Darwin book with creationist spin passed out at Univ. of Florida. Some of the reactions were priceless:
“I just said, ‘OK, have a good day’ and walked away.”
“It was very confusing because I thought it was a Charles Darwin book and it ended up being propaganda.”
And the bit about distributing the books early: “avoiding some protests planned over Comfort’s views.” What protest? This one?
… the group [NCSE] was encouraging people to avoid confrontation and allow the book to be distributed.
Overall, this took on the appearance of a comedy routine rather than an educational campaign. Should we have expected anything different?
‘Comedy routine’ is about right. It was just a few guys, one carrying a large, home-made wooden cross, sheepishly handing the books out in a corner of Turlington Plaza where much larger events were happening at the same time. I had to walk through the plaza three times before I found them. I don’t know how many books they handed out, but it couldn’t have been many because they only had a few small empty boxes with them.
A much larger creationist event is happening tonight, a talk by Hugh Ross at the Phillips Center in Gainesville.
This event is not listed on the Phillips Center website. I see he is speaking at a church on Friday, but can’t find his event on any UF website. There is another performance going on tonight, not sure if there is a mix-up or what, but I’ll try and call to get information on the creatards.
I would love to watch an argument between Hugh Ross and a YEC regarding the age of the Earth and the universe.
As for Comfort, it’s more of the same – distribute debunked nonsense as widely as possible, although university students aren’t an ideal target. Do you think anyone at Harvard, MIT, or Yale was persuaded? The score is still evidence for evolution, 100%, evidence for creationism, 0%, so PR campaigns are all they’ve got. Tacking a creationist screed on The Origin is a low blow even for them, however.
Yes after the first 50 pages it is trash, your right.
Johnny –
You’re a riot. From what I hear, at UF, those first fifty pages were torn out of most of the books and handed back.
I find it weird that Comfort would try to be all sneaky with the release date to avoid confrontation(or most likely a civil rational discussion since it’s usually religious extremists who get violent and hysterical) with people who will easily see through his lies and half-truths. If Comfort truly believed his own bullsh*t, what has he got to fear if his “truth” is questioned? Jesus tells us that truth will set you free, but it looks like even Comfort has his doubts.
James F
Wow, how well indoctrinated you are. The evidence for evolution is 100% only in the religious minds of those who reject anything which would question it.
I suppose you could fill us in on the six million steps to becoming human.
Zyg not true. Most accepted the book graciously. The science program was much better when I graduated years ago at the U of Fl with high honors in medicine. These young minds want to be able to look at both sides – which you seem afraid of.
Chris,
Hardly. There is no evidence against evolution in peer-reviewed scientific literature, nor is there is single piece of evidence in favor of creationism. Don’t take my word for it; explore the PubMed database of the National Library of Medicine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/
Among other things, you can read up on the genetic, biochemical, and paleontological evidence for evolution. And no, it doesn’t appear as a list of steps any more than you have to document every single minute of your life, or every cell division in your personal development from a single cell, to prove you exist. You’re making an argument from incredulity, which is all that creationism has. If you could provide some evidence for your position, I’d respond further. But since there isn’t any….
James F
You’re talking about two completely different things jumbled together. One being the known sciences and discoveries of medicine, sickness, heredity etc and the other being the belief that man has evolved from ape like creatures. The two are not the same. Using the first to justify the latter requires a large leap of faith.
The so called science of biochemical evolution is based on the belief that the earth is billions of years old and is supported only by inferred evidence. Paleontological and genetic evolutionary sciences follow the same paths to arrive at these conclusions. The claims made by these sciences have no foundation in real substance. In this case saying evolution did it is no different than saying God did it. With both examples, belief must be invoked.
Of course there is no list of simple steps to become human that just foolishness, And foolishness is what we are talking about.
Why do creationist dingbats think that falsely equating science (i.e. observable reality) with “faith”, thereby making it equal to their mythology, somehow legitimizes “Poof, Goddidit”? The only benefit such a ludicrous ploy could possibly lend their position is the asinine “Science=religion=Youcan’tteachthatinschoolcauseitviolatestheconstitutionnyahnyahnyah” chestnut.
