 127th power years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids.” And protein folding is only the first step in creating life from lifeless chemicals. Further, random processes would need a heck of a lot longer to fold proteins than would a supercomputer programmed to do so. But, the problem is, the universe is only about 15 billion years old.

      Maybe the aliens came from another universe that is much much older?

      So tell me, do you think citing aliens from outer space to explain away the origin of life is based primarily upon logic…. or would it be an ideologically based cultural context?

      I am conducting a survey of atheists to determine which aliens are the most likely candidate to have brought life to earth. Perhaps you can agree with me that it was not the Klingons because they were to mean to do such a nice thing as create life in their laboratories and then bring it to earth in their spaceship.

      Do I think that all other religions are wrong? Actually, no. I am reading an excellent book entitled Finding God in Ancient China which depicts how the ancient Chinese believed in a God with the exact same attributes as the God of the bible. Additionally, I recently read a book which describes how the widespread belief that Hinduism is polytheistic is actually wrong. Experts on Hinduism describe how five of the six schools of Hinduism are actually monotheistic. The monotheistic God of Hinduism also shares many of the attributes of the God of the bible. Looks like the Hindus, ancient Chinese, and many many other cultures got an awful lot right about God.

      Regarding the days of creation, please read the article and view the videos by MIT physicist and biblical scholar Gerald Schroeder as presented in my essay entitled “Doesn’t evolution prove the biblical account of creation to be false?” The biblical and scientific accounts of creation are REMARKABLY similar. Einstein showed that time is relative to the velocity and gravity of the observer. The universe is about 15 billion years old as viewed from earth, but it is only six days old as viewed from the position of an observer at the locus of the Big Bang. Hence, the biblical six days of creation.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      I absolutely LOVE IT when atheists use crude caricatures of theistic beliefs (such as presented in your video) in lieu of rationally constructed replies to what theists actually believe. When atheists rely on attacking crude caricatures of theistic beliefs, it very clearly demonstrates that they cannot respond rationally to what theists actually believe.

      Regarding what creationists actually believe, please view this five part video by MIT physicist and biblical scholar Gerald Schroeder which demonstrates that the biblical account of creation is REMARKABLY similar to the account given by modern science. Please recall Einstein’s theory of time dilation which has proven that time is relative to the velocity and gravity of the observer.

      This article by Schroeder provides a somewhat condensed version if you don’t want to invest the time in the videos. In a nutshell, the universe is 15 billion years old when viewed from the time-space coordinates of earth. But when viewed from the time-space coordinates from where the universe began, the universe is only six days old! Hence, the six days of creation.

      Try to respond to this with a rationally constructed, fact-based rebuttal rather than another crude, uniformed caricature (such as your video). Sorry to pull the rug out from under you, but YOU CAN’T!

      While I am at it, I think it appropriate to show you some of the ridiculous things that atheists will resort to believing in to get around the concept of God. Several prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins (biologist and author of The God Delusion) seriously entertain the idea that life was brought here by ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE. Please click here to see Dawkins endorsing the idea in an interview.

      Please note that this is not a crude caricature. Prominent atheists such as Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge, and Fred Hoyle ACTUALLY BELIEVE that such an explanation for life might be plausible. This is because such desperate explanations are the only way out of belief in God.


  13. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Jake says:

    Strange to think so many people believe in one god, ironically to be devoted to a religion such as this you turn you back on all the others and then have the nerve to throw about the term atheist as if it is irrational. Please free your self from the constraints on religion, there’s such a wealth of hard evidence against god, EVOLUTION WHICH CAN BE WATCHED NOW DAYS IN A PETRI DISH WITH BACTERIA how can you argue with something like that whilst be a logical person.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      First of all, no informed God-believing person denies that MICROevolution happens. Evolution has been very conclusively demonstrated within a given species. But MACROevolution (one species evolving into another) has not been demonstrated. Funny that you should mention bacteria!! Here is what the University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton said regarding macroevolution:

      “None [evidence] exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another… Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e. bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organism.”

      Keith Stewart Thomson (B.SC. Birmingham, AM, PH.D. Harvard) is currently a senior research fellow of the American Philosophical Society and an emeritus professor of natural history at the University of Oxford. He was appointed director of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History in July 1998. In 1987 he was appointed president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the oldest American natural history institution. He had earlier been a dean at Yale University and director of Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is the author of several books and essays that deal with paleontology, the history of science and evolution.

      And here is what Thomson said to the American Scientist in 1997: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun… The smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”

      Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis (winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”

      Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolph Raff, in the Journal Developmental Biology write: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest… The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”

      Similarly, evolutionary biologists Martin Jones and Mark Blaxter write, “Despite the comforting certainty of textbooks and 150 years of argument, the true relationships of the major groups (phyla) of animals remain contentious.”

      Below is a copy and paste of what the late, great Harvard University paleontologist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould said:

      The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with [Darwinian] gradualism:
      1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
      2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’ (Gould, 1977).
      Gould honestly admits that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is not supported by the fossil evidence and
      “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy” (Gould, 1980).

      Johns Hopkins University paleontologist Stephen Stanley says, “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

      David Raup, former curator of geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, put it this way:

      “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information” … (Raup, 1979).

      The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (who was perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century) states:

      “…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)

      Evolutionist biochemist Philip Handler claimed that:

      “Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the animals, and in virtually not a single case is there fossil evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any two phyla looked like.” (Biology and the Future of Man, 1970 p. 506)

      Lee Spetner, who holds a PhD in physics from MIT and served a fellowship in biophysics at Johns Hopkins:

      “The neo-Darwinians presume that a long chain of random changes can lead to a large evolutionary change. This conjecture is an essential point of their theory…. Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands… The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.”

      SO WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IN MACROEVOLUTION DIRECTED BY RANDOM, UNINTELLIGENT PROCESSES??

      In The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, Oxford University and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Professor of Biology Lynn Margulis (who won the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) discusses the persistence of neo-Darwinian theory, despite its deteriorating scientific basis, with journalist Susan Mazur:

      Margulis: “If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.”

      Mazur: “So a certain dishonesty set in?”

      Margulis: “No. It was not dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

      Mazur: “But a whole industry grew up.”

      Margulis: “Yes, but people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Jake says:

        Look your arguing a factual debate, with opinion. As for the bacteria point (MICRO evolution) you couldent be further from the truth 1000s of new bacteria species evolve each year and begin to get further and further away from the parent species just look at primitive bacteria species. As for macro eveloution, look at the rich fossil records, DNA literally shows which species evolved from each ancestor. Selective breeding speeds the macro evolutionary process the are dog breeds, cow breeds now that have evolved so far they struggle now imagine 4 billion years yes 4 billion. WHY IS MAN SO VIEN get round the fact that were animals DNA proves it, ignorance denys


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          So let me get this straight: You are going to respond to what an eminent bacteriologist says by making an unsupported assertion (i.e. “1000s of new bacteria species evolve each year”)??? Do I have that right?

          Look at the fossil record? I have, now it is time for you to do so. Please review this video regarding what the fossil record REALLY shows.

          Selective breeding speeds the macro evolution process in dog breeds? No sir, dog breeds are not separate species. Rather, all dog breeds belong to the same species known as Canis Lupus. What you have cited is an excellent example of evolution within a species.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Jake says:

            what one bacteriologist in speech, why dont you actual quote say umm umm whats that word EVIDENCE its not as if you even quoted his research. My bad i should have back it up believe me its not unsupported, take a look at this article

            http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html heck theres a journal devoted to looking at newly evolved bacteria http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/ and which video

            the fossil record

            http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

            the dog point is that it gradually getting there i mean its getting harder and harder for breeds far apart to mate same is true in cows.

            Now offense but is your going to be a smart arse with the lain name the last name should not be in capitals so Canis lupus although to be really accurate it should be underscored ans italic where possible


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee (senior editor of Nature) said it best (in 1999): “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way…To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

              The Curator of the invertebrates department at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge, who was also the adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is a vigorous supporter of evolution. Dr. Eldredge openly admits that the traditional evolutionary view is not supported by the fossil record. He says, “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long,” as he writes, “It seems never to happen. Fastidious collecting of fossils, from the bottom upward, up sheer cliff faces, zigzags, minor oscillations…all showing the same results. That life forms all appear, fully formed, complete in body parts, at their first discovery”.2 “When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution“.2

              “…most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. (Quoted from “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

              But all of this discussion about the diversification of life from a putative common ancestor misses the most important point and is basically tangential to the core issue: It is the origin of life that poses the biggest nail-in-the-coffin to an atheistic view of the world. How do you explain the origin of life? Do you cite aliens from outer space, as do prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramsinge, Fred Hoyle, and others? Please watch this video of Richard Dawkins expressing his endorsement of the hypothesis in an interview. And you can read how prominent atheist biologist Francis Crick endorsed the idea in his book Life Itself.

              IF YOU AGREE THAT THE ALIENS CAN EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE ALIENS GOT THERE. As Scientific American magazine points out, “It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10 to the 127th power years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids.” And protein folding is only the first step in creating life from lifeless chemicals. Further, random processes would need a heck of a lot longer to fold proteins than would a supercomputer programmed to do so. But, the problem is, the universe is only about 15 billion years old.

              I just read an excellent excerpt from John C. Lennox’s book God’s Undertaker. Has Science Buried God? (Lennox is a mathematician from Oxford University). He writes:

              “Zoologist Mark Ridley makes an important observation that will be familiar to mathematicians: ‘the simple fact that species can be classified hierarchically into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is possible to classify any set of objects into a hierarchy, whether their variation is evolutionary or not.’ Cars, for instance, can be arranged in a hierarchy. But all cars have similar parts because those parts are essential for their operation, and because they are constructed according to a common design — not because they have descended from each other.”

              “From this perspective, similarities in the DNA sequences could therefore logically equally well be read as evidence of common design. Indeed, the common ancestry might have been designed, so that the concepts are not mutually exclusive. For instance, Francis Collins [eminent biologist appointed by Obama to be directer of the U.S. National Institutes for Health], although he differs from Behe on the edge of evolution, suggests nonetheless that, although from our perspective ‘evolution could appear to be driven by chance, from God’s perspective, the outcome would be entirely specified.’ Similarly, Cambridge University evolutionary paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris is dissatisfied by the reductionism of the ultra-Darwinists who ‘having erected a naturalistic system that cannot by itself possess any ultimate purpose, still allow a sense of meaning to slip back in.’ Conway Morris thinks that there may well be some kind of analogue in biology of the fine-tuning in physics that we discovered in chapter 4 and cites van Till’s insistence that ‘It is not simply the numerical values of certain parameters that must be “just right” in order for life to develop. No, it’s the entire formational economy of the universe that must be “just right.” Conway Morris concludes that ‘Not only is the universe strangely fit to purpose, but so, too, as I have argued throughout this book, is life’s ability to navigate to its solutions. This doesn’t sound like a blind watchmaker, but rather like a clear-sighted navigator.”

              “In a more recent book, Conway Morris says as much about the phenomenon of evolutionary convergence: ‘Indeed, as our knowledge, especially of biochemistry and protein function, continues to expand, so at least my sense of amazement can only grow. If the watchmaker is blind, he has an unerring way of finding his way around the immense labyrinths of biological space… Conway Morris subsequently spells out that amazement: ‘Invariably the words tend towards adjectives of stupefaction: astonishing, astounding, remarkable, striking, even uncanny and stunning, are all stock-in-trade responses. As I have pointed out elsewhere, although pronounced by loyal Darwinians, these exclamations seem to reveal a sense of unease. This, I conjecture, is at least reflecting a hesitancy as to evolution’s having a degree of directionality and, perhaps in the more alert investigator, their worst fears of the re-emergence of a telos.’

              Jake, all of the above facts pose a severe threat to your atheistic view of the world. If you continue to pose dismissive replies such as “these are just quotes” rather than seriously engaging with and replying to the arguments, no reasonable person viewing this discussion is going to take you seriously.


        2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          Jake says:

          this made me laugh
          ” 1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
          2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’ (Gould, 1977).
          Gould honestly admits that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is not supported by the fossil evidence and
          “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy” (Gould, 1980).”

          To start science has moved miles since the 1980s religious folk and there outdate sources and species do not just appear all once look at the fossil records of say the horse aged by carbon dating although be careful some fossils may be older that the biblical world


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

            Yes, science has moved quite a bit since the 1980’s….and the picture just keeps getting worse for Darwinism. You have seemingly failed to notice that I included several newer citations.

            Keith Stewart Thomson (B.SC. Birmingham, AM, PH.D. Harvard) is currently a senior research fellow of the American Philosophical Society and an emeritus professor of natural history at the University of Oxford. He was appointed director of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History in July 1998. In 1987 he was appointed president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the oldest American natural history institution. He had earlier been a dean at Yale University and director of Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is the author of several books and essays that deal with paleontology, the history of science and evolution.

            And here is what Thomson said to the American Scientist in 1997: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun… The smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”

            Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis (winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”

            Lee Spetner, who holds a PhD in physics from MIT and served a fellowship in biophysics at Johns Hopkins:

            “The neo-Darwinians presume that a long chain of random changes can lead to a large evolutionary change. This conjecture is an essential point of their theory…. Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands… The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.” (Spetner, 1998).

            Please also watch this video to see what the fossil record REALLY shows. Hint: It’s not good for Darwinism.

            Here’s a citation from 2007 copied and pasted from one of my essays:

            In the summer of 2007, Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health, published a paper entitled The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution.

            This paper is refreshing in its candor; it is alarming in its consequences. “Major transitions in biological evolution,” Koonin writes, “show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.”

            Hopefully you are starting to realize why biologists and paleontologists from elite universities such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, UCLA, and the University of Chicago felt it necessary to hold a secretive meeting (the public and media were barred) in Altenburg, Austria to discuss laying the foundations for “post-Darwinian research.” (See The Altenburg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry for more detail).


        3. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          Jake says:

          *to breed with one another


  14. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Chris says:

    One has to wonder why atheists spend so much time defending their beliefs to the point of using insulting remarks to debunk any rational argument made for a higher power that may exist outside of themselves. However, just because there was a cause to the universe, does not mean that the creator has stuck around, nor does it mean that the creator will grant everlasting life to its creation. A deist will grant that there was a supernatural or inexplicable causation to create the universe, our unique planet with just the right amount of distance from the sun, the only known planet to hold life as ours, yet an artist does not hold onto his work for eternity. The only leap to a caring God is found in religious writings and there can be much said for the veracity of the gospels in the Bible.

    The bottom line: All of us are going to physically die. We will see a living creature that existed at one moment and then is gone the next. We can choose to rationalize and argue all we want, but how can any inidividual relate to things that are at odds with modern science, such as raising a person from the dead (someone who has been dead for several days) or turning water into wine or feeding thousands with very little food — every thing is rationalized, because miracles are something that do not happen; or they are random acts that happen to others who are simply too ignorant to understand the truth behind the phenomena.

    After death, we will either feel and know nothing for eternity, or we will somehow continue in a realm that is foreign to us in the form of an eternal spirit or soul.

    Perhaps the atheist is still harboring anger at his parents for deceiving him over Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and perhaps the atheist never allowed himself to be absorbed in the fantasies of mythological stories and to wish them to be true. What is wrong with the belief that there is something beyond this life? Why does the atheist say to a believer in God that he is ignorant of the truth. Is it so comforting to the atheist to go through life believing that there is nothing ever after this life that they have to force that belief upon everyone else?

    Most court cases are solved not on eyewitness testimony; they are solved on a collection of circumstantial evidence that allows the jury to come to a conclusion on the matter beyond reasonable doubt.

    Many believers have doubts; otherwise, we simply would party and rejoice when death took a loved one and gladly anticipate our own deaths. Yes, the uncertainty of what happens after death is scary to all and yes a belief in an afterlife can help alleviate the anxiety of mortality and what is wrong with that? Or would the atheist rather have people addicted to pharmaceutical drugs rather than addicted to God.


  15. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Steve R says:

    Ernst.