You fellows really are tiresome. Now, toddle along. Don’t you have some children to mentally abuse?
For a self-described creationist to graduate UF with honors in medicine, it must have been a long time ago indeed.
First, if you believe that the science program at UF has gone downhill since blood letting was still practiced (assuming that’s when you got your degree), then you haven’t really kept up with UF. UF has one of the top medical schools in the world.
I think you’re trolling as usual, hoping to tout your credentials as an argument from authority. I highly doubt you have a degree in medical science, or you wouldn’t be half as ignorant as you are. People who have studied anatomy and physiology well enough to graduate with high honors don’t believe in the literal interpretation of your fairy tales.
Has anyone found a real lie in Comforts Introduction?
You mean, like relating Darwinism to Hitler and the Holocaust? Claiming that “Java Man” is now considered to be fully human? Omitting chapters in the original book that provides proof of evolution?
Tell me, Chris… have you read Comfort’s trashy introduction, which has been scanned in and is now available on several websites?
How about that Tebow !!! The U of F great who says that evolution is a lie !! Whoa oa oa !
Okay creatards,
Here’s a logic question to determine if you meet the minimum basic requirements for human sentience:
Suppose hypothetically (and thus ignoring all evidence to the contrary) that Hitler explicitly cited Darwin as the sole inspiration for his antisemitism, Aryan master-race concept, and the rest of the genocidal nazi crap we all heard about.
Basically, assume everything mentioned in this spoof letter is true:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Bw0XlvSSOEU/SDFumIeIDmI/AAAAAAAAAEI/nwElRmPQkzM/s400/Dear+Frau.JPG
Now, creationists like Comfort and Cameron maintain that this would make Darwin responsible for the evils perpetrated by Hitler, because despite Darwin’s non-racist and non-morally deviant presentation of evolution’s concepts in Origin of Species, the hypothetical fact that Hitler’s interpretation of evolution facilitated this evil makes Darwin, the author/creator of this theory, responsible as well.
So, in a nutshell, Comfort and Cameron assert that someone who comes up with an idea or concept which is subsequently used to facilitate and justify evil/morally reprehensible actions, is responsible for said actions and is thus labeled as evil etc etc, ignoring the fact that said person may not have implemented his ideas in such a way, nor intended them to be done so, was already dead by the time someone decided to use said ideas in such a nefarious manner, etc.
So what does that make God, and His words that were recorded in the bible? For the sake of fairness, let us ignore the crusades, inquisition, witch-burnings, and other historical incidents of religion-inspired violence and mass-murder and limit ourselves to maybe the beginning of the 19th century, when Darwin was alive and doing his research. When American Christians used the bible (specifically, the passage on the curse of Ham, Book of Genesis 9:20-27) to justify continuing the practice of slavery leading up to the American Civil War, wouldn’t that make God responsible for this evil, being the de-facto author of the bible? When this same passage was used to justify racist laws making it illegal for blacks to live in certain places, work in certain jobs, or have relations with whites, is God responsible for this as well? Moving on, what about the foundation of the Christian Identity Movement? Does God share the blame for every synagogue torched, Jewish daycare shot up, or Jewish person beaten to death in an alleyway with a swastika painted on a nearby wall? What about when evangelist sickos like Tony Alamo use biblical scripture to justify pedophilia? Does God condone murder when a pro-life extremist guns down an abortion doctor during Sunday services? Is God responsible for Fred Phelps and all his hatred?
By Comfort and Cameron’s “logic”, God shares the blame for all these evils, even though He may have not intended his words to be interpreted in such a manner. After all, the ideas He presented in the Bible were used to justify numerous morally reprehensible actions regardless of His original intentions.
See how absurd and hypocritical this would be?
Tebow plays great football…. I respect his opinions on football, but I don’t expect him to understand anything else.
Tebow “attended” Nease the same time my daughter did (she was on the color guard so I saw many a blow-out game). His education consisted primarily of homeschooling by his fundy parents and was rarely seen on campus (it created some controversy regarding his playing at Nease, as I recall).
So yeah, he’s the “go to” guy for all things scientific.
Karl
You’re way off track as usual, we’re talking about Hitler’s retarded ideas which have traces Darwinism. You’re reference to Genesis and all the ridicules examples are inaccurate. Noah is the one doing the talking in this passage of scripture, not God. So you are just as clueless as the religious fruit cakes and other nuts that might use this scripture as conformation to justify some humanistic belief.
Under your interpretation of this passage we could conclude your monkey like relatives were the decedents of Cannan. And have the Bible to to back it up.
No you fool,
This is the biggest hypocrisy of the creationist. To hold Darwin and evolution accountable for Hitler’s actions, despite the fact that Darwin’s original ideas were never meant to be implemented in such a perverse manner (With Darwin himself explicitly stating so, both in Origin of Species, Descent of Man, and other written works) IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL to holding God responsible for every nutcase/cult/hate group who uses the bible to justify acts of violence, bigotry, or murder. I’m sure God never meant for his words to be used in such a manner, but if the creationist believes that the mere presentation of an idea/discovery makes its discoverer responsible for all it’s subsequent effects, then God has over over two millenia’s worth of crap to answer for. It’s the exact same line of reasoning. Creationists such as yourself may have lost the ability to comprehend science and logic, but I’m sure even you know hypocrisy, what with people like “anti-gay” preacher Ted Haggard making the news.
What I said was , “Hitler’s retarded ideas which have traces Darwinism.”
Read the Book again.
I’m not familiar with Ted Haggard’s news or any of his anti-gay talk. However I would think if you’re pro gay you won’t be able to use the Bible as justification for your beliefs. You’ll have to redirect to a so called ‘freethinker site’ for instance.
Feel the corner?
So what if Hitler’s ideas have a trace of “Darwinism”? Is Darwin or evolution responsible for his actions? Does evolution somehow become “evil” or “bad” because some moron decided to apply concepts like “survival of the fittest” and “favored races” to different ethnic groups within the human species despite Darwin’s explicitly saying that these concepts applied to the entire human species against other animal species on earth? Evolution to blame when Hitler tried to implement his eugenics program despite Darwin explicitly saying that inbreeding and loss of genetic variation DECREASES survivability? Ray Comfort seems to think so.
So what does that make Christianity? Child-molesting sex cults like Tony Alamo’s evangelical ministry have a trace of Christianity. Apparently to him, “be fruitful and multiply” never mentioned an age of consent. So does the Christian Identity movement, along with their Aryan Nations and Neo-Nazi spinoffs. What about scumbags who beat their wives and treat them like sex-slaves/kitchen appliances because they believe that since Eve was created from Adam’s rib, that makes a woman a less of a human being then men, and therefore undeserving of most basic human rights? I do believe I detect one or more traces of Christianity whenever a psycho murders someone and then tells authorities that “God” told him to do it.
We’ve told you again and again, blaming Darwin for Hitler is like blaming Newton for gravity every time someone falls off a cliff. Maybe these examples will make you see the flaw in that line of reasoning.
I’m beginning to understand your line of reasoning.
So let me get this straight, there is no God and Darwin’ ideas are really true that man has evolved through undirected random processes. This being the case as you see it, Hitler then has done nothing wrong. There is no wrong, only a continuum of various changes and the survival of the fittest.
What might have been considered right or wrong is simply an emotional process not inspired by anyone, but perhaps formulated through random emotions possibly triggered by undeterminable circumstances.
Those things which might be considered perversions by some are only man moving forward in his evolutionary voyage.
Wow, even your attempts at redirecting are pathetic. You know very well what I mean. We are not debating the existence of God, nor are we debating the scientific validity of evolution. Since you don’t understand science or logic, I’ll just consider it futile to explain further.
What we are looking at is Comfort’s reasoning as to why evolution is evil/bad/kills puppies and exposing the hypocrisy behind the justification he uses. “Hitler’s beliefs and actions reeks of Darwinism” is basically what he is stating in that introduction of his, and from this, he goes on to make the case that evolution is some evil theory that encourages one to be racist, commit genocide, etc, but by all means, read it yourself to make sure. Assuming Comfort didn’t stealth-edit the rest of Origin of Species, there is a section where Darwin explains how natural selection and favoured races were referring the entire human race as a whole against other animal species on Earth. There was no intention to creating racial divides or encouraging violent competition within the human population. In fact, Darwin went on the explain the pointlessness of such actions. But, none of this matter’s according to Comfort. Someone took these concepts and applied it in such a perverse manner and we got Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. From this, Comfort asserts that Evolution=evil.