    I am having difficulty with existentialist philosophy that puts man in an absurd world where no rules or moral code exist. That he is what he becomes. And he becomes what he becomes through exercising complete freedom in the choices he makes. He is responsible for those choices – but what is responsibility? Effectiveley man is unique in that in his case he exists first and then essence comes after. The atheistic position on this is that this philosophy makes God dead. But there are Theist versions of the philosophy that postulates existentialism as being part and parcel of Gods creation. I’m agonising over all this right now as though in a wilderness of mid-life crisis. I have done much reading over the last month or so and it has left me feeling alone and lost. I want to believe because it obviously has a far more positive effect on ones life in this world than coming to terms with a Godless existence with no meaning or hope. People say you should look inside oneself to discover the true essence of who you are. But I need to know how to do that. Whenever I try it becomes nihilized.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      nick says:

      Philosophy puzzles me too. What do you mean by, ‘Effectiveley man is unique in that in his case he exists first and then essence comes after’?


  16. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Ernest says:

    I used to skydive a lot when i was younger and have heard a few non believers scream out for God…lol..Anyone who really doesnt believe in God might just do anything.Because based on thier beliefs If they can get away with it untill they die then thier transgression goes unpunished forever.Theres No God to punish murderers child molesters thieves and liars and rapist.So If you’re good at your crimes thats all you got to worry about.So lets all go out get hammered and steal some cars and find some people to rob and kill? and if we get caught we can just commit suicide and get out of going to prison.Hell we are all gonna die anyway..lol…All you athiest keep screaming you want proof theres a God But you idiots cant prove there aint one either.I dont need proof all I gota do is look around.You skeptics wouldnt believe it If i told you something as simple as a paperclip just appeared out of the smoke of an unexplainable explosion.But You ready to believe that the whole universe did.I dont doubt theres a God but sometimes I wonder why he made some people so ignorant? Or is it just thier freedom of choice?..lol


  17. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Ernest says:

    Sounds to me Richard like you have a problem with religion not God. I bet you really believe in God and just dont like organized religeon shoving anything down you’r throat.Its been my experience that a lot of people that go around claiming they are christians really arent some dont really believe in God at all.And Vice Versa with non believers.The reason the Bible is filled with blood and killing and horrible events taking place.Is because the world is full of blood and killing and horrible things.It was inspired by God and written by men.But If you read it with an open mind its more than just a book of short tragic stories.Theres a big picture and it all fits together and its not horrible or scarry or bad.Maybe its not what you are reading maybe its you’r mindset while you’r reading it? The Bible is the only book that says its Not ok to lie cheat murder and steal.Well its 2011 and its not now but it is the book that introduced the concept of goodness to the western world.So if it isnt true then we can all do whatever we want as long as the law dont catch us we are scott free? There are rules and laws for everything.otherwise nothing works.The Bible is the rules and the laws of living.Maybe If you looked at the Bible like a law book you’d get more out of it.Read the 10 comanments and tell me sir.Wich one of those is wrong?


  18. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Ernest says:

    I asked a woman that said she didnt believe in God if she believed in miracles? She said “NO”.I told her she had to believe in one or the other because If all this matter was just floating in space and a big explosion took place and it just happened to form our universe as complicated and mysterious as it is.It had to be a miracle.So thats you’r choice people either believe in God or believe in miracles.And with that being said.Its impossible for miracles to happen without God.So much for you’r choice..lol


  19. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Sasa says:

    Well done Youngren, Iv’e always felt that God exists because the concept of giving away wealth to help others and loving ones enemies would never be created by man alone. My life isn’t great but for those who suffer I believe they will be redeemed. Evil exists so good exists as suffering from pleasure one needs the other so that we may differentiate. When you spoil a child they never grow. Tough love is the way to go. Love, fear and respect your father. We must suffer to appreciate all we have. Much of the Bible is symbolic so when people take certain parts literally It is pretty funny, like the tribes of Israel, when I first read it I actually thought it was talking about this mans actual sons. In the end I felt stupid. It is a very complicated 2000 year old book I still can’t understand all of it. It’s funny how we use our scientific logic to determine our origins when existence defies logic. We shouldn’t always trust our senses but just go by what morally seems correct. Anyway that’s my view. :)


  20. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Emily says:

    what should i do if people dont believe in God…so many people dont believe in God and i dont have an answer for them can u please help me out….


  21. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Chrispy says:

    Hey I just wanted to give props to syoungren because after reading most every comment, it looks like He’s taking on everyone.


  22. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Rudrajit Dey says:

    How can you prove with the technologies and science that there really can be miracles. I know that there are many religions but all of them somehow end up to the place where a person has miraculous powers and can do anything. I mean how can some of the things that people think truly happened be explained by science. I have been thinking about this question for a long time and I hope to someday find the answer to it: WHAT IS THE ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED BY SCIENCE AND SHOWS THAT GOD EXISTS?


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      Chrispy says:

      Rudrajit, what is the absolute proof that can be explained by science and shows that Love exists? Or truth? Or the fact that science is needed to be absolute proof? Please don’t make demands for proof you don’t ask out of anything else in life…


    2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      As far as miracles are concerned, please read this article.

      The assumption that miracles cannot happen is based upon the assumption that the universe is a “closed system.” In other words, it is assumed that miracles cannot happen because nothing outside the universe (such as God) interacts with the universe. We know that the universe cannot be a closed system because we know that the universe had a beginning and therefore had a cause. The very act of the universe coming into existence is a clear-cut example of something outside the universe (the cause of the universe) acting upon the universe. Please read my post entitled “Isn’t the universe eternal?” in the snippets section. Everything with a beginning requires a cause. This is the law of causation, without which science would be impossible.

      What is the absolute proof that God exists? There can be no such thing. And if you think about it, there is virtually nothing that we humans can have absolute proof of.

      For example, try to give me absolute proof that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. You can’t do it. But what you can do is give me some extremely convincing reasons that any reasonable person would accept. By looking at these reasons, the reasonable person would have to make the (ever so small) leap of faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

      In a similar fashion, a reasonable person has to make a very small leap of faith that God exists based upon the available evidence.

      The leap of faith made by the atheist, however, is much much greater (although very few atheists realize it). An atheist, for example, must take the huge leap of faith that the universe “just is.” To cite an example, the prominent atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell called the universe “a brute fact.” This is just another way of saying that the universe “just is” and doesn’t need an explanation.


  23. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Richard says:

    Why do so many people take offense at the idea that there is a God? Further, why are so many smart people unconvinced despite the wealth of evidence? And if the evidence is so strong, as this website contends, why isn’t it more commonly known?
    R.C. Sproul comments in his book If There Is a God, Why Are There Atheists?:

    The New Testament maintains that unbelief is generated not so much by intellectual causes as by moral and psychological ones. The problem is not that there is insufficient evidence to convince rational beings that there is a God, but that rational beings have a natural antipathy to the being of God.

    hey contradiction in the first couple paragraphs just like the bible (believers are rediculous)
    non-believers get upset with believers because everyday there is someone trying to get you to crossover… countries are ran based on religion… people kill others and children too because “god” told them to. people everyday make horrible decisions that effect others because they make their decisions based on their religion. To say science is a religion is bull… science is not a belief it is gathered facts FACTS!!!! And what really makes me laugh about this whole thing is that it says evidence of god… even the link is called godevidence.com … yet i have yet to read one thing that states any evidence… all i see is a buunch of opinions givin by book writers and scientists… there is no evidence there never will be because such a thing does not exist… what does exist is us… everything here that is on earth and maybe other places…
    I have read almost everything that this scott youngren fellow has posted on his website and links and i have yet to find any evidence though he claims and other people claim that there is overwhelming evidence… what?? and then you are dumb enough to post a qoute from a scientist that there is not enough evidence to support the idea of a god and thats why people find it hard to believe… haha this is nothing more than a ” hey ill talk about anything, even this retarded so people can come to my website”… i give you props on that scott… good idea for a web page, but you are still a moron… i will give you the satisfaction of me commenting on this, but we have already spoken about the word evidence… i gavve you the definition and you clearly worte it back word for word, so you must understand what the word means… but yet you seem to use the word evidence as it it sits in a thesaurus with the words belief and faith…
    and just for the record I AM NOT AN ATHIEST I AM A MAN THAT CALLS IT HOW IT IS… i bet 90 % of these people who claim to believe, have never picked up a bible outside of their church (if they even go to one… hypocrites) and yet they try to talk as if they have… the bible is a horrible book of short stories. If you really read the bible ( and i have ) you will see that it is contradicting, ugly, demanding, fictional, and makes for nothing but a long ass horror movie. A book that everyone speaks of so highly and forgiving and love has an awful lot of blood, death, hate ( yes from god himself ) and deceitfulness, but yet noone that is a believer seems to want to discuss these matters… they tend to ignore them… the same people that claim their god is merciful and loving and caring and claim that god himself wrote this book, are the same people that come up with silly excuses as to why those passages were in the old testament… and the new testament which was obviously man made (so was the old one but were not going to get into that right now) revised and took out alot of those gruesome horrible passages that were so clearly spoken by the almighty caring loving lord… haha haha you people make me laugh, you make me sad, you make me confused, and you make me mad… stop letting your religion effect others and we will not argue with you about it and let you be with your beliefs.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      You refer to yourself as a “non-believer,” but you clearly are a believer. You may not believe in God, but please recall that disbelieving in one explanation for the existence of the universe or for the existence of life necessarily means that you believe in some other explanation.

      If you are an atheist, then you believe that the universe and life “just are” and don’t need an explanation. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, for example, called the universe a “brute fact.” This is just another way of saying that it “just is.”

      Is belief in a universe that “just is” or belief in life that “just is” a belief based upon facts? No, it certainly is not. Atheism, like theism is based upon certain leaps-of-faith. It is just that the leaps of faith are MUCH bigger in order to believe in atheism.

      Which requires a bigger leap of faith?: 1) A universe devoid of intelligence and consciousness which randomly evolved beings that are intelligent and conscious OR 2) a universe that was created by an intelligent and conscious being that contains other intelligent and conscious beings.

      How could it be that, in an eternally existing universe devoid of intelligence and consciousness that intelligent and conscious beings came into existence? Please realize that an infinite amount of time, or an infinite amount of universes, does nothing to explain the emergence of intelligent and conscious beings. This is because bare probabilities are causally inert and require a causal mechanism to achieve any result.

      What do I mean by this fancy preceding sentence? Let me illustrate: Take the statement, “If a person could, hypothetically, live forever, that person would eventually win the lottery.” How can we know that this statement is false? Because no matter how long a person lives, they will never win the lottery if they do not play the lottery. The act of going to the convenience store to buy lottery tickets on a regular basis is the causal mechanism that allows the bare probability of a lottery win to result in an actual lottery win.

      And in a universe devoid of intelligence and consciousness, there are no causal mechanisms that would allow the bare probability of life to result in the actual emergence of life….no matter how old that universe is.

      Give me a specific bible verse that involves “blood, death, hate and deceitfulness,” and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you.

      Lastly, I must point out that your comments rely heavily on strident rhetoric, forceful assertions, and insults to fill the gap left by your lack of logically constructed, fact based arguments.

      You will not see me calling anyone any names….I rely on my arguments to make my points, I don’t need insults.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Richard says:

        you know scott after awhile of all this dumbass excuses for things and all the ignorance it builds up and the truth comes out i am a man that says it how it is not a man to say what i believe believing is nothing but false hope i will tell you, you are being a fucking ats what you are idiot if thats what you are being and i can give tons of excerpts on the evilness that is truly in the bible, but i know from experience of doing this with other people, you will just find some irrational excuses as to why its not what it says and the only people who seem to understand it is deeply drivin religious folk… its just pitiful to watch someone go through so much trouble to fight for somthing they themselves dont even know for sure about… anybody with a brain in their head and with the REAL evidence that i can give you shall see that this whole god thing is a bunch of nonsense and is slowing us down …. wait actually stopping us from advancing (evolution of the mind now instead of our bodies) into what the human race is actually capable of… we someway or another are a mixture of most beings on earth and we’ve proved that we dont use our whole brain yet… once we learn to tap into that our very way of living will never be the same.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          Friend says:

          Hi Richard,

          I hope I dont come across in a way that upsets you. I only find you to be interesting. I would like to ask you a couple of questions and hope you will give honest answers.
          First I would like you to know a little about how I believe so you can understand why you interest me and why I am asking you these questions.
          I believe in God. I only know that God is there from what is inside me. Its a feeling of home that is deep within me. No matter how much I question God being there or deny that God is there I cant shake the feeling deep inside that God is there. I often wonder if this feeling is in everyone even the ones that dont believe in it.

          Deep within you, do you not feel the presence of something unexplainable?

          I saw this documentary about Jesus not being real. It bothered me so because Jesus is a hero to me. I hope so much for him to be real. jesus to me was someone who did not judge anyone, who loved all, who sacrificed all of himself for others, who believed in everyone with all of his heart. Jesus is someone I aspire to be. So I googled was Jesus real and came to this website. I was wondering…

          Why did you come to this website?

          I wanted to talk about some of the things you wrote about and how I beleive….this is merely for my benefit. It feels good to type out my beliefs. Maybe that is why I came to this site….

          The bible to me is a book that was written by man and rewritten by man and interpeted in so many ways. There is alot of good in the bible and there is alot that is written that I simply do not see our God as being. I am not sure why it was written that way. I think maybe it was written that way to scare people into believing and as this method may be working on some I believe it scares more people into not believing. I believe more people do not feel worthy of God’s love and turn away from it. When I read the parts of the bible that make God out to be this vengeful, mean, scary God I believe that to be a verse that was put in by man to scare not a verse that was given by God. There are verses in the bible that are good and helpful…
          In the bible I love this verse…
          1Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient. Love is kind. Love isn’t jealous. It doesn’t sing its own praises. It isn’t arrogant. It isn’t rude. It doesn’t think about itself. It isn’t irritable. It doesn’t keep track of wrongs. It isn’t happy when injustice is done, but it is happy with the truth. Love never stops being patient, never stops believing, never stops hoping, never gives up. Love never comes to an end.
          I try to live by this verse.
          I believe we and everything living is made by love. For I truly believe God is love. No matter who the person how good or how bad God loves all.

          How do you show evidence of love?

          I wonder why there are religions out there that kill in the name of God. I am not sure the purpose of this but I do believe there is a reason for everything. I often try to think of ways to open the eyes of people with hatred to love and peace but haven’t been able to think of a way to do that yet. I even thought about writing the terrorist a peace letter but as you can tell I am not much of a writer and may end up doing more harm then good.

          You are right about the fact that we dont use our whole brain and I have pondered on this as well. I wonder why do we have such a brain if we cant seem to use all of it? I came up with maybe we use different pieces of it in different lives until we open all of the secret doors. Maybe it is so complex and time consuming to make over and over again it is just easier to make it once and use different pieces of it in different lives until we use it all, and once we open it all up we are home (heaven). Or maybe it is preset to open up in different ways when one life ends and another begins. I dont know just silly thoughts…i wont ever know the answer to this and all the unanswered questions until the time comes for me to know the answers so in the meantime I would rather believe in something that is good, that is full of love and positive feelings then to not believe in anything and feel alone as if I am flandering like a fish out of water.

          I hope that you are able to see good and not bad that you find happiness, peace, joy and love and that this life for you is full of wonderful times and great adventures.