Now, pay attention here, son, cuz this here is important. If Comfort believes that Darwin’s ideas are evil incarnate because they were used (in a grossly twisted manner) as justification for one of history’s greatest evils, then the same reasoning can be used to declare that the Christian bible, and by extension Christianity itself, is evil because its teachings were used to commit numerous evil acts throughout human history, continuing even to this day. Comfort doesn’t care that Darwin himself specifically warned that his ideas were not meant to be interpreted in such a twisted manner, so why should we care that the stories and lessons from the bible were never meant to be used as justification for the enslavement, mistreatment, or murder of our fellow human beings?
Hence why blaming Darwin/evolution for Hitler/the Holocaust is an exercise in absurdity.
Ok, so lets go ahead an assume that the prophet Charles Darwin has had no influence on evil (which of course there is no evil). What other heinous blasphemies has Comfort spoken against the sacred doctrine of evolution?
I don’t know if you are stupid or biting your fingers in tears at the glaring hypocrisy of blaming Darwin for Hitler. You can go ahead and assume that Darwin was the most evil man in the world for all I care and the same conclusion with the Christian bible can be reached again and again using Comfort’s flawed reasoning. We can both character-assassinate Darwin/various biblical figures all day, but it wouldn’t have any relevance to what is actually being debated. It is Comfort’s reasoning that allows for this horrible hypocrisy to even exist. For the nth time, Comfort’s explanation is as follows:
Evolution theory was used as justification for evil acts committed by Hitler, therefore, it is evil. Now, Comfort fails to consider the fact that Darwin (who we will also assume to be a dastardly evil man for your sake, though it really has no relevance in this logic exercise), chose to include several warnings and caveats AGAINST this kind of racist/genocidal interpretation that Hitler used in the original Origin of Species text, which Comfort also graciously included. An evil man telling us in writing NOT to use his ideas and theories in such an evil manner?!?!? How weird! Comfort must of thought that this wasn’t important when he chose to ignore it, so we’ll do the same.
Hence why when we apply Comfort’s same line of reasoning to the Christian bible, we have a few thousand years of murder and violence perpetrated by people who in no uncertain terms, refer to various teachings from the bible as justification for their actions. But wait, you say, the bible/Jesus/God says killing and hating our fellow men is wrong, and I would agree that if Jesus were around today in the flesh, he’d have some stern words for those who even to this day, use his father’s words in such a perverse manner. As mentioned before, Comfort doesn’t seem to consider this important nor relevant in his condemnation of evolution, and since the teachings of the bible continue to be used to hurt and kill people, then the bible itself, and the various denominations of Christianity which use it, are evil.
No matter what angle you approach it from, evolution theory cannot be declared as some sort of amoral/evil idea without the bible/Christianity being declared the same.
Still don’t believe me? Ask your “wife” to look into Comfort’s logical reasoning and see if it couldn’t be applied as such.
We have already agree there are nut cases everywhere. Sure there have been those who use the Bible to justify all kinds of stupid stuff. But to say Halloween has no influence of the production of pumpkins is sticking you head in the sand.
Now seeing you have been offended by the possible discredit to your saviour
Darwin and his scared theory, is it possible to point out anything else you would consider a lie by Comfort besides just saying all of it.
Listen moron with apparent reading comprehension difficulties, the point being made here has no relevance to whether I(or any one else) am offended by the notion of Darwin’s influence. Like the Climategate scandal, this isn’t something you can bury, or pretend that it doesn’t exist. The beauty of Ray Comfort’s reasoning is that it doesn’t matter if Darwin was a major influence or not. The hypocrisy of an evil bible/Christianity will exist even if it turns out that yes, Hitler, does declare in no uncertain terms that Darwin was a major inspiration for his actions.