          God Bless

          Love – A Friend


  24. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Douglas vincent says:

    The question is their a god? And the answers turning to science..Science is young,It changes What is often scientific fact now; often times has to change with new science and technologizes.If one observes both christianity and science you will begain to see that they are not disproving each other.But as science slowly developes it is proving more and more of the scriptures..For if their is a god,would he not be the ultimate of knowlage of science and of all knowlage?..I have read many of the question believers and non believers come up with.Some i have heard all my life.Why would an all powerful good god let such terrible things happen,Babies dying,Young people killed in car accidents,old age and all the other sufferings that go on in the world?..One must understand god dosent look at thing as we do.He is all knowing,dying means little to him,,He controls it,He understands it..But why dose he let us suffer?..One then has to acknowlage if god exists so dose satan.Satan wants the suffering and the turning away from god..God lets this happen because he has given us the free choice…And in the end he already knows the out come…He ever stop guiding us,it is not him who lets us down..And if one would think of it for a moment…About the sufferings that goes on in the world.It was stated to me once that this could be a blessing for humanity..For with out it think of it.If everything went right.Would we soon forget about god? believe we dident need him?..But what happens when tragedies strike.Who is it we ask why? Does it get us thinking about god one way or the other?..Think about it for a while….Douglas


  25. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    david dodds says:

    hello
    Its ridiculous god isnt and cannot be proven to exist this conclusion is mere rhetoric. there is nothing but the writen word you either believe it or you dont, and I am not threatened by the fact that god may exist, all you have is belief nothing more and nothing less.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Belief in God is based on a lot of evidence, not just blind faith. Please read my posts entitled “Is there a God? (What is the chance that our world is the result of chance?)”, “What it all boils down to,” “Has anyone met God and returned to tell about it,” etc… Then post any rebuttals that you may have.

      Scott


  26. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    nick says:

    Did you ever look in to anything by David Attenborough? Planet Earth is a fantastic series. I have just found it available to watch online for free if you like. The visuals and quality are not done justice on this streamed internet version, although the quality of this stream is good enough to get a good understanding. The best place to watch this would be from a dvd or blu-ray.

    You can select episodes and watch them in their entirety for free and you will see the quality and integrity of his work.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/planet-earth-the-complete-bbc-series/

    Not all of the episodes are on this site, but these are most of them. ‘Pole to Pole’ is episode 1 and a good place to start.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Nick: I will check this out. I might be able to get it to stream into my TV.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        nick says:

        Sounds good. The bigger the picture the better I would think.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          nick says:

          Would be intrigued to hear what you think if you get the chance to watch any episodes.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

            I should get around to it in the next week or so.


  27. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Clyde Seger says:

    Lot’s of intelectual Philosophy, nada proof, which is all we are asking for.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      This particular essay was intended as an explanation for the phenomenon of atheism, not as direct evidence for God. It wouldn’t sound right to call the website “godevidenceandexplanationofatheism.com”. Some essays at this site which provide more direct evidence for God (that you may want to start with) are “What it all boils down to,” and “Is there a God (What Is the chance that the world is the result of chance?)” and “Has anyone met God and returned to tell about it?”

      There is a lot more than just “intellectual philosophy” contained in the essays I mentioned above and elsewhere at the site. I would encourage you to read them and comment. Here is a favorite quote of mine to start you off:

      “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

      –Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Richard says:

        haha idiot… that is just an exciting way to tell you that stars come shooting from black holes… which doesnt prove creation at all but yet more proves that there are other univereses like ours… and all your stuff is nothing more than philosophy… not even all intellectual… some but not all. their is no evidence none whatso ever stop telling people that this is…. and how bout you call the website philosophyofgod.com, but no that probably wouldnt get as many people to click on it now would it…


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          Chrispy says:

          Richard, I question what proof would satisfy you.

          Lets pretend for a moment we are all computer programs, inside a box, and there is a man who designed it and owned the computer. Anything, anything at all, that the programmer would do to show his programs he exists could be explained away. Why? Because no matter what the programmer does, he does not reveal himself. To write “I am real and I exist!” on the clouds could be a hoax. A programming miracle could be an “illusion.”

          And then the programs would go about saying “There is no proof in a programmer!”

          Because no matter what I show you, its not the programmer. It just points to Him. God exists outside of the system, so how can testing things within the system possibly prove something outside of the system?

          All science truly is is study through experiments and information to obtain data. What is done with that data is not science. Evolution is not science. What you do with the information science gives you is not science: It’s logic and philosophy.

          I really don’t mean to upset people, all I want to do is show people the hypocrisy of their statements and beliefs in hope that they could find a God who loves them and created them for joy and freedom :)


  28. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Lear says:

    It saddens me that so many people in the world still believe that gods exist. Wake up everyone, and get real – there is no tooth fairy, easter bunny, st. nick, santa or god(s).


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Believing that the universe is a “brute fact” (even though it has been demonstrated to have existed for a finite amount of time) is a much more child-like belief than believing that the universe and everything in it was created by a being with a personality. This is especially the case when you consider that we are beings with personalities.

      Imagine three kids sitting by the Christmas tree. The youngest of the three is the only one who still believes in Santa Claus. One of the two older kids says, “Santa didn’t put the presents there, our parents did.” And the other of the two older kids says, “Santa didn’t put the presents there, and neither did our parents. Nothing and nobody put the presents there. They are just a ‘brute fact.'”

      Which of the two older kids has the more plausible hypothesis?


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Richard says:

        that is a rediculous statement, creation is tarded to believe… how is somebody going to create a whole universe and only create one habitatual environment… im not going to sit here and say i know exactly how we came about but to believe that somebody else made all of this is rediculous… and to say that we must come from a being with a personality because we have personalities is just plain stupid. No one in their right mind would think that the world is infinite because that means no explanation for a begining. it has to do with electrons protons neutrons… energy forced together… a constant fight between energy and gravity if we lost gravity we would all start floating away and the instantly rip apart… if we lose our built up energy we would all be crushed from an overpowering gravity… stop feeding these people all these lies and your beliefs, at least discuss the truths of it and then make your opinions afterwards…


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Please note that merely characterizing arguments (“ridiculous”, “stupid”, “lies”) does nothing to bolster your case. Of course you consider theist views ridiculous and stupid…you view the world through an atheist/materialist lens, and anything that does not jibe with this worldview is going to appear ridiculous and stupid. Theists look upon your views in the same way.

          And you view the world this way despite the fact that materialism has been completely discredited by modern physics, as I demonstrate in my post entitled “What It All Boils Down To.”

          You say, “it has to do with electrons protons neutrons… energy forced together… a constant fight between energy and gravity if we lost gravity we would all start floating away and the instantly rip apart… if we lose our built up energy we would all be crushed from an overpowering gravity…” When you say this, what you are referring to is one of the examples of anthropic fine tuning that is discussed in my essay entitled “Is There A God? (What Is the chance that our world is the result of chance).”

          So I will ask you straight up: How is it that energy and gravity are balanced just exactly right so as to allow for our universe? Will you reply with one of the “it just is” leaps-of-faith that undergird the atheist belief system? Or do you have some other reply?


  29. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    David says:

    Greetings:

    GodEvidence.com makes a strong argument in If the evidence for God is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced? I could not help but agree; however, I was seeing connections to other possible reasons that scientist and educators present science in the way they do. It has something to do with a political agenda that wishes to keep people in a state of left brain thinking. It’s all connected with keeping people blind to the truth because truth would set us free. More information can be found via David Icke and Alex jones. In any event, I think GodEvidence.com did a fine job explaining things.

    David


  30. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    nick says:

    nick says:
    March 3, 2011 at 3:49 am
    nick says:
    March 5, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Would you have any opinions or reactions to the above 2 posts?

    I feel that these are hugely important topics in relation to religion and the existence of God and are something that you have not attended to on this site. These isssues and the future are hugely important areas.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      nick says:

      How are you doing…. I did appreciate your thoughts on environmentalism. It is painted often in Britain, that America is very unconcerned with sustainability, but I know there are many who feel it to be a necessary reality.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

        Doing great. I don’t think that image of the USA is deserved. Not sure what it is based on. SInce I am not trying to make a scientific point, I will allow myself to cite wikipedia on this topic, unless you object. Look at the number of environmental organizations based in the USA compared to other countries.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          nick says:

          I don’t mind at all, that’s a fair thing to say and I know that many in America are hugely concerned with such things. The rewilding projects I thought were fascinating although perhaps controversial, where predators were reintroduced to areas near development.

          The numbers of environmental organizations must be balanced against the economic attitude though, which is the main source of the conflict. Think oil, energy and development. Ideals not unique to America, but revered and held by most of the developing countries around the world. The side affects of these things are the causes of the problems, that’s why it is painted that various countries, like America, are not very environmental. With governments like the Bush administration actively working to stifle the academic community’s warnings over climate change. I’m sure many citizens like yourself are concerned, but the outweighing factor is the desire to develop and grow. Think deepwater horizon, desire to drill in Alaska…etc. it’s the same all over the globe and is why the ecology of the planet is being decimated. Amazon slash and burning for farmland and timber, Indian tiger populations, African lion populations, poaching and hunting for sport, overfishing. It’s the economic goals and desires that fuel this fire, not the concerns of individuals like yourself who probably have good attitudes.


    2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      nick says:

      thanks i have replied above


  31. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    James says:

    Syoungren, I can see we are not getting anywhere. After all, you just replied to my post with a cut-and-paste answer, word for word, from before: with plenty of made up stuff added in. The introduction of ‘period’ and ‘I have more quotes’ does not make your untrue assertion that speciation has never been observed true any more than a lack of observing speciation (in 150 years?) disproves evolution. I don’t want more quotes from scientists you know nothing about, that’s quote mining. I want you to actually explain this yourself. The very fact that you quote Gould AGAIN, after being repeatedly told that he was a strident evolutionist who wanted nothing to do with creationism, summaries my point perfectly.

    Have you noticed how at the very centre of creationism is an attempt to take a step backwards? Scientific theories often override old ones against strident opposition- just as Darwin’s did. But never before has an old, disproven theory managed to take a step back and replace the old one. It’s the equivalent of going back to believing in four elements rather than the periodic table.

    The idea that it is six days ‘from the locus of the big bang’ is just as ridiculous as God making the world younger. For a start, why would God use a big bang if it would lead to such confusion as ‘time dilation?’ Why is only one scientist – an Orthodox Jew – propounding this theory if it is so patently obvious? Time Dilation, like c-decay and white hole theory, is simply another desperate attempt by creationists to make the evidence fit their own views.

    Evolution – my turn to cut and paste is very clearly defined in biological terms. Honestly, do you believe Darwin could write a book to convince the scientific world without defining it? Here you go:
    Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

    Let me ask finally- is there really any point in my discussing this with you?

    P.S. I am still interested to know how you consider man ‘repulsed by religion’ in light of my previous comments.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Do you want me to cut and paste it yet again, or will you start to furnish rebuttals to the points that I make? It seems that these realities are having a hard time making it through the materialist lens through which you view the world. (Even though materialism has been completely discredited by modern physics, as I have demonstrated in my “What It All Boils Down To” post).

      “Quote mining,” again, is a bizarre reference to how the quotes were obtained…in order to deflect attention from the fact that you do not have a rebuttal to the points made by the people I quote. It is a desperate rhetorical device used to protect your unsupportable views from scrutiny.

      You say: ” The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

      Everything you say here is 100% correct, right up until the last part where you say “….to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.” As I have clearly demonstrated, no species has EVER been demonstrated to evolve into another. I will YET AGAIN recycle a quote relevant to this topic below (and at least a dozen more if you request):

      Recall what the University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton said? See below:

      “None [evidence] exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another… Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e. bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organism.”

      James….speciation as a result of random mutation and natural selection is a FICTION…open and shut. As I probably mentioned in a previous post, the Oxford University and University of Massachusetts biologist Lynn Margulis is know for asking biologists present at her public talks to name a single unambiguous example of a new species emerging from an accumulation of mutations. But as Michael Behe notes “her challenge goes unmet.”

      Yes, Gould was a staunch Darwinist….a staunch Darwinist IN SPITE OF THE FACTS rather than because of them. The same is the case with virtually all of the scientists that I quote. This is because if I quote creationist scientists (such as Michael Behe), atheists will not even listen.

      Repetition seems to be the only tool I have left in my arsenal to get through to you. Darwinists like Gould and the other scientists “I know nothing about” will continue to embrace Darwinism after it has failed until a new paradigm that fits the materialist worldview comes along to replace it. Your inability to perceive things that lie outside your materialist worldview requires me to CUT AND PASTE YET AGAIN!! Here, yet again, is what Thomas Kuhn said in the most important book about the psychology and sociology of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

      “Though they [scientists] may begin to lose faith and then consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm [or broadly accepted set of scientific theories and beliefs] that has led them into crisis. They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science that is what they are. In part this generalization is simply a statement from historic fact… These [examples] hint what our later examination of paradigm rejection will disclose more fully: once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place.….The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other.” [emphasis mine]

      The late great paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould commented that:

      “Unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”

      In what “cultural contexts” are atheist biologists rooted, causing them to perpetrate “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling?” For one, in the cultural context that the material world is the most basic, fundamental plane of existence (a worldview known as “materialism” or “naturalism”). The Harvard geneticist Richard C. Lewontin commented in 1997 that (in reference to defending Darwinism in a debate), “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin went on to say that “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

      And lastly the above quoted biologist, Lynn Margulis said: “…people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”

      The fact that scientists continue to endorse Darwinism after their own statements demonstrate that it has clearly failed is a PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON….not evidence supporting the failed paradigm.

      Is there any point to discussing this with me? Not if you are unable to furnish any rebuttals.

      Yes, these quotes I have are gems. But if the only psychological defense mechanism you have to protect yourself from the unpleasant ramifications they pose to your worldview is to declare them “mined,” then I feel for you. Would the quotes be more acceptable to you if I had bought them from the jewelry store rather than getting them from straight from the “mine”?!?!

      You call my reference to the MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder’s citing time dilation to rectify the chronological discrepancies between the bible and science “desperate.” That is a nothing more than a characterization. If there were a logical argument preceding this characterization, the statement could be deemed something better than worthless. But there is no logical argument preceding it. Your attempt to casually dismiss my arguments without producing fact-based, logically constructed rebuttals (such as citing other scientists to counter my points) very strongly suggests that you realize that your stance cannot withstand debate.

      Is there only one physicist making this argument? I don’t know. But the subject matter that Schroeder is analyzing is something that only someone who is both a physicist and a biblical scholar is qualified to speak about authoritatively. How many people fit this bill? What does his being a Jew have to do with anything? Are Jews not able to think clearly?

      James, I am sorry if I have been harsh in my replies. But sometimes “tough love” is necessary. There are eternal ramifications for rejecting God, and I don’t want you or anyone else at this website (or anywhere else for that matter) to make that mistake.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        James says:

        This is my favourit quote so far: “James….speciation as a result of random mutation and natural selection is a FICTION…open and shut.”

        Oh, well if you say so. And you say you’ve got a ton of quotes to back up your point? Including… who is it again? … S.J. Gould!

        This is quote-mining of the most appalling order. I’m afraid that this website doesn’t really differ from the conventional creationist website in that numerous quotes from scientists are cut and pasted onto the site without reference or context.

        But I’ve already shown you that Gould was an out-and-out evolutionist. And Richard C Lewontin is also an ardent evolutionist- he merrely proposes a slight change to the formula, which is the context of his quote that you have so heedlessly pasted to me in reply.

        Seriously, this is absurd. If I were to go via google onto ‘quotes from famous evolutionists’ and others, and just post them all in streams, would you be happy?

        You would not have to look long to find that every respected scientist believes that creationism is a ‘FICTION’… open and shut.

        Yet, just as creationists have done for 100 years, the first crackpot idea that arrives is simply accepted. Take your ‘time dilation’ from Shroeder. This is just the latest in a long line of refuted theories, namely c-decay and white hole theory, that have been propounded by creationists to try and explain the evidence in their favour. Their ‘facts’ are never tasted or tried, indeed have no kind of of interraction with the scientific community at all. Yet they appear immediately on every creationist site on the web.

        It’s scandalous. Creationists want to bypass all the normal routes of evidence… publishing in journals, compiling evidence that’s submitted to the mainstream community- and just preach directly to the masses.

        In the face of their abject failure to ‘convert’ scientists, this is their only option left after 100 years of trying. They must resort to conspiracy – all scientists are hardline ‘materialist fundamentalists’ (even Christian evolutionists- how does that work?) who are supressing the truth.

        In reality, creationist ‘scientists’ make up a tiny handful of some 600 US scientists, all religious fundamentalists, many hardline preachers as well, many of whom are making millions from selling books to gullible people while real scientists toil in obscurity.