The problem is the line of reasoning that Ray Comfort uses to declare Darwin and evolution as some sort of amoral violence and murder-propagating idea that should be condemned. Despite written warnings by Darwin NOT to interpret his ideas in such manner, both Comfort and Hitler chose to ignore this. Hence why using Comfort’s own reasoning, the fact that the Christian bible was used in such an amoral manner despite the overall morally righteous lessons it was trying to convey does not save it from condemnation for all the evil it has brought about.
In retrospect, explaining Darwin/evolution using religious terms might even make it EASIER for people like you to realize the Comfort’s hypocrisy. Say Darwin gave unto man a book entitled The Origin of Species, filled with his teachings on evolution theory. Darwin’s words from the book explicitly warn against the use of his ideas to advocate violence and racial divide within the human population, but jackasses like Hitler do it anyways. Hence, according to Comfort, Darwin/evolution are evil and should be condemned. Now for a mental exercise which may or may not be beyond your abilities, replace “Darwin” with your “God”, “Origin of Species” with “the Christian Bible”, and “evolution theory” with “Christianity.” You can also replace “Hitler” with “Fred Phelps” or “Tony Alamo” if you like. What you are left with is the exact same scenario that Ray Comfort would condemn but with different players.
The summary is, any Christian who denounces Darwin/evolution theory on moral grounds is a dirty mouth-breathing hypocrite.
How can you talk so much and say nothing. Try not to wet your pants.
Let’s set aside Comfort’s claim that Hitler was some how influenced by Darwin’s evolutionary theory for the moment.
I’ll try to ask this question again. Is there anything else that could be called a lie Comfort wrote?
How can you claim to have working ears and not hear a thing, or in this case, working eyes which don’t see a thing since I assume you are reading this? Looking back at your Halloween pumpkin example, wouldn’t one also have his head in the sand if they say that the rise in, say, murders of abortion doctors are not influenced by Christianity?
Hmm, to answer your question, Ray’s lies… okay, here’s another one: How about his assertion that Java man was a fully formed human, despite it being established as a member of Homo Erectus? Or that the neanderthal was also fully human, despite the genetic differences and more importantly, lack of crossbreeding? What about when Comfort asserts that one Archaeoraptor fossil found in 1999 was a fraud perpetrated by the scientific community when in fact it was fossil finders who glued different pieces together for a marketing scheme and was later debunked by the scientific community? And let’s not even mention the various quote-mining cut-n-paste jobs, straw-man arguments, and outright false claims as to what evolution actually confirms about genetics, transitional species, etc.
Also, in case you don’t know what a lie actually is,
From Merriam-Webster
Lie
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
JAVA MAN Is truly a classic imaginary creature. Today we seldom are entertained with such foolishness as was common in evolutions ignorant infency.
http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1746-1498
With all the frauds, fakes and facts mixed together It looks like Comfort may have missed this one. He may have overlooked the full statement if searching Talk Origins. which indicates the thigh bone is believed to be fully human. Is that a lie? Probably not just reckless research.
British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.
Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his “bone collection” nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters [1,379 cu yd] of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.
Java Man has found his place in historical evolutionary fantasy and his fabricator couldn’t have done better hitting the Florida lottery. Dubois made a living off just a scrap of bone most of his life.
Convincing the gullible there is no God is big bussiness.
So basically, what you are saying is that just because DuBois was a bit stingy on giving others access to the fossils, there must be shenanigans afoot??? What about when they found the second specimen 18km north of the original site in 1936? How about the fact that no modern anatomically correct human has a skull cap of that shape and size? Fully human my ass.
Convincing the gullible that accepting evolution(or any other science really) and believing in God are mutually exclusive is the biggest lie of all.
NEANDERTHAL
All of the people alive today can trace their ancestors back to about 10,000 people who lived 175,000 years ago. This is why we share about 99.5% of our DNA with most everyone on the planet. So in a way, we are all related.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=284
Past research had shown that Neanderthal genomes and ours were 99.5 percent identical,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33721697
Neanderthals had bigger brains, (probably smarter) and they did everything any normal person would do a few thousand years ago.
Are they human? Other than evolutionary propaganda there is not reason to believe they aren’t human.
So did Comfort lie? No, pretending they are not human is a lie.