        To clarify:
        – The fossil record supports evolution. The creationist minority have been misquoting and misrepresenting for 100 years. E.G. Gould and Lewontin.
        -Creationists have attempted to step back to an outdated form of science by bypassing the scientific community and targeting the community using quote-mining, where scientists are taken out of context and without reference and quoted in hordes; examples being found on this very site. E.G. Gould, Lewontin.
        – Creationists attempt to deflect the truth by claiming that all scientists who believe in evolution are simply hardline materialists- even the religious ones- who don’t want to accept religion or spirituality even despite all the benefits of believing in eternal bliss that you still haven’t answered me about.
        – Creationists will and have believed any theory that supports creationism, from c-decay through to the latest, time dilation, even though these are works by independent scientists that haven’t been verified. Some persistent trends through creationism, however, such as irreducible complexity and alleged lack of fossil evidence, have been consistently repeated for 100 years. They have still made no headway in the scientific community.

        To summarise your belief, then: You believe that the vast majority of scientists, all 40,000 of them in the USA, are delusional materialists willing to hold on to any theory that rejects God- even though many are themselves religious, “two-thirds” according to your own evidence.

        On the other hand, creationists, despite believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible, accepting God completely, and believing that God will punish anyone who doesn’t accept their religion with eternal damnation, are completely without bias. In short, creationists such as Gish or Behe are completely reliable.

        You believe that the works of individual scientists with clear bias towards their own beliefs, such as the Orthodox Jew, Shroeder, are more reliable than independent panels of scientists.

        You believe that there is a persistent conspiracy amongst scientists to suppress the lack of evidence for evolution- even amongst the two thirds of scientists who actually believe in God. This conspiracy has been going for at least 100 years.

        There’s some tough love for you.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Cut and pasted without reference or context?! What additional context does a quote such as “…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences” really need?!

          Perhaps the full quote appeared like this: ““…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences….Just kidding, I don’t really mean this.” I just removed the last seven words to take the quote out of context and deceive you.

          Once again, it seems like repetition and capital letters are the only devices I have in my arsenal to get through your perceptual filter.

          YES, THESE SCIENTISTS I CITE ARE ARDENT EVOLUTIONISTS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. BUT THEIR OWN STATEMENTS BETRAY THE FACT THAT THEY BELIEVE SUCH THINGS IN SPITE OF THE FACTS RATHER THAN BECAUSE OF THEM!

          This is either the third or forth time that I have copied and pasted the following, but here it goes AGAIN:

          Here, yet again, is what Thomas Kuhn said in the most important book about the psychology and sociology of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

          “Though they [scientists] may begin to lose faith and then consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm [or broadly accepted set of scientific theories and beliefs] that has led them into crisis. They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science that is what they are. In part this generalization is simply a statement from historic fact… These [examples] hint what our later examination of paradigm rejection will disclose more fully: once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place.….The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other.” [emphasis mine]

          The late great paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould commented that:

          “Unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”

          In what “cultural contexts” are atheist biologists rooted, causing them to perpetrate “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling?” For one, in the cultural context that the material world is the most basic, fundamental plane of existence (a worldview known as “materialism” or “naturalism”). The Harvard geneticist Richard C. Lewontin commented in 1997 that (in reference to defending Darwinism in a debate), “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin went on to say that “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

          And lastly the above quoted biologist, Lynn Margulis said: “…people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”

          The fact that scientists continue to endorse Darwinism after their own statements demonstrate that it has clearly failed is a PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON….not evidence supporting the failed paradigm.

          The fundamental flaw in your logic is thus: You fail to make the basic distinction between scientific research and the philosophical underpinnings that PRECEDE RATHER THAN FOLLOW that research. Materialism is a philosophical “cultural context” which mainstream biology adapts BEFORE ANY EXAMINATION OF FACTS OR DATA. It is not a conclusion that results from an examination of facts or data. Further, it is a philosophy which is at odds with modern physics, as I have demonstrated in my post entitled “What It All Boils Down To.” Scientists who refuse to adopt the philosophical system of materialism often find themselves “unemployable” to use Margulis’ word.

          Calling creationism “outdated science” is another manifestation of your inability to distinguish between science and philosophy. Neither creationism nor materialism are science. They are PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS. The Oxford Dictionary defines science as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Creationism and materialism are philosophical views about the origin of the “physical and natural world.”

          Studying the “structure and behavior” of phenomena within “the physical and natural world” is a fundamentally different subject than discussing why it is that there exists a physical and natural world in the first place. This is the realm of philosophy, which the Oxford Dictionary defines as “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.”

          I would not characterize mainstream biology’s belief in materialism to be a “conspiracy,” as you put it. Rather, it is a philosophical belief system. Once again, nobody is disputing evolution in most senses of the term. Rather, it is Darwinism and its belief in random processes driving the diversification of life that is in dispute.

          You say that I “believe that the works of individual scientists with clear bias towards their own beliefs, such as the Orthodox Jew, Shroeder, are more reliable than independent panels of scientists.” You ignore what I said in a previous reply. Independent panels of scientists do not dispute what Schroeder says. Rather, they don’t have any reply to what he says because very very few scientists even discuss the topic of biblical chronology as it relates to time dilation. Only a person who is a both a physicist AND a biblical scholar is qualified to comment on this subject matter.

          Do I believe that all all 40,000 scientists are delusional materialists? No, certainly not. But if they don’t believe in materialism, they had better keep their beliefs to themselves. This is what the biologist Lynn Margulis meant when she said, “If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”

          By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain to us why scientists from elite universities such as Harvard, Oxford, the University of Chicago, etc. are holding hidden, hush-hush meetings about laying the framework for “post-Darwinian research” (as discussed in the book The Altenburg 16). Why are they afraid of “the powerful creationist movement” as this book also discusses? Am I taking this out of context as well? Perhaps the correct context is that they were joking.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            Richard says:

            darwinism has not fallen apart but has grown… at first it was a theory but we have been here long enough to witness it… you saying that it has fallen apart is nothing but a lie… only people who believe in creationism think that darwinsim has fallen apart… what world are you living in… why do you think that there is so many different types of species… studies prove that certain animals birds reptiles fish etc. that were once the same have evolved to adapt to where they live and how they live and what they eat… why would you not believe that we are a part of this… are we a sacred being jus because we are intelligent… I know i am jumping on almost every post on here but the more i read your explanations the more i get fustrated with your ignorance… either you are really dumb or you are a genius that is making money by getting people to discuss the obvious and arguing with them with absolute failure to truly explain anything just a bunch of your beliefs and beliefs and quotes of others… This is either a really good idea, or a pitiful waste of peoples time…


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              Actually, no, that is a totally false assertion. Behind the scenes, much of the scientific community realizes that Darwinian evolution has failed as a theory. Please read my post entitled “Doesn’t evolution prove the biblical account of creation to be false?” Respond with any rebuttals you may have.

              For further evidence, please read The Altenburg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry. The title of this book refers to a secretive meeting (the public and media were banned) held in Altenburg, Austria in 2009 by 16 top biologists and geneticists from top universities such as Oxford, Harvard, and UCLA to discuss laying the groundwork for “post Darwinian research.” Click on the title to view it on Amazon.com.

              On the back cover, Lynn Margulis (who is a Professor of Biology at Oxford University and the University of Massachusetts, and won the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) makes the following revealing statement:

              “The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No, it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

              Another favorite quote from the back cover:

              “The scientific establishment has been somewhat scared of dealing rationally and openly with new evolutionary ideas because of its fear of the powerful creationist movement.” –Sam Smith, editor of The Progressive Review.

              Why would the scientific establishment need to be dealing with new evolutionary ideas, and why would it be afraid, unless it had realized that Darwinism was no longer scientifically supportable?

              But that being said….If you want Darwinian evolution, YOU GOT IT! Assuming that Darwinian evolution is 100% correct scientifically, how do you explain the existence of the natural laws and the natural structure that allow such evolution to occur? The only answer that an atheist can give is another one of the “it just is” leaps-of-faith that underlie the atheist religion.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            James says:

            Well, I’ll try and explain again what Gould is saying, since you seem to be so hung up on it.

            Gould absolutely supported evolution. His controversy came when he debated whether evolution was gradual (slow and consistent) or phenomenal (sudden and broad, with long periods of little change). Gould absolutely did not say ‘actually, you know what, I think evolution is faulty.’ Don’t you think he’d be scandalised by this? As ever, real scientists are saying, “how interesting, phenomenal evolution might be right”. And every creationist in America jumps up and says “see, they don’t know what they’re talking about!”

            Back to the materialism conspiracy. I find it astonishingly hard to believe that two-thirds of scientists (who apparently are religious) are keeping quiet about creationism because of a tiny minority controlling them.

            The biggest irony is in the fact that most real scientists- evolutionists- actually toil in obscurity doing real scientific research, whereas creationists like Behe and Gish publish a few books for gullible people and make heaps of money. Being a ‘creation scientist’ is ridiculous, but it is definitely profitable.

            And no, surprisingly Shroeder is not agreed with by contemporary science. Numerous independent attempts have been made to try and ‘dilate’ 13.5 billion years into six days. It’s impossible.

            Quick quote from you: “Materialism is a philosophical “cultural context” which mainstream biology adapts BEFORE ANY EXAMINATION OF FACTS OR DATA”. But you said yourself that 2/3rds of scientists are not materialists because they are religious! Have you thought this through?

            Another example: In one of your posts you repeatedly claim that ‘mainstream physics’ completely opposes the idea of conventional materialism, thus somehow doing away with materialism (materialism= physical world. How does it do away with it?). But as soon as mainstream physics turns against you, suddenly Shroeder, this lone scientist with an obvious bias, must be right, and all 400,000 others are wrong.

            Also, you say Creationism is not actually even science. Well, it isn’t, you’re quite right… but since people of your ilk call it “creation science” it seems difficult to believe that everyone sees this. What’s more, you’ve just accepted that no scientific explanation for the origin of life exists; since God’s magic spells are not subject to scientific laws.

            Finally, a note on Lynn Margulis, an ardent evolutionist with a few controversial claims to do with symbiosis; and further evidence that you are simply quoting out of context:

            In 1995, Richard Dawkins- the biggest evolutionist on the planet- said this about her:

            “I greatly admire Lynn Margulis’s sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I’m referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it.”

            That’s what she refers to when she talks about conventionality, not creationism. But I assume you knew all of this.

            P.S. The Altenburg 16 was written by Creationists. Given their track record when it comes to honesty, I am disinclined to believe anything the book says. BTW, I still wait on a response as to why we are all so fundamentally against the idea of a God in light of my previous statements.

            P.P.S Any cut-and-paste answers will not be read.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              Yes Gould absolutely supported evolution. And he should have, because evolution is true in most senses of the term.

              As I said before, all that I am disputing (or any other informed creationist for that matter) is Darwinism, which says that one species evolved into another. This clearly has NEVER been demonstrated to happen….not even once.

              Regarding your comment:

              “Back to the materialism conspiracy. I find it astonishingly hard to believe that two-thirds of scientists (who apparently are religious) are keeping quiet about creationism because of a tiny minority controlling them.”

              You insist on mischaracterizing it as a “conspiracy” when the citation I provide calls it a “cultural context.” You are building straw men and then shredding them. In other words, you are responding not to my arguments, but to crude caricatures of my arguments that you create.

              I said that 2/3 of scientists believe in God, not 2/3 of biologists. Mainstream biology is out of step with modern physics in its acceptance of materialism. A copy and paste from that article I cited earlier: “Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don’t believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.”

              Forty one percent is not a “tiny minority” as you characterize it. This is more than enough to establish a “cultural context” that accepts Darwinism. Such is especially the case when you consider that it is entirely possible to accept Darwinism and simultaneously believe in God. Charles Darwin himself believed that the common ancestor from which all life evolved (which he proposed) may have been “originally breathed by the Creator.”

              As I have said to another reader at this site (Nick), the only reason I bother to attack Darwinism is to demonstrate how heavily atheists overplay their hand when they use it to rationalize atheism. Darwinism and belief in God are not even really at odds because Darwinism just discusses the diversification of life from a putative common ancestor. It does not even attempt to discuss the origin of life.

              You say:

              “Another example: In one of your posts you repeatedly claim that ‘mainstream physics’ completely opposes the idea of conventional materialism, thus somehow doing away with materialism (materialism= physical world. How does it do away with it?). But as soon as mainstream physics turns against you, suddenly Shroeder, this lone scientist with an obvious bias, must be right, and all 400,000 others are wrong.”

              I don’t need to claim that physics has turned against materialism. Physicists claim this. For example, Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory said:

              “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

              Planck also said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

              The physicist Sir James Jeans said:

              “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather hail it as the governor of the realm of matter.”

              I can go on if you like. Just say the word.

              Where does physics turn against me? Time dilation and the relativity time are part of Einstein’s theories. Just google “time dilation Einstein.” You will be unable to find a single physicist who disputes time dilation.

              Can you provide a citation to back up your assertion that Schroeder got his numbers wrong with regard to time dilation and biblical chronology? Please provide a citation for one of these “numerous independent attempts” that you mention.

              Materialism and creationism (or theism) are philosophical beliefs that underpin scientific inquiry. I say that creationism and materialism are not scientific because science itself is silent about philosophy. It is the interpretation of scientific insights that produces philosophical beliefs.

              Creationism and its opposite (materialism) are not and can never be science, they can only philosophical views. Science only examines phenomena, it does not interpret the phenomena. Can you distinguish between science and philosophy?

              The Altenburg 16 is a very very anti-creationist book. It is basically a transcript of interviews between a journalist and various scientists from elite universities who are trying to piece together the foundations of “post-Darwinian research” since Darwinism has failed. This meeting of 16 prominent scientists was held in Altenburg, Austria in a hidden, hush-hush fashion because of their fear of “the powerful creationist movement.” These biologists are trying to piece together a new paradigm that fits the materialist worldview before too many people realize that current materialist paradigm (Darwinism) has fallen apart.

              You are waiting to hear my reply to why atheists are opposed to God? Is there something that wasn’t answered in my post entitled “If the evidence for God is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced?”


      2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        nick says:

        Some noble and good sentiments in your conclusion here. Such motivation makes your cause good and you deserve respect for what you are trying to achieve.

        However, advocation of Darwin is not rejection of God. You can be a Darwinist of the strictest kind and have a faith in God. The argument here, in the main, is over evolution, not whether God exists. People retort strongly on this, because they are genuinely convinced that Darwin is correct, for very good reason, as am I.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Nick, you are right about Darwinism not really being opposed to God. Darwin himself thought that the common ancestor that he proposed was created by God. Like I said before, I only attack Darwinism to demonstrate how heavily atheists overplay their hand when they (like Dawkins) use it to rationalize atheism.

          Considering what we know about new species never emerging from already existing species—either in the laboratory or in the fossil record—what is it about Darwinism that you find so convincing?


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            I cannot agree with this final statement. You have agreed with a certain amount of Darwinian theory yourself. Zero evidence would amount to denying the existence of things such as adaptation, which you have already professed to be true.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            It is the overall compilation of all the evidence together. It is the cumulative effect of all the lines of evidence that seem to point in the same direction. If it was just one ore two little bits, then I might find it more speculative, but there is such vast evidence that points to its correctness and I find this too compelling.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              But, as I have demonstrated, the “tree of life” that Darwin predicted is exactly backwards.

              The fossil record show that species appear fully formed and very suddenly in geologic terms. Then, instead of diversifying, as Darwin predicted, the fossil record shows that life forms become less diverse. You would be hard pressed to find a paleontologist who disputes this. Remember how the paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson put it:

              “…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)

              Can you explain to me how random, unintelligent processes can account for the sudden emergence of life forms? Further, if they were not preceded by ancestors in the fossil record, how can you really say that Darwin had it right? Not a single biologist can cite a single unambiguous example of a new species emerging from an accumulation mutations.

              The evidence isn’t “vast” as you put it. The evidence is zero.


  32. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Dashan says:

    I should also add that for a scientific theory to be valid it must be testable, falsifiable, observable and make accurate predictions. To use the much abused phrase, “show me the evidence!” Name the physical laws & processes, what mathematics does macro-evolution entail?