Goodness Karl, read it again, I agree.
Java man was just another fake, NOT HUMAN.
Comfort screwed up.
ARCHAEORAPTOR According to Talk Origins it’s not a fake, kinda like Feegee mermaids aren’t fake.
Archaeoraptor was not a scientific fraud. It was put together by the Chinese fossil hunter who discovered it. The pieces were assembled to make the fossil more marketable to collectors, not to researchers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC352.html
‘Assembled’ what a crock.
Did Comfort lie? No your wrong.
Karl, you really don’t give a flip about abortion doctors. But are you saying that illegal killing and legal killing are so different that it’s ok to do one and not the other?
Wrong again moron. Another example of how creationist circular reasoning makes empty claims. Regarding neanderthals, a minuscule 0.5% difference in DNA does not mean they can be counted as a part of the human species. Between humans, 0.5% represents the MAXIMUM 24bp difference found. Average difference between humans is 1-8bp, while neanderthal DNA has consistently been different by a ~22+bp gap, more than enough to establish a difference in species, not to mention the even greater difference between the mitochondria DNA (2-118bp human-human difference vs. 200bp+ neanderthal-human difference), which also gives us an idea as to the general time period when the precursors of our two species stopped interbreeding and diverged. Ofcourse, due to the variable rate of mtDNA mutation, we can’t just draw this conclusion from the mtDNA difference alone. However, the lack of diversity within the neanderthal mtDNA combined with the consistent bp differences between human and neanderthal DNA, it can be concluded that neanderthals and humans developed separately, and were not part of the same human breeding population. So did Comfort lie? Yes if he actually knew about the meaning of what the 0.5% genetic difference implies.
The “fakeness” of Java man that creationists like to harp about refers to the femur that DuBois thought belonged with the skull cap. Modern scientific analysis showed that the two pieces most likely belonged to different creatures. The skull cap still exists, and so far, the creationist claims that it belongs to a gibbon, and later a human (WTF make up your mind already) are entirely unsubstantiated.
This is what Ray Comfort has to say about the archaeoraptor:
Excited evolutionists believed that they found one back in 1999. A Chinese farmer glued together the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, and completely fooled the worldwide scientific community (including National Geographic magazine) into thinking that they had found the “missing link†between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds. Called Archaeoraptor, it was quickly exposed as a fraud.
Ray conveniently leaves out the fact that the fake archaeoraptor fossil was exposed as a fraud by the scientific community precisely because it didn’t conform to what evolution theory would predict. The whole paragraph implies that the scientific community was fooled when in fact not one scientific peer-reviewed journal would validate the so called findings. The fact that this fake archaeoraptor fossil was made of two different but very existing fossils of transitional species Yanornis martini and Microraptor zhaoianus also catches Ray in a lie of saying that there are no transitional species fossils. Oops!?!?
And you are right, Chris. I may not break down in tears every time an abortion doctor gets shot, but it does leave me bewildered at the irony of a group who’s self-declared mission to preserving life would end up being the ones to take it away. Also, the pro-lifer’s always tend to protest near a food court close to my office(coincidentally, almost a guaranteed presence whenever an abortion doctor was gunned down. Some kind of sick solidarity symbol???), and the last thing I wanna see over my plate of crappy Americanized Panda-Express stir-fry is a picture of a bloody fetus. The way I see it, they owe me $7.50 for wasted food…. well maybe $3.50 cuz Panda Express shares some of the blame.
I’ve been busy w/ school and haven’t been on in while, and WOW!
Chris, I have a few questions for you:
1. Do you eat modern food?
2. Do you have pets?
3. Do you accept modern medical treatment?
Green Earth
So WOW! I can answer your questions.
#1 Yes, I like McDonnell’s
#2 My cat died.
#3 Aspirin works.
Let me as you a few question.
1. What would be the appropriate global human population number that would reverse global warming.
2. If mother earth has been the breeding ground for billions of years facilitating the undetectable theorized chemical and biological properties which exist by simple chance, and has under gone numerous catastrophic events and survived, why is there such a concern today that this mother earth can’t handle a little heat for a hundred years?