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      nick says:

      Macro-evolution makes sense based on the wide array of evidence that we have so far. Genetic codes help demonstrate the similarities and organism traits within larger scale evolutionary diversification.

      Micro evolution is observable. We suspect very strongly that macro evolution happens in much the same way. We have vast reason to suspect that this is right and little evidence to say that this is wrong. Micro evolution is observable is a perfect example of the process initially in animals such as pigeons and dogs. We have bulldogs and labradors, terriers and dachshunds, collies and Great Danes, all coming from an original ancestral group of wolves. Humanity has done this itself; we have been doing this particular line of experiment for millenia. Obviously change does happen over time on the micro scale at the very least. Why shouldn’t it happen on the macro scale?

      For this we have genetics and DNA, fossils and geology. DNA sequencing and genetics are very strong examples of evidence in favour of macro – evolution. To find relationships between species using DNA would seem to be a very reliable form of evidence. DNA is a pivotal tool in Global justice. Most global court systems (in the developed nations) will accept DNA evidence as reliable enough to convict someone of murder.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

        Why shouldn’t evolutionary change happen on the macro scale? Because the fossil evidence clearly states that it doesn’t. Darwinian macro evolution is simply an unsupportable extrapolation of micro evolution.

        How many experts am I going to have to cite to finally get through to you?

        Here is yet another:

        Evolutionist Steven M. Stanley concluded that: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition.” (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39)

        And yet another:

        The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson states:

        “…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)

        Evolutionist biochemist Philip Handler claimed that:

        “Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the animals, and in virtually not a single case is there fossil evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any two phyla looked like.” (Biology and the Future of Man, 1970 p. 506)

        Nick: I would like to administer a simple multiple choice test. Does the fact that, as Simpson put it, “all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences” support:

        A) creationism
        OR
        B) the Darwinian model which suggests gradual evolution through random mutation and natural selection.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          James says:

          Hmm… Denial is not just a river in Egypt. This is one thing I’ve always found frankly amusing about creationism. Any theory that conflicts with their beliefs is simply thrown out. Radiocarbondating? Wrong. Evolution? No evidence, so wrong. Have geological ages been conflicting with creationism since 1791 (Lyell)? Wrong. Age of the universe? Wrong. Paleantology? Wrong.

          Now people are even trying to tell us that evolution isn’t ‘scientific’. Who’s spreading this stuff?

          Evolution makes a number of testable statements about the world. It makes predictions that can be tested. It can be falsified. It can be observed. One of the reasons Dawrin’s theory took off so well is that he made predictions that all kept panning out. The paleantological record shows clear evidence of evolution. One example of fossil rabbits in Jurassic rock would blast evolution out of the water. But this has never happened.

          Don’t believe the fossil record shows this? Have you been looking at examples? Try talkorigins.com. Here’s one example from that site:

          The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

          Now how about going on the offensive, because creationism is just too absurd for words. It’s not testable – you going to get God to create something? – and it isn’t observable. And it doesn’t follow scientific laws, it requires God to actively break them. Call that scientific?

          Syoungren, I’m afraid your only reply, which I’ve seen five or six times now, is to mis-quote scientists such as Gould, who are supporting sudden evolution, but not creationism. Gould was an open evolutionist, and would hate that you’re doing this.

          Back to problems with creationism. Vestigal organs (predicted creationist response: denial)? Poor design in humans (predicted response: denial), such as tendency for back problems due to spine not being strong enough for eighty years of taking one’s weight; what about how our entire digestive system is wide open for disembowelling? How come we share so much of our DNA with other species (was God just lazy?) Where did all that water come from for the flood? For that matter, where did Noah find Polar bears and penguins in Palestine?


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

            You are not responding to creationism, but to a crude caricature of creationism that you have created in your head and/or read about in books by Dawkins. Who is questioning radio carbon dating? If you took the time to watch the videos by MIT physicist and biblical scholar Gerald Schroeder, you would see that there is no conflict in the timelines of the bible and of mainstream science. Yes, the earth is about 4.56 billion years old and the universe about 15 billion. Conflicts between biblical chronology and scientific chronology are rooted in a pre-Einstein understanding of time. The universe is only in its seventh day of existence when viewed from an observer located at the locus of the big bang. This is what the bible is talking about when it refers to a six day creation. Review the video about Einstein’s theory of time dilation and then Schroeder’s videos (they are towards the bottom in my evolution piece).

            Since I have responded to other readers comments on this topic before, I am going to have to do a lot of copying and pasting below:

            Here is the problem with the evolution debate: There is more than one definition of “evolution.” Below is an excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide Darwinism and Intelligent Design:

            Eugenie C. Scott writes: “What unites astronomical, geological, and biological evolution is the concept of change through time. But…not all change is evolution, so we must distinguish evolution as being cumulative change through time.”

            Nobody rejects evolution in this sense.. Our grandparents had a perfectly good word for it: they called it “history.”

            In biology, evolution takes on additional meanings. Some biologists define it as “a change in gene frequencies over generations.” Like “change over time” or “cumulative change over time,” evolution in this sense is uncontroversial. My genes are different from my parents’, and my children’s genes are different from mine. So what?

            Charles Darwin’s term for biological evolution was “descent with modification.” When used in a limited sense, however, even this is uncontroversial.

            …Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild–but again, only within existing species. So nobody in any field quarrels with “change over time” or “cumulative change over time.” And nobody in biology doubts “change in gene frequencies” or “descent with modification” within existing species.

            But Charles Darwin claimed far more than any of these things. In The Origin of Species he set out to explain the origin of not just one or a few species, but all species after the first––in short, all of the diversity of life on Earth. The correct word for this is not evolution, but Darwinism.

            So the problem is that the terms “evolution” and “Darwinism” are often used interchangeably, as if they were synonymous, when they are really not. Evolution, in certain senses of the term, is virtually undisputed. But evolution in the Darwinian sense that all species are theorized to have descended from one common ancestor (brancing out to form a “tree of life”) has been completely discredited by the fossil evidence.

            Keith Stewart Thomson (B.SC. Birmingham, AM, PH.D. Harvard) is currently a senior research fellow of the American Philosophical Society and an emeritus professor of natural history at the University of Oxford. He was appointed director of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History in July 1998. In 1987 he was appointed president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the oldest American natural history institution. He had earlier been a dean at Yale University and director of Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is the author of several books and essays that deal with paleontology, the history of science and evolution.

            And here is what Thomson said to the American Scientist in 1997: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun… The smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”

            Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”

            Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolph Raff, in the journal Developmental Biology write: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest… The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”

            Speciation has never been observed by biologists or paleontologists. Not even once. Period. (If you want more quotes, just ask.) This puts Darwin’s theory on very shaky ground indeed. If you still doubt this, please go pick up a copy of The Altenburg 16. The title refers to a meeting of 16 biologists from universities such as Oxford, Harvard, the University of Chicago, etc. who held a hidden, hush-hush meeting in Altenburg, Austria to start laying the framework for “post Darwinian research.” Here is my favorite quote from the back cover (as can be viewed on Amazon): “The scientific establishment has been somewhat scared of dealing rationally and openly with new evolutionary ideas because of its fear of the powerful creationist movement.”

            And my second favorite quote from the back cover: Oxford University and University of Massachusetts biologist Lynn Margulis (who won the U.S. Presidential Medal for science) says: “The Anglophone tradition [Darwinism] was taught. I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as ‘changes in gene frequencies’ in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations was tauted to be enough to change one species to another….No it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

            Darwinism is a nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated projection of materialist philosophy upon the world. When adequate fact checking was done, it became increasingly clear that Darwin’s assumptions about speciation and the “tree of life” were false and that supporters of the theory had just assumed them to be true.

            I haven’t checked into your giraffe example because I have absolutely no reason to dispute what you say in this example. But this is not speciation…it is descent with modification within a species.

            It should be noted that the above cited experts are not creationists, but rather Darwinists. They therefore believe in Darwinism in spite of the evidence rather than because of it. Their beliefs are therefore a commentary on the materialistic lens in which they view the world. Widespread belief in Darwinism by biologists should be viewed as a sociological and psychological phenomenon rather than a testimony to the veracity of its scientific underpinnings. You are correct, Gould and these other (honest) Darwinist scientists would probably be enraged that I am quoting them. TOUGH LUCK!

            Recall what Thomas Kuhn said about paradigm rejection in the most important book written about the psychology and sociology of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Scientists do not reject a paradigm when they realize it has failed. Rather, they reject a paradigm when they realize it has failed AND a better paradigm comes along to replace it.

            Relevant to this topic is what I said in my “Why are so many smart people unconvinced post”:

            The late great paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould commented that:

            “Unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”

            In what “cultural contexts” are atheist biologists rooted, causing them to perpetrate “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling?” For one, in the cultural context that the material world is the most basic, fundamental plane of existence (a worldview known as “materialism” or “naturalism”). The Harvard geneticist Richard C. Lewontin commented in 1997 that (in reference to defending Darwinism in a debate), “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin went on to say that “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

            And lastly the above quoted biologist, Lynn Margulis said: “…people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”

            What about Darwinism is testable? How is your assertion that human emotion resulted from genetic mutation testable?


      2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Dashan says:

        Nick says: Macro-evolution makes sense based on the wide array of evidence” Where is it?
        You say that micro evolution is observable-no problem NO ONE IS QUESTIONING ADAPTATION! But as I said for a scientify theory to be valid it must be testable, falsifiable, observable and make accurate predictions. To use the much abused phrase, “show me the evidence!” Name the physical laws & processes underpinning MACRO evolution? what mathematics does it entail? Where are the 1000 of failed attempts & examples of the missing link which Darwin predicted?

        THe point missed by everyone in the evolution debate is that it is just a possible MECHANISM to explain the biodiversity of life. It says NOTHING about cause or agency. You may have a wonderful mouthwatering cake and have a room full of Nobel laureates in all disciplines to give their analyis of the cake (except for a mathematicians b/c theres no prize for maths). But explaining a process doesnt answer why it exists, or where it came from. You wont find the baker in his cake or the author in his book. Newton didnt say “ah now I have a mechanism like gravity to explain planetary motion, I dont need God.” He said “now I see how God did it.”

        Without God we have mechanisms without causes. If u believe the absurdly complex laws of science created themselves in an all material world, you’d believe in anything.

        BTW, I suggest everyone read New Scientists Jan 2010 in which Evolution by natural selection has been all but thrown out on the basis of Viral interference in cell replication. Which explains how sudden changes occur in the fossil record such as the Cambrian explosion.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          nick says:

          I keep getting answered as though I am a fully fledged atheist. I make no logical steps from Darwinism to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. This is a slightly separate question, although of course one does have some affects on the other. I am not an atheist.

          I believe in the science of evolution, not as a religious person has faith in something, but because the overwhelming array of evidence convinces me that Darwinism is the very best explanation for the diversification of life. If ammendments are made and very credible alternatives are voiced, then I will indeed re-evaluate my position. However, to this point I see Darwinism as the best explanation of the process of nature.

          If you look at Catholic beliefs, you will see that the Catholic Church has accepted the truth in Darwinian theory and yet it retains its faith in Christianity and God. Whilst it is a tricky issue, you see no official line on fundamentalist creationism in the Catholic Church. They believe in Darwin and they believe in God, saying that scientific findings on evolution and Catholic understandings of faith are not in conflict.

          You ask for missing links in the fossil record, yet every fossil that exists is a missing link. Each fossil that exists represents a different stage in the process of evolution of the last billion years. Try archaeopteryx. What a fantastic missing link between the evolution of birds from dinosaurs and feathers from scales.

          The primate australopithecus walked the Earth 3 million years ago. The skeleton of Lucy is evidence of the existence of this human ancestor. Pretty good intermediate fossil.

          How about two existing descendants of an ancient line of sirenians. Current elephants and the water dwelling manatee share the same ancestral heritage before they split apart millions of years ago. Again we see evidence of intermediate stages in their fossil record.

          If there is some alternative to evolution, such as viral interference in cell replication, then we still need to understand what happened, and if viral replication is a credible alternative postulation then perhaps that is how nature operates. However, this postulation again sounds very naturalistic to me, with no implications of divine intervention, so are you suggesting one naturalistic explantion in place of another? I think this brings us no closer to a proof of God.

          Science and Darwin demonstrate the best explanation for the natural world and the fossil record, but I know many Christians and people of faith, who do not dispute this, yet still believe in God.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            If Lucy belonged to another branch of primate lineage, that ultimately did not lead to man, we are still looking at a member of the primate family from 3 million years ago. It is of a different species to homo sapiens and therefore is evidence of change, adaptation and evolution.

            Human ancestor or not, it is evidence of evolution and change in species over time. There are no Lucy’s about today.

            I think that it is correct to consider macro-evolution occuring Darwinistically, because we see so many occurrances of fossils fitting within the proposed framework.

            If the theory is wrong, then we should see examples of fossils existing outside of, or contradicting this framework at intervals we have not predicted or not in alignment with hypotheses. We never see a fossil existing out of place in the record. Nothing exists in a place where it shouldn’t be. This is the kind of evidence that begins to ammount to reasonable proof.

            If we are to propose that speciation cannot occur in the way displayed in the fossil record, then modern forms of science should not be able to manipulate animals genes in any meaningful way to demonstrate the ability for animals to change retrospectively to any great extent.

            The field of genetics is one of the best areas of proof of how inherent the ability is in genes for animals to change into new species over time, as well as mappimg some of their previous changes. Within the genes of modern animals is the family history of their route through nature to their current existence. Within these genes are contained the ability to have longer legs, shorter arms, greater height or larger claws.

            Upon manipulation in labs, scientists have been able to change modern animals by stimulating different genes into action. The ability for us to see evolution in action is demonstrable via gene manipulation.

            With Archaeopteryx lies even further evidence of the ability for macro evolution to take place.

            Scientists hypothesise that reptiles have evolved into birds over eons. If this is true or even provable, then this is some of the best evidence of macro-evolution being able to take place. Birds and reptiles are certainly considered different species.

            In lab experiments done in recent years, gene manipulation has been tested in chickens. It has been found that chickens retain the genetic ability to grow reptilian teeth. This is an extraordinary ability that is recessive in modern chickens, but the gene’s presence inside the chicken is a monument to their ability to grow such teeth as reptiles in the deep past. This is but one of the similarities in chicken and reptilian makeup. Gene manipulation in labs in recent years has demonstrated the ability that chickens have to grow scales, a longer reptilian tail, teeth, longer legs and claws on their forewings. These are all ancient reptilian traits inherited from millions of years of evolution and speciation. Such abilities would not exist if there was no connection and correlation between family lineages, evolution and speciation.

            Here are a couple of articles with reference to these discoveries.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29537188/ns/technology_and_science-science/

            Darwinism is not a social movement, it is scientific truth.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              But change within species is not macro evolution. It is micro evolution, and virtually no creationist disputes micro evolution, nor would they have any reason to.

              Nick, I have cited expert after expert who say that no species has ever been shown to evolve into another. And none of these experts are creationists (to the best of my knowledge). Rather, they are just honest Darwinists. Are you just going to keep ignoring this and making assertions that fly in the face of the facts?

              You can keep asserting that the fossil record displays a lineage of species. I guess I have to recycle one of my previous quotes:

              Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee said it best (in 1999): “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way…To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

              I recommend that you read this article as well.

              Important excerpts:

              The Curator of the invertebrates department at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge, who was also the adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is a vigorous supporter of evolution. Dr. Eldredge openly admits that the traditional evolutionary view is not supported by the fossil record. He says, “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long,” as he writes, “It seems never to happen. Fastidious collecting of fossils, from the bottom upward, up sheer cliff faces, zigzags, minor oscillations…all showing the same results. That life forms all appear, fully formed, complete in body parts, at their first discovery”.2 “When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution“.2

              “…most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. (Quoted from “Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

              Darwinism is a scientific truth?!

              The test of whether something is scientific fact or law is through the Scientific Method, as follows:1

              1. Observable. The act of seeing with the human eye the phenomena in question.

              2. Falsifiable. The ability to setup a test or experiment to determine the validity of the thesis.

              3. Repeatable. Any experiment must be repeatable to be valid and produce data that can be accepted.

              4. Null hypothesis. Statistical analysis of the data to fall within a given acceptable range that makes the data of use and value. This allows further predictions based on the model used in the experiment.

              5. Laws of operation. The laws of science (physics, chemistry etc.) must apply to both the phenomena and the thesis.
              What prevents the theory of evolution from ever becoming an established fact or law is that it can not pass the Scientific Method. Clearly, theories and scientific laws are not the same thing. Take a look at Newton’s Three Laws of Gravity. Newton’s theories of gravity became law because they could validated and verified by the Scientific Method, something that the theory of evolution can never be established by.

              Genetics demonstrate evolution?! I have to recycle another quote that you have ignored:

              Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolph Raff, in the journal Developmental Biology write: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest… The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”

              Nick, please don’t just keep making the same assertions without citations from credentialed experts to back them up.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

            I don’t think that you are an atheist. When you say that “every fossil that exist is a missing link,” you are mistaken.

            I think that the evolutionary biologist Henry Gee said it best (in 1999): “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way…To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

            “Lucy”, for example, can in no way be demonstrated to be a human ancestor. This article shows what I mean. Here is a cut and paste of an important excerpt:

            ‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

            According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

            In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

            “The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been”.2
            Oxnard’s firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.”3

            Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

            I should also mention that Donald Johanson (the other of the top two fossil experts in the world and the discoverer of Lucy) places Lucy (australopithecus africanus) in a side branch not leading to man. (see A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids which appears in Science, authored by D.C. Johanson and T.D. White)

            So despite the fact that the two most well known fossil experts in the world (and many other fossil experts) deny that ‘Lucy’ is a human ancestor, she is spoken of as human ancestor in a matter-of-fact way in the media. This is what I mean when I say that widespread belief in Darwinism should be viewed as a sociological and psychological phenomenon.

            The same is true of many other supposed “missing links.” Evolutionist Derek Ager confesses:

            “It must be significant that all the evolutionary stories that I learned as a student, from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.”

            Ancestral lineages in the fossil record must be looked upon as nothing more than unsubstantiated projections of the materialist worldview upon the fossil record. Because such lineages are not scientific hypotheses that can be scientifically tested (and have been repeatedly debunked), they cannot be deemed to be anything more.

            As far as archaeopteryx is concerned:

            “Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., “Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,” [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89).

            Declaring ancestral lineages in the fossil record is NOT SCIENTIFIC because it is NOT TESTABLE. (“there is no way of putting them to the test”)

            and then:

            “It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved assumed additional functions, but how they arose initially presumably from reptilian scales, defies analysis.” (Stahl, Barbara J. [Professor of Biology, Saint Anselm College, USA], “Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution,” Dover: New York, 1985, p349)


  33. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Dashan says:

    Steve,
    I get a lot of calls to “just show me the evidence”! I’m drafting an argument in favor of God as the only plausible explanation for realities that are beyond science. Please comment and critique it as u see fit. I would also like to give it a name:
    •P1 the universe consists only of matter & energy.
    •P2 Naturalism is the default explanation for the origin & existence of the universe.
    •P3 If Science is defined as the study of the natural world it must ultimately be able to explain everything without recourse to a immaterial (spiritual) dimension.
    •p4 there exists phenomena & questions that are metaphysical or philosophical in nature & hence beyond science.

    Therefore p1-p3 fail.
    Science cant explain
    • E.g why is there something instead of nothing?
    • Why the universe is rationally intelligible (obeys laws)
    • the origin of universal, immaterial complex laws that define the universe.
    • Why the universe is built on absurdly complex Math’ formulae & physical constants.
    • The claim that science can explain all reality is actually a philosophical claim.
    • Science cant make a judgment on moral issues because the animal kingdom is amoral. An alternative view would imply that there is an objective standard that exists to which we can compare good and evil.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Excellent. I would add to this the huge explanatory failures of naturalism. For example, the human brain is far far more complex and sophisticated than is necessary for survival. If we evolved for no other purpose than to pass on our genes, how and why did this extra sophistication come about? What is the evolutionary purpose of art and music? Why do we need emotions? Wouldn’t automatic responses be enough to suit our survival needs instead of emotions? What, for example, would be the evolutionary purpose of joy? It seems that obvious that a “survival machine” would be a lot more machine-like than we actually are.

      Dashan, I am very impressed with and greatly appreciate your contributions to this site.

      Scott (not Steve) ;)


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        James says:

        The answers to all of your questions can be found; perhaps someday they will. :) The problem is that some people are just incredulous- “no,” they say, “science will never be able to answer these questions!” But evolution explains an astonishing amount of our behaviour, and it is likely that one day it can be used to explain more.

        Let me have a shot. You mention ‘joy’ as an example of something you don’t think that we need to survive. Well, if we stick for the minute only with primitive joy (the type I think most of us would agree that canines and other mammals enjoy), there is a very obvious explanation once you think about it.

        In the wild, an average pack of dogs succeeds with only 1 in 10 hunts; they often fast for over a week. The hunting process is massively gruelling and presents genuine risk of injury or death with every attempt.

        With this in mind, it is not enough for the dog that its objective- getting food- is wrapped up in hunting. The process is so gruelling that any animal with just this incentive would soon be put off. A massively useful survival mechanism is to actually enjoy the hunt purely for its own sake. This is a powerful incentive. This explains why dogs enjoy chasing things like sticks or balls even when there is no food to be had. The animal enjoys the act unto itself.

        Can you see that, on close examination, there are plenty of explanations for why emotions such as joy are useful? Obivously I can’t explain every one here (I don’t know enough anyway), but I would recommend Desmond Morris’ ‘The Naked Ape’ for further analysis of human zoology.

        One final point, oft raised about art and music- why are they useful to us? This is a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution doesn’t produce solely what is necessary. Anything that is not detrimental to the survival and, more importantly, reproduction of the species can be passed on. For example, men have never lost their nipples during growth because they present no evolutionary disadvantage. A man with nipples survives just as well as one without.

        With this in mind, it is easy to see how ‘side-effects’ crop up in evolution. Dawkins actually lists religion itself as a side-effect, a result of man’s instinctive tendency to humanise causes (I agree, though I’m not sure, as Dawkins is, that religion is an inherenty bad side-effect). Creativity is, without doubt, useful to human society. It allows us to construct tools, plan hunts etc. But evolution can’t pick and choose creatvity- humans with greater intelligence survived better, so general creativity was passed on. And with general creativity comes artistic and musical creativity.

        More gneerally, it may simply be the case that complex emotions and creativity are an inevitable result of a developed brain. The developed brain itself is useful to survival- massively useful. Any unfortunate ‘side-effects’ such as complex emotion don’t outweigh this usefulness, so are not discarded but are passed on.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          If evolution doesn’t produce only what is necessary, then what is the mechanism by which it produces unnecessary things? Darwinism proposes that behaviors or traits that render a survival value are passed on. What survival value, then, does musical ability or artistic appreciation produce? What is the survival value of being able to appreciate beauty (such as the beauty of a sunset)?

          So elements that cannot be explained by their ability to render survival value are swept under the rug by labeling them “unfortunate side effects” or an “inevitable result”?

          I thought complexity required a long process of random mutation and natural selection. How does emotion evolve its complexity through random mutation and natural selection if it renders no survival value, but is only an “unfortunate side effect?”

          This is a rhetorical device used to do away with phenomena which cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, and transparently so.

          What survival value does consciousness produce? Why does a “survival machine” (to use Dawkins’ term) need consciousness?

          Can you do away with this inconvenient question by just labeling consciousness an “unfortunate side effect?”

          Please describe how religion is a harmful side effect.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            James says:

            I’ll say it again- Natural Selection does not only produce what is strictly ‘necessary.’ For a start, evolution is blind; it doesn’t know what’s necessary or what isn’t.

            Consider it a a genetic level. Random mutation. Say for the purposes of argument that there is an ‘artist gene’ (there isn’t) and that this develops in 0.1% of the population. An artist gene is no hindrance to an organism’s ability to survive/reproduce, so ‘artist organisms’ will survive just as well as others of the species, and so will be passed on.

            Religion is a very interesting example of this. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s very obvious that believing one’s parents without question is beneficial to survival- if mum says ‘don’t walk towards those alligators’, any baby that tested this command would be dead.

            But this has the ‘side-effect’ of children believing things even when they are transparently false. This includes wide ranges of beliefs, from the urban myth that hair regrows quicker once shaved, to – maybe – religion.

            As for consciousness, it’s a mystery, mostly because no one’s even sure what consciousness is. What are we talking about? If we are talking about self-awareness, foresight, thinking creatively, looking for short-cuts etc, then all of these things have very obvious practical applications, e.g. hunting, creating tools.

            I’d also like to point out one other thing I’ve noticed: why are people so eager to attribute all the good things to God (love, art, sunsets etc) but none of the bad? Isn’t this the precise opposite of the perspective you criticise in your post about suffering?

            BTW, I never said I consider religion a harmful side effect- that’s Dawkins. I think religious people are generally trying to help. :) I just find it a shame that we should need such motivation.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              It is OK to believe these things. Just don’t confuse these beliefs with science.

              The test of whether something is scientific is through the Scientific Method, as follows:

              1. Observable. The act of seeing with the human eye the phenomena in question.

              2. Falsifiable. The ability to setup a test or experiment to determine the validity of the thesis.

              3. Repeatable. Any experiment must be repeatable to be valid and produce data that can be accepted.

              4. Null hypothesis. Statistical analysis of the data to fall within a given acceptable range that makes the data of use and value. This allows further predictions based on the model used in the experiment.

              5. Laws of operation. The laws of science (physics, chemistry etc.) must apply to both the phenomena and the thesis.
              What prevents Darwinism from ever becoming an established fact or law is that it can not pass the Scientific Method. Clearly, theories and scientific laws are not the same thing. Take a look at Newton’s Three Laws of Gravity. Newton’s theories of gravity became law because they could validated and verified by the Scientific Method, something that Darwinism can never be established by.

              So when you say that such human attributes as the ability to appreciate art, music, and beauty were caused by random genetic mutations, you are not making a scientific statement. This is because such a view has not been and never can be verified by direct observation or experimentation.

              Such views are best described as religious in nature. Recall what psychologists say about science becoming a religion. Psychologist Charles Tart in The End of Materialism:

              “…but science is practiced by human beings, beings who, like the rest of us, are fallible, so [I present] ways of not knowing, ways in which essential science ossifies into scientism, a rigid belief system, and which genuine skepticism, an honest search for better truths, turns into pseudoskepticism, or debunking. As I’ve observed it in my career, and I think psychologist Abraham Maslow would have agreed, science can be practiced in a way that makes it an open-ended, personal-growth system for the practitioner or one of the most effective and prestigious neurotic defense mechanisms available.”

              The claim that human attributes such as love and the ability to appreciate beauty, music, art (and what not) are caused by random genetic mutations is an assertion that springs from a scientistic (not to be confused with “scientific”) belief system, not from science. I am not criticizing your religious beliefs, I am just pointing this out.


  34. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    Danno says:

    If the evidence for speciation through random mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced? Because they don’t understand evolution.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      No, I am afraid that it is people who believe that speciation can occur through random mutations, natural selection and genetic drift who do not understand evolution.

      Lee Spetner holds a PhD in physics from MIT and was a fellow in biophysics at Johns Hopkins University. In his book Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, he writes:

      “The neo-Darwinian theory was an attractive theory. Unfortunatly, it is based on the false speculation that many small random mutations could build up to large evolutionary changes. In Darwin’s day there was no scientific evidence for or against such a speculation. Nor did any evidence for it arise during the eighty years that elapsed from the publication of Darwin’s book until NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] was set up. The speculation was nevertheless accepted as possible, even as fact. But during the half century of the NDT, we have probed the molecular level of cellular functions. …We have alot of evidence of the nature of the mutations to which the neo-Darwinians assigned the role of the small variations. None of this evidence vindicates the Darwinian speculation that large-scale evolution has its source in random variation. All the evidence is against it.”

      Spetner’s statement that “speculation was nevertheless accepted as possible, even as fact” (regarding NDT) is echoed by Lynn Margulis (who won the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science and is an Oxford University and University of Massachussetts Professor of Biology) when she says:

      “The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

      So the problem with NDT is that random mutations were assumed to be sufficient to bring about new species, but once sufficient fact checking was done, this turned out to not be the case.

      Mathematicians are most qualified to comment on the mathematical probability of random processes accounting for speciation…not biologists like Dawkins. So lets see what some mathematicians have to say about NDT:

      Fred Hoyle is a mathematician (retired professor from Cambridge University) and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Chandra Wickramasinghe is chairman of the Department of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cardiff. In their book Why Neo-Darwinism Does Not Work, they provide “a simple and decisive [mathematical] disproof of the ‘Darwinian’ theory.”


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        Danno says:

        It appears that you have little to no education in biology or evolution, only quotes from others.

        Recommendations to the public: Explore the arguments from both sides, in full. Read about intelligent design and creationism. But don’t sell yourself short; study genetics and evolution from any university before saying outlandish things like…

        “No, I am afraid that it is people who believe that speciation can occur through random mutations, natural selection and genetic drift who do not understand evolution.”

        I expect nothing less than ideologically-driven retorts to this post. Danno, out.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          I do explore the arguments from both sides. Have you noticed how I try to stay away from citing creationists as much as possible? I mention the creationist biologist Michael Behe, but only in reference to him citing another biologist who is not a creationist. The vast majority of experts that I cite are not creationists. Rather, they are people who believe that naturalistic explanations can account for the origin and diversification of life, but are honest in admitting that the current naturalistic explanations are insufficient. They therefore have a naturalistic worldview in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

          You seem to think that it is a case of creationist intelligent design types vs. mainstream biology when it comes to the issue of Darwinism. But this is not the case. Biologists who are not part of the “intelligent design movement” (including atheists like you) are increasing admitting that Darwin’s theory is inadequate to explain the diversification of life. The quotations I have provided demonstrate this and I will provide many more at your request.

          I recommend that you pick up a copy of The Altenburg 16: An Expose of The Evolution Industry. This book is basically a transcript of interviews between a journalist and several biologists…none of whom are creationists. The title refers to a meeting that occurred in 2005 in Altenburg, Austria where prominent biologists discussed laying the foundations for “post-Darwinian research.”

          It is not what my retorts are driven by that matter. Rather, it is the facts that matter.


      2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        James says:

        Hey again.

        I wonder if maybe we should just never mention creationism/evolution again. It’s quite clear that no concensus will be reached, because everyone just keeps thrwoing quotations at each other. It’s a classic “read this website/book/paper and it’ll explain everything” thread. It’s sadly typical of creationism, which is why you never see a newspaper article entitled ‘An Independent Body of Secular Scientists in the USA have discovered no evidence of fossil evolution…’ or similar.

        Anyway, back to the point of this post. I still don’t agree that people have an intuitive dislike for religion. It’s like saying we have an intuitive repulsion for sex. If everyone hates it, why is everyone doing it?

        The thrust of your argument (quotations aside) seems to be that people want some kind of ‘liberation’ from moral contraints, that come with believing in God. But as an atheist I certainly don’t feel ‘morally liberated.’ Even if I were completely psychotic and amoral, I still have to follow the laws of the country (as I would make a hopeless criminal), so I can’t just do whatever I want. Furthermore, I still have moral ‘constraints’ because I am limited by the physical world. I can’t just do whatever I feel like.

        Nor would I.

        Secondly, there are so many potential benefits to believing in God (eternal bliss, an unwavering friend, miraculous support etc) that I believe these apparent attractions far outweigh any repulsion to religion people might feel.

        I am most interested to know how you explain why, if we are all so repulsed by the idea of a morally superior God, religion has been so dominant throughout all the globe until at most 150 years ago, and still holds such sway today.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Well, here is another important point about the whole Darwinism/creationism debate: It is largely irrelevant when it comes to the question of God’s existence. This because evolution only discusses the diversification of life from a putative common ancestor. Darwinism does not even attempt to explain the origin of life from lifeless chemicals.