3. Do you believe Java man is a real human ancestor or just another dead monkey.
Karl
Protesting human brain vacuuming and bodily dismemberment near food courts is pretty disgusting . But is there a good place to protest premeditated killing.
It would be fair is to at least let the kid come of age to wheel a knife in self defense.
Green Earth
As an earth worshipper don’t you think Al Gore should give carbon credits to doctors for aborting babies.
The reason I ask is that we enjoy these “luxuries” thanks to evolution, the first 2 are due to artificial selection, but evolution non the less. bacteria and viruses have very fast generation times which allows them to evolve rapidly and become resistant to medications quickly. the flu shot is based on the projected evolution of the virus based on mutation rate.
I don’t know what the “appropriate” population number is, I do know that in the US our per capita consumption far surpasses other nations, so it is a very complex issue
The concern about the current warming is the rate at which it is occurring, the amount of GHGs being released and that we have not observed this in previous climate cycles.
Humans are apes, I find it amusing people always say “humans or apes” or “humans or animals” humans are animals: we are chordates -> vertebrates -> mammals -> primates -> apes
and I don’t have to “believe” anything in science, it does not require faith, there is either evidence and understanding or there is not. I do not “believe” in evolution, based on scientific evidence from many fields of study I accept and understand that evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life.
Believe me Chris, my disgust and contempt for pro-lifers extends beyond mere food court protests. Ask yourself why is it that the same people who back the pro-life groups also lobby to ban sex ed programs in public schools, distribution of contraceptives, and sponsor the hilariously ineffective (as said by Sarah Palin’s daughter) abstinence-only programs, all of which actually increases the numbers of unwanted pregnancies which drives up the demand for abortions? Can you say that pro-lifers support adoption when their backers also lobby to restrict access to gay and lesbian couples? What about more social outreach programs for single mothers, access pediatric medical care, day care, etc? Sounds a bit too much like SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE to me so let’s throw a tea party about it. The only conclusion I can come to from this is that pro-lifers are doing this not because of saving the lives of unborn babies, but to punish those who would enjoy sex for purposes beyond procreation, and punish women for straying from the traditional kitchen/bedroom slave roles laid out by Christianity. Do not delude yourself into thinking that pro-lifers are protesting for any self-less or noble cause.
Green Earth makes a good point about your use of modern medicine, Chris. Have you ever taken an antibiotic? Get the flu shot every year? What about when the H1N1 vaccine rolled into Tampa last October? First in line amiright?
Green Earth
I can agree with almost everything you said including evolution providing an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life. However having the ability to produce an explanation does not alway mean the explanation is accurate. The major transitional changes assumed such as microbe to man can’t be reproduced, tested or observed. This explanation is unacceptable and only visible in the land of imagination.
As to global warming, if all humans were removed from the planet it would make little difference.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.htm
“The major transitional changes assumed such as microbe to man can’t be reproduced, tested or observed. This explanation is unacceptable and only visible in the land of imagination.”
And everything being magically poofed into existence in current form by some supernatural being isn’t?
I want to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying you accept that evolution happens? or that what I said makes sense, but you don’t agree with it?
Is it not then that the supernatural events described in Genesis about the formation of the earth, creation of plants, animals, and finally humans from mere dirt equally (if not more) untestable according to the standards that you hold against evolution?
Keep in mind that that the goal of the creationist is to have this version of events taught in biology as a valid scientific explanation supposedly meeting all the criteria for testability, reproducibility, and observability, in addition to removing evolution entirely.
To make these justifications against evolution as a creationist with the aforementioned goals, doesn’t that just reek of oh, I don’t know, a little HYPOCRISY???
In referring to the description of creation or the assimilation of humans for instance you’ll find nothing about poofing. According to Genesis 1:26 man was made. And in 2:7 with more detail man was formed. I believe you’ll find that all the elements within the human body can be found in dirt http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blbodyelements.htm
This is a very accurate description of the material make up of humans. The only component that we can’t detect is the breath of life referred to in Gen. 2:7 This particular element appears not to be earthly. Life can’t be accurately explained to most folk’s satisfaction or duplicated by science. It can only be observed.