          I just mentioned the following in a reply to another reader’s post: Charles Darwin himself was inclined to believe that the common ancestor which his theory proposed was created by God. In later versions of The Origin of Species, he states that life may have “been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” He also said, “When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

          The only reason I even mention the topic is to show how heavily atheists are overplaying their hand when they try to use biology as justification for atheism.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            James says:

            The problem, I think, for most atheists (and for many theists) comes in considering to what extent God would use his power.

            Evolution is a satisfying conclusion for many theists because it literally ‘takes God out of the equation’- God may be involved in it, but he isn’t necessary to it. In other words, once evolution has started, there is no reason why God would be needed in order for humans to evolve.

            The reason a lot of theologians see this as better is because God no longer has to be so ‘magical’. He can take his hands off the levers. Creationism, on the other hand, literally posits an endless series of miracles, in defiance of all laws of nature. But this seems to suggest that God created natural laws only to break them in the first few days of their existence.

            The problem is over abiogenesis. For me, it’s not obvious why, if one is willing to compromise and say ‘evolution is fact but God miraculously created the first life’, one shouldn’t just go the whole nine yards and say God created everything with miracles.

            In other words, if God is willing to get involved and break his own natural laws once or twice, why bother with using the natural laws at all? Evolution is a massively wasteful and unpleasant process, requiring the deaths of billions of animals to produce even a few humans. If God is willing to practice ‘miraculous intervention’ to produce the first life, why does he feel compelled to stop there?

            That as I see it is the problem with accepting evolution but believing that God had a hand in the initial creation of species.


  35. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
    0
    nick says:

    I think that whatever I say about evolution you will have a reply to. You say that Gould is 100 % right to say that evolution is a fact. You agree with diversification within species. You agree that gene frequencies differ and change between generations. You agree that speciation occurs.

    I find myself confused, as you agree with so much of evolution, but then draw lines and say that other parts are not demonstrable or incorrect.

    I am a little clearer as to Margulis’ angle. She says that speciation via random mutation has never been demonstrably proven, not that speciation has never occured. Is this correct?

    What is the next step from here? Evolution occurs naturally, but we cannot prove that it results in speciation at this moment. Here is where she ends her claims of real knowledge. What do you infer from this? Do you infer that God handles the speciation? Margulis does not infer this. Are you saying that Margulis is an anti Darwinist? She has clearly stated that whilst she believes she does not see evidence for random mutations leading to speciation, she believes that natural courses result in new species Darwinistically. She does claim not to be a neo-Darwinist though. I also think that there are various observable examples of speciation transpiring via random mutations.

    This is a quote from Lynn Margulis at one of her talks. “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation.”

    On the interchangeability of the words Darwinism and evolution, on this site and elsewhere, I completely admit guilt. You are right that often the two words are used as synonomous and I have done so more than once myself. I think that in coloquial conversation, usually this is acceptable and I did not see it as much of a problem generally because we know broadly what we are talking about. However, from a technical, academic and scientific point of view I think that you are correct to draw some distinctions. Evolution is the correct phrase for the whole theory of biological change, about which our knowledge has, evolved, progressed and expanded many times in the last 150 or so years. Darwinism from a very technical perspective might represent the idea that Darwin put forward himself of gradual change, natural selection and evolution 150 years ago. So when we say Darwinism, although we know generally what we are talking about, I suppose that academically speaking, we are talking about a less comprehensive theory and thus evolution and Darwinism are different. However, in general and in coloquial practice the two words are used interchangeably, because they are so similar.

    In this context though, you draw upon them to show that evolution is alive, but Darwinism is in trouble. Darwinism is evolving. It is an idea from 150 years ago and since then the whole field of genetics has arisen, the genome has been mapped and the journal of scientific knowledge has expanded exponentially, so yes ammendments to the original hypothesis have been made and greater detail is now known about the further complexity of the theory.

    About the length of time that requires gradualism, you also criticise me.

    Gradualism does not neccessarily have to be measured in generic years and days. Whilst it is usually true that it takes a very long time, species arrive as quickly or as slowly as the parameters for that species within it’s own environment will allow. For example, smaller species with much shorter life cycles will exhibit changes at a seemingly much faster rate because of the frequency of reproduction and death. For example, the reproduction of bacteria can be almost explosive. How quickly have you seen some forms of bacteria reproduce in a lab plate? At this rate of multiplication, mutation has a much faster chance of happening and so the rate of mutation and evolution appears much quicker. Whereas if you calculate the rate of mutation per generation of each bacterium, it will carry a similar ratio to the evolutionary rate of most other life forms in nature.

    You say that gradual mutation is essential to Darwinism. The idea of gradual mutation is pretty central, but the apparent speed of generational mutations may be very fast in life cycles that are shorter. For example the human life cycle will take a lot longer, because our total gestation and growth to sexual maturity takes something nearing 15 to 16 years.

    A very short period of Darwinistic gradualism amongst very small and simpler organisms, with a likely much shorter reproductive cycle, could very easily have happened in the several million years prior to the Cambrian explosion.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
      0
      syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      “Speciation” refers to the emegence of new species. In Darwin’s model, this occurs through random processes. In the biblical model, this occurs through a higher intelligence creating new species. The problem seems to be that the term “speciation” is inextricably linked to random processes in your head.

      No, Margulis is not a creationist. I find it unwise to cite creationist scientists (like Behe) too much because many atheists and agnostics will just reflexively dismiss everything they say from the get go. As I mention in my “What It All Boils Down to” essay, mainstream biology (Margulis included) is committed to finding naturalistic explanations for all biological phenomena. I cite biologists (and other scientists) such as her to demonstrate how little can actually be explained by viewing the world through a naturalistic lens.

      The important point here is that naturalism (or materialism) is an assumption that precedes the examination of facts rather than a conclusion that results from the examination of the facts and data. So of course Margulis thinks that natural courses result in new species. She is just more honest than other biologists who view the world through the lens of “naturalism” or “materialism” (a worldview which has been completely discredited by modern physics) in that she admits that Darwinism has failed as an explanation.

      You cannot assert that Margulis is a Darwinist. Recall that she says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.”

      I am glad that you brought up bacteria. Don’t you recall what the University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton said? See below:

      “None [evidence] exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another… Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e. bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organism.”

      No Darwinism is not evolving…it is being abandoned. If you read the book “The Altenburg 16” (or view it on Amazon at least) you will see that scientists from leading universities such as Harvard, Oxford, Yale, UCLA and the University of Chicago (among others) have met each other to discuss laying the foundations for “post-Darwinian research”. Such meetings are being held in a rather hush-hush manner because, as Sam Smith (the editor of the Progressive Review) puts it, “the scientific establishment has been somewhat scared about dealing rationally and openly with new evolutionary ideas because of its fear of the powerful creationist movement.” This quote can be viewed on the back cover of the book on Amazon.

      It would be more accurate to say that Darwinism has fallen apart, and that naturalistic (or materialist) scientists are feverishly searching for a new naturalistic explanation before too much of the public catches on.

      Your assertion that, “A very short period of Darwinistic gradualism amongst very small and simpler organisms, with a likely much shorter reproductive cycle, could very easily have happened in the several million years prior to the Cambrian explosion” is not very meaningful when you consider that no new species has been shown to emerge from a already existing species through an accumulation of mutations.

      What do I assert brought about speciation? Could it be God? Quite possibly, but where God intervened is not as important as the fact that God did intervene.


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
        0
        nick says:

        I do not think that we will agree over this topic of evolution. Whilst I appreciate how you view it, I would say that I would probably have a very Darwinistic pursuasion on the theory of evolution. It is another term that I have learnt from this site, but I would probably consider myself to be almost a neo-Darwinist.

        However, definitions here being a key part to your arguments, I am not entirely sure of the accurate scientific definition of Neo-Darwinist, or how far it goes. Whilst I also recognise that there is a distinction in definitions between the terms evolution and Darwinism, I am not sure of the exact parameters of this difference either. I believe that my previous definition is how I would see the distinction, although you seem to see Darwinism as so different that it is failing completely.

        I fail to see how Darwinism is falling apart. I really do fail to see how you can talk so confidently about the failings of a theory that so beautifully explains the processes of change biologically and geologically in the world that we can observe.

        I am all for debate and I think that science is obliged to accept criticism and answer questions. I think that you have raised some decent scientists that dessent from the orthodox views in science, in Lynn Margulis and Stephen Jay Gould who both seem very legitimate and have produced reason and research based critiques and alternatives to the traditional understandings of evolution. These kind of offerings, whilst controversial, are valid criticisms and should at least be given the chance of being heard. I accept both of their arguments and they have both turned my head from thinking solely about the orthodox.

        However, neither of these postulates anything unnaturalistic as a cause for evolution. They both believe that slightly different mechanisms from the orthodoxy could be the causes for the evidence of diversification and biological change in the history of our planet.

        The issue of defining Darwin comes up here. I have earlier postulated how I believe the distinction between evolution and Darwin might be made, but I am not sure of the exact academic definition of the difference between Darwin and evolution, so this may give rise to part of the confusion.

        However, both Gould and Margulis clame to be Darwinists. Margulis as you rightly say rejects neo-Darwinism as a religious sect, but she herself claims to be a Darwinist, which she distinguishes as different from neo-Darwinism. I did not assign her this categorization, I found quotations from her own talks, where she states categorically that she is a Darwinist. Below are two quotations from Margulis herself and the web pages that I have found them.

        “I want to support every effort to celebrate this roughly 200th anniversary of the birth of Darwin. I’ve had a great time with the Cornell students,” Margulis said.
        http://cornellsun.com/node/27584

        “Although I greatly admire Darwin’s contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist.”
        http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html

        (also I didn’t accuse Margulis of being a creationist)

        I believe that there is very credible evidence for speciation available and I’m not really sure that your objection to speciation with regards to bacteria is one that convinces me. The realms that we are entering now are beyond the qualifications of both of us to speak with real credibility upon, as we are beginning to speculatively discuss areas of complex biology. I am not sure what to make of the Altenberg 16, except that it was written by a journalist rather than a scientist. Perhaps it has some valid points of contention. I would speculate that perhaps scientists do meet to chat about Darwin, so perhaps there is some truth in such a claim. However, I think that generally this is to debate and discuss legitimate new findings and evolution within the context of this theory that Darwin laid out 150 years ago. Again Darwin did not include things such as genetics in ‘The Origin of Species’, so this would be a good example of an area into which the theory has expanded and evolved or changed. I don’t think that scientists are meeting to discuss the iminent collapse of the theory of evolution, but perhaps the changing nature of it.

        With regards to this topic in general, I think you are tabling a very open debate on this website which is to your credit. My personal view is that I am convinced quite strongly of the general theory that Darwin laid out 150 years ago, although I would not regard it as complete and I would certainly entertain the possibility of credible and legitimate question and debate around its mechanisms, such as that advanced by Stephen Jay Gould. This does not amount to me believing that speciation has never been proved or that there is an intervention at the Cambrian.

        I think that generally, I would consider myself to be a neo-darwinist as far as I have understood it so far. When you speak of God in your last line, I do feel like your views of the Cambrian intervention are installed so as to confirm your belief in God. Perhaps you will say I am wrong here, but if it is so, or partially so, I can understand this logic.

        However, my views here are not in pursuit of a case against God. I see them as potentially causing difficulty to the philosophical discussion of God, but they do not eradicate the possibility. I would consider myself a neo-Darwinist, but actually I would still consider myself very open to the possibility of God. My views on evolution are based on the best reason and proofs that I have been able to find and research from science with regards to this topic, they are not in pursuit of disproving God.

        One of the greatest demonstrations of the credibility of Darwins theory for me is the incredible progress and almost miraculous achievements that we have seen in medical science in recent centuries.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          nick says:

          I am quite literally astounded. Breathless. David Attenborough, amongst his awards for Broadcasting, is a fellow of the Royal Society.

          You do not become a fellow of The Royal Society without scientific qualification.

          He won the Farraday Prize. You do not win the Farraday prize without scientific contribution. You have used this as a supporting credential in professors you have cited.

          You reduce his science Degree from Cambridge to nothing, when one of the main qualifications behind your referenced professors is often their institution of study.

          He did not make these films alone. Indeed the production of such behemoths as the Planet Earth series would be a huge undertaking for just one man.

          The contributions from academics of the highest order and from institutions of the greatest recognition are required for the making of his films. Britannica distributes awards to none but the best and most scrutinised of academic sources. Attenborough is the voice of the scientific community globally. He represents the contributions from institutions of academia across the planet, including museums, research centres, universities and the best of science. He does not speak words only from his own thoughts, but from the compilations of papers from Harvard, from Oxford, From Cambridge and Princeton, from the Smithsonian, from Kew, from the British Museum of Natural History and from the Royal Society.

          Your derision of a good and honest man is poorly placed.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            Here is an example of the type of natural documentation Attenborough records.

            It’s just a 3 minute clip from a documentary about plants. It’s about the Venus fly trap.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            to clarify …. ‘I will not pretend that as an advocate of Darwin I think that his work illustrates Darwin’s theory.’

            I meant the opposite of this…. I think that his work does illustrate Darwin’s theory.


          3. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            I think you are right to treat Sir David with this bit more respect. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, his record and contribution is undeniable, as is his legitimacy in this debate. One is not honoured as a Knight of the realm without due cause.

            There are several reasons that I mentioned David Attenborough earlier. Perhaps you should skim over some of his achievements that I have listed again (although there are many that I have not listed). Asside from his awards and doctorates, is the inclusion of a new species being named in his honour. This is something special, that honours the contribution of somebody special.

            There are so many sides to the work that he has done. I mentioned his name because I think that he brings incredibly valuable documentation of the biological world to the table, as well as his charity and efforts for good.

            I will not pretend that as an advocate of Darwin I think that his work illustrates Darwin’s theory. I was in part bringing up his name as I think he brings much credibility to Darwinian evolution.

            However, I was not pressing this and I replied to your response to Attenborough, as I was so shocked at your evaluation of him. There was far more reason for my mentioning him and as I have said previously, if you disagree with his conclusions, you are entitled to. What you must do though is give him respect and a fair hearing, as if you cannot look at the contributions that he makes with balance and objectivity, then you cannot claim to have looked at all the evidence. He has made occasional films solely for the argument of Darwinism, but he has made many more films that are simply documentations of nature.

            It is these films that I believe you cannot ignore and this was the main reason I mentioned his name. To make the statements that you have done about Darwinism, you need to have explored the topic from a wider perspective. You must have a look at some of the wider issues in biology and the realities of nature. This does not involve philosophical debates, or listening to someone evangelise such as Dawkins, but to investigate with your own eyes some of the pictures and evidence available. As you have said many times, the first part of the scientific process is ‘observation’. If you wish to demonstrate that Darwin is truely wrong you must do some investigation of your own into the subject matter. Their are few, if any better portrayers of the realities of the natural world than Attenborough.

            The Planet Earth series depicts nature in this fair and responsible way. It is a video recorded shot of the natural world that is indisputable. His narration, is of the events unfolding and it is this evidence and wealth of information, that I was asking you to investigate.

            I will not deny that you will hear his understandings of nature through Darwin in parts of this film, but of course you are entitled to disagree with these mentionings. The majority of his work is documentation and explanation of the natural world and this review and portrayal of modern nature is uncontroversial. If you conclude differently from him, having seen the natural world as his pictures portray, your arguments at least have fairness and balance to their conclusions.


          4. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            I appreciate that slightly more respectful reply. You are entitled to disagree with Attenborough as much as you wish (allthough of course I would not myself). However, if you do not do this with respect and acknowledgement of his obvious honest and good reputation, your reply will fall short.

            With regards to your question of his qualifications, is a scholarship and a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge England not a good enough start?

            Attenborough is the most honoured academic in the UK. He tops a list of honorary degree holders in the UK with a staggering 29. This man dwarfs the academic record of most people on this site. He holds 29 doctorates from different institutions in Britain, including the Open University.

            Here is an article showing some of the people he surpasses (allthough the picture may be a little comical).