So the process of making something or forming it is common and what we do and see all around us, it’s a no brainer. And nothing made or formed is supernatural for the one who knows how to make it.
Evolution is one poof after another. Nothing came from no one, from nowhere for no reason an poofed everything into existence, And poof , poof, poof, poof, poof and we have a living organism. Thats not natural, thats supernatural. Nothing has ever been seen like it.
Evolution is a big word, so to say evolution happens one can say it does and it does not. The meaning of the term can be true and false, depending on what you’re talking about. Much of evolution is based on science and much is based on imagination fueled by belief, not science.
To say you accept evolution is no different than saying you accept, government, religion, or politics. So it all just depends. Just like religion and politics some of evolution is extremely valuable and some is pure crap.
What accurate description? “Created” in his image(1:26)? “Formed” from the dust of the ground(2:7)? You call these detailed descriptions? It’s like me describing advance calculus as “that thing with lotsa numbers”. Two vague sentences describing a complex process as “formed”/”created”. This is your criteria for detailed? You are right though, it is a no-brainer, in that people who think this description satisfactorily explains all manner of complex assembly, both natural and artificial, that we observe in reality do in fact, have no brain. I ask you, how is car is made? Is it just “formed” or “created?” Would I be wrong to describe the process beginning with the smelting of ores to make the steel and other alloys used in the frame, the various plastics synthesized from petroleum stock, etc? Or what about the actual assembly of fabricated parts, every weld, bolt, seal, etc? Nah, you say. Just formed/created. One big “poof” into existence. It’s all we need to know, don’t worry about it.
Nowhere in evolution does it say that something “poofed” out of nothing. Evolution starts with the simplest unicellular life forms already in existence and works its way up from there. I’m sure you’ve heard the “something from nothing is abiogenesis, not evolution blah blah blah” but it appears your eyes and ears aren’t working properly. Maybe you should ask your God to re-form/create it. So Chris, as a poofing hypocrite, please be so kind as to tell us, from those two sentences that make Genesis 1:26 and 2:7, enlighten us as to how dirt was transmuted into bone and living flesh? Did God make living tissue one cell at a time? How did he extract/assemble the molecules needed to make the various cellular components from said dirt?
You are so very wrong about life not being able to be duplicated by science. Researchers have assembled complete and biologically active viruses like polio, starting with the sequencing of the virus genome entirely from scratch as a DNA sequence, converted to RNA, and translated into infectious virus particles which not only caused the disease, but replicates itself and spreads the infection to other organisms. But it’s debatable whether viruses are even alive and such. What do you think?
People like you are why creationism should never be allowed within 100ft of a science classroom in a public school. You have no idea what science even is. I bet you don’t even understand what it means for something to be testable, reproducible, and observable. I mean, you see these terms appear in various creationist propaganda, and use them frequently here, but do you really know what these terms mean? Especially when you claim that creationism somehow satisfies these scientific criteria while evolution does not? I do agree, there are some aspects of evolution that rely on imagination. Artist renderings of the various transitional forms comes to mind. However, the transitional forms are very much existent, and the mechanisms described by evolution are scientifically determined. In fact, the transitional predictions it makes was what exposed that one archaeoraptor fossil as a fake.
Ok, not poofing, but “made/created” as is? That is more plausible than evolution and is not from the realm of imagination land? *cue the Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman singing the imagination land song*
The most common elements in humans, and all other life on the planet, are also the most common in the universe; it is extremely likely that there is life elsewhere. Whether or not we will encounter it is another matter.
Evolution is the change in the allelic frequency (genetic composition) of a population over time. It does happen, it has been observed. I will refer back to my medical example. Bacteria have rapid generation times, and are excellent organisms in which to study evolution. We can’t use penicillin anymore, why? Because of bacterial evolution which has resulted in organisms that are resistant to it. As a side note, this is why it irritates me that many things are being marketed as “antibacterial” or “kills 99% of germs.” All we are doing by using these products is selecting for “super” bacteria that are resistant to antimicrobial agents.
I agree with Karl that a few things may rely on imagination, such as what an organism may have looked like, if all we have is a fossil. Though, this too is based on available evidence, and is not just some wild guess.
Science deals