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7920613/Sir-David-Attenborough-heads-lists-of-most-honoured-by-Britains-universities.html

            This man is no pretender or fraud.

            He believes in Darwin as you say. However, many of his documanteries focus not on Darwin but on the reality of life as he finds it.

            To dispute video documentation of the world that he relays would be insanity, because whilst disputes may be had on the inner mechanisms of biology, live pictures recorded are undeniable.

            This is why he commands such respect. He delivers the message as he finds it. That is why I referenced the series Planet Earth. Whether you believe in Darwin as the mechanism or not, is not the focul point of this series. It is an undeniable depiction of the world in which we live. There is no theological engagement, it is science and documentary at its finest. This is why I was so taken aback at your reaction.

            If you wish to dispute whether Darwin is the mechanism or not, you are entitled to of course, but the overwhelming message conveyed in his films is an understanding and picture of the world around us.

            His films and documentaries form one of the greatest contributions to science since its inception. For all of those biologoists who remain back at the lab, he brings video evidence of natural behaviour, of hunting strategies, of mating cycles, group interaction, of herbivores and carnivores, of trees and plants, of birds and fish, of algae and fungi, from all corners of the globe. This is the kind of invaluable observation that forms so central a part of the construction of scientific theory, hypothesis and understanding.

            This is what gives the man such deserved scientific and academic status, as well as any of the accollades and doctorates he has earned.

            You are entitled to your opinion about Attenborough of course, but I will not truely accept your criticism unless you can watch and evaluate some of his work, for yourself. Perhaps one of his books, or perhaps some of his documentaries. It would be helpful if there was something good on youtube, but I think that generally there are just clips, rather than full documentaries.

            Try watching that clip that I posted of Planet Earth from youtube. No words, no narration, just an orchestral soundtrack and some stunning visuals. This is what I mean by the quality in his work. It is 4 minutes long and uncontroversial.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              Maybe I haven’t given Attenborough a fair shake. I don’t think he is a fraud. As I said before, I did not watch the video. Maybe I mistakenly thought you were using his material to justify Darwinism.

              I stand by my position that many biologists and paleontologists (perhaps even most) are fully aware of Darwinism’s grave shortcomings. There is no question that Darwinism is still the reigning paradigm, but recall what Thomas Kuhn said about paradigm rejection in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (as I quoted him in my previous post): Scientists do not reject a paradigm when they realize it has failed. They reject it when they realize it has failed AND a better paradigm has arrived to take its place.

              I suppose I should not fault Attenborough too much for believing in and teaching the reigning paradigm. As the biologist Lynn Margulis said, “people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”


          5. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            Of all the discussions on this site, I think that your reaction here is the poorest.

            You have preached and ‘practiced’ fair, balanced and well mannered discussion on this site. You have tabled a reasonable and open conversation, allowing different people to express different points of view and I give you great credit for this.

            However, on this occasion the lack of respect and derision you have exhibited for David Attenborough is well beyond the bounds of your previous good manners. I am disapointed to put it mildly.

            If you disagree with what he says, then as a respectful host you are entitled to say so of course. However the manner that you have discarded his credibility does not befit the quality of the rest of the discussions on this site, nor does it exhibit a fair and balanced hearing. I am reminded almost of the ad hominem critique from Dashan.

            This man holds a selection of credentials only exhibited by one at a time by many of your cited academics. I am not criticising the quality of your citings, I am merely asserting the status that Attenborough commands.

            It is farcical for you to assert and cite so many credentialed professionals and then to discredit the exact same credentials of a professional that I mention. You have mentioned in support of your claims, at least two previous Farraday prize winners in Peter Medawar and Paul Davies, emphasising their status as prize holders as part of their credibility. Attenborough too holds a Farraday prize.

            To discard the obvious biological accumen of such a figure as useless without investigation, illustrates utter ignorance towards exploration of the arguments. You do not have to agree with what he says, but if you cannot respect and read his books or at least listen to his view then you demonstrate no balance in reaching your conslusions. You have said many times that you must explore all sides of the debate to really engage it and understand.

            You assert that, ‘Attenborough does not conduct any research or hold any advanced degrees.’

            On the utter contrary. Attenborough is involved in the key part of the scientific process. His 50 year career represents some of the finest and most honest documentation of the reality and behaviours of the natural biological world.

            Here is a quote from another post you have written:

            ‘The test of whether something is scientific fact or law is through the Scientific Method, as follows:
            1. Observable. The act of seeing with the human eye the phenomena in question.’

            This first part of the scientific process is exactly what Attenborough has spent a lifetime doing. His evidence is indisputable. You cannot very well forge or fake biological video documentation of the natural world (especially not back in the 50’s). Attenborough is probably the world’s leading authority in this first step of the scientific process that you outline very well as ‘observation’. He has been at the forefront of investigation into all the unknown biological corners of the planet, bringing back to the lab his recorded and documented scientific observations for criticism, evaluation and analysis since the 1950’s. His status is such that he has recently had a new species of tree named after him.

            “Ever since the scientific naming of species commenced it has been used to honour great contributions to biology, and everyone involved was agreed that Sir David’s contribution to scientific knowledge of animal and plant life are second to none. We were delighted when he accepted the invitation to have a new species named after him, particularly when it is so unusual to discover new trees, with such beautiful flowers”.
            -John Burton.

            “Blakea Attenboroughii” – found in Ecuador.

            His role in science is key and profound. His experience and opinion is vast and weighty.

            If you disagree with his conclusions, this would be acceptable, but there would be no validity to the conclusions you make without first viewing his work. It’s like saying, ‘I hate that Picasso, load of old rubbish.’ – ‘Ah, but have you ever seen his work?’ ‘No, just think he’s rubbish.’

            I feel disapointed to say the least with your reaction to the status of this scientific figurehead.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              Perhaps I should be have been easier on Attenborough. But can you demonstrate that he has any education in natural sciences beyond a bachelor’s degree? I reviewed his qualifications and didn’t see it. Perhaps I missed it.

              But here is my central point about what Attenborough is teaching. Recall what Thomas Kuhn, who is the most recognized figure in the psychology and sociology of science said about paradigm rejection in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

              “Though they [scientists] may begin to lose faith and then consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm [or broadly accepted set of scientific theories and beliefs] that has led them into crisis. They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science that is what they are. In part this generalization is simply a statement from historic fact… These [examples] hint what our later examination of paradigm rejection will disclose more fully: once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place.….The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other.” [emphasis mine]

              If Attenborough is teaching the Darwinian “tree of life” and speciation through random mutation and natural selection even though this view has been completely discredited by the fossil record (as I have demonstrated with my barrage of quotes and videos) then his views should be regarded as a psychological and sociological phenomenon.

              Here are my latest paleontologist quotes again. Sorry, but I have found it necessary to repeat myself in this area because it seems to have a hard time penetrating your worldview:

              Evolutionist Steven M. Stanley concluded that: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition.” (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39)

              And yet another:

              The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson states:

              “…every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)

              Evolutionist biochemist Philip Handler claimed that:

              “Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the animals, and in virtually not a single case is there fossil evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any two phyla looked like.” (Biology and the Future of Man, 1970 p. 506)

              I could go on and on and on, but rather than doing so, I will just let you review more citations from paleontologists here.

              So, if Attenborough is teaching what “every paleontologist knows” (in Gaylord Simpson’s words) is not supported by the fossil record, then Attenborough is a case study in the sociology and psychology of science. As Kuhn said, a paradigm is not rejected after it fails. Rather, a paradigm is rejected after it fails AND a new one comes to take its place. Because Attenborough has a naturalistic worldview, he will continue teaching the old naturalistic paradigm (Darwinism) until a new one comes along to take its place…even though it has fallen apart.

              The people and organizations who have given Attenborough awards for teaching a discredited paradigm must be declared participants in this sociological and psychological phenomenon.


        2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
          0
          syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          Let’s not get caught up in semantics here. Margulis may declare herself to be a Darwinist in a limited sense, but the key theme that we are discussing here is whether or not unintelligent (strictly random) processes are enough to account for the diversification of life from a putative common ancestor. In the Margulis quotes that you here furnish, she is acknowledging Darwin’s status as a figurehead in science, but she is not specifiying which aspects of his theory she is endorsing. If you read her writings, you will see that she endorses the idea of natural selection, but stresses that, in itself, it is insufficient to explain the diversification of life from a putative common ancestor.

          I have already demonstrated that absolutely nobody has anything better than fanciful speculation about how life could have emerged from lifeless chemicals through unintelligent processes (and Dawkins admits it in the video I link to in my evoluton post). So discussing how life could have diversified from a putative common ancestor is a somewhat peripheral topic. However, it is valuable in the sense that it allows me to demonstrate just how heavily atheists are overplaying their hand when they make statements justifying atheism based upon sceintific knowledge of biology.

          Here, then, is what we need to focus on if we are going to stick to the topic of whether or not biology can be used to justify atheism (as it relates to the diversification of life from a putative common ancestor): Can we justifiably state that random, unintelligent processes are enough to explain this process?

          We should not expect people who are commited to the naturalist worldview (which includes most biologists) to give up trying. But a growing chorus of bilogists (mostly non-theistic) are admitting that the currently proposed random process (gradual evolution through random mutation and natural selection) is insufficient to explain the diversification of life from this putative common ancestor.

          This chorus includes not just Gould and Margulis, but many others including Valentine, Linton, Koonin, Mayr, Raup, Wells, Stanley, and the paleontologists from the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology (whose names I forgot)…and more. It is highly unlikely that any of these biologists will one day say, “we give up, God did it.” The lens with which they view the world does not allow for this. God has been filtered out BEFORE any examination of facts and data, not after.

          You say, “neither of these postulates anything unnaturalistic as a cause for evolution. They both believe that slightly different mechanisms from the orthodoxy could be the causes for the evidence of diversification and biological change in the history of our planet.”

          How slight or large the differences are between various proposed mechanisms for the diversification of life through unintelligent processes is largely beside the point.

          None of these proposed mechanisms has anything behind it besides just that…proposal. To see just how insufficient the Darwinian explanation is, please read Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Lee Spetner (who holds a PhD in physics from MIT and served a fellowship in biophysics at Johns Hopkins University…you don’t get much more qualified than that).

          In this book, Spetner demonstrates that speciation through random mutation and natural selection was a proposed mechanism, but not a substantiated one. Attempts to substantiate this mechanism have all fallen FAR short.

          Here is a good excerpt: “The neo-Darwinians presume that a long chain of random changes can lead to a large evolutionary change. This conjecture is an essential point of their theory…. Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands… The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.”

          And this is just one of many objections that Spetner has with using random processes to explain the diversification of life.

          The author of The Altenburg 16 is a journalist. However, the book is nothing but a transcript of a series of interviews between her and various scientists.


          1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            I am quite literally astounded by the accusation you level at David Attenborough. You wish for credentials, I will list the credentials of this man.

            Sir David Frederick Attenborough OM, CH, CVO, CBE, FRS, FZS, FSA.

            He is a ‘Companion of Honour’ (CH), ‘Commander of the Royal Victorian Empire’ (CVO) and a ‘Commander of the Order of The British Empire’ (CBE).

            As a CBE, he is honoured by the Monarch of England, a Knight of the Realm.

            He won a scholarship to Clare college ‘Cambridge’ in England in 1945.

            He studied Zoology and Geology, obtaining a degree in the natural sciences.

            He is a fellow of The Royal Society of London, quite possibly the oldest and most revered scientific society in the world.

            He is a fellow also of the Zoological Society of London.

            His list of awards, scientific and journalistic include the following:

            Society of Film and Television Arts Special Award
            Royal Television Society Silver Medal
            Zoological Society of London Silver Medal
            Society of Film and Television Arts Desmond Davis Award
            Royal Geographical Society Cherry Kearton Medal
            UNESCO Kalinga Prize
            Boston Museum of Science Washburn Award
            Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science Hopper Day Medal
            Royal Geographical Society Founder’s Gold Medal
            Encyclopedia Britannica Award
            International Emmy Award
            Royal Scottish Geographical Society Livingstone Medal
            Royal Society of Arts Franklin Medal
            Folden Kamera Award

            He has been honoured by Britannica, a source of information in the modern world that goes unrivalled.

            In 1980 he won an honorary doctorate from the Open University.

            In 2003 he won The Michael Farraday Prize from the Royal Society. (something you have referenced yourself)

            The list could go on, these being amongst a far greater list of endless awards.

            He is indeed a journalist, but so too is he a scientist with far more awards than many others quoted on this site.

            He is a collosus of the scientific world and has one of the most distinguished and respected scientific records of anyone on this site.

            He is a broadcaster which is a little different to a lab researcher, but what he relays in the form of film is undeniable, indisputable. Recorded documentation of the natural world in action is how we learn and make observations. You cannot make this up or fabricate it. If we cannot see how nature operates, then all we do is speculate.

            His contribution is immense and his narration and scientific understanding is heavyweight.

            He is no underqualified speculative journalist.

            The video I posted is nothing to do with austrelopithecus. It is a documentation of the planet at the moment. It is video footage and narration of the sea’s and the mountains, of the forests and the plains, of the deserts and the poles. It is the descriptive picture of the planet we live on, the animals, the plants, the habitats and life. Watch the video, it is a trailer, you will hear no words, only an orchestral music track and some of the astounding shots from the series.

            Ignorance of the natural world and documentaries such as this, is simply ignorance.

            There is no religious engagement, it is educational in the full and descriptive, beautiful and enlightening, nothing more.

            Finally, ‘The World Land Trust’ is the global charity that champions David Attenborough as their patron. An international charity seeking to do good in the world does not champion the patronage of an underqualified, ill-informed pretender as their front man in their mission for good.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              He holds a degree in natural sciences? What, a bachelor’s degree?! He won a lot of awards….FOR HIS BROADCASTING and science popularization…not for any contributions to science. I have cited multiple experts who clearly state that the fossil record does not support Darwinism.

              Attenborough does not conduct any research or hold any advanced degrees. Of course he has won many awards…he recites the textbook orthodoxy to the masses in an appealing and entertaining fashion.

              You are going to use a broadcaster with a bachelor’s degree in natural sciences to counteract the exhaustive citations from biologists and paleontologists that I cite which clearly demonstrate that Darwinism stands on very shaky ground!? I am amazed.


          2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            I have never accused you of being a creationist, nor any of your references generally.

            I hope you look into Planet Earth, or something of similar quality and content. If you are going to post comments and quotations such as these, it is important that you understand the wider aspects of the issue, as proposed from all sides.


          3. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
            0
            nick says:

            I appreciate that and you do acknowledge a lot of the themes around evolution, but you have called Darwinism, ‘shaky’ as a repeated argument.

            You did not reply about David Attenborough. Have you heard of him before? I think that probably the best work of his that you could possibly choose would be, ‘Planet Earth’. I really think that you would enjoy this documentary. It is completely devoid of religious engagement and is a piece of biological documentary that will probably go unsurpassed. You say that you like to explore the arguments from all sides of the debate. This documentary series is the story of current life on our Planet. It is a depiction of the beauty and spectical of nature not a theological argument and it is illustrative, educational and stunning.

            Here is a link to it on Amazon. I own a copy myself and think it is one of, if not ‘the’ best, biological series that I have ever seen.

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003ZUXZCC/ref=s9_simh_gw_p74_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1GEJWXR9K1P6726KFYQM&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467128533&pf_rd_i=468294

            Check out the customer reviews for this product. You will see that pretty much the only bad reviews it recieved were for faulty discs or late delivery. 5 stars from almost all customers. Praise indeed. Buy it and watch it. It’s not Richard Dawkins. It is not an argument about religion. If you believe you engage in both sides of the debate, then you will do little better than this stunning series from one of the worlds most revered, respected and loved biological Broadcasters. This is a must see. Have a look at the trailor.


            1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 363
              0
              syoungren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

              David Attenborough is a journalist, not a credentialed scientist.

              I cited this article in a previous reply about why science knowledge from the media is virtually worthless:

              …scientists say communication and education of the public are significant challenges for science today. Majorities rate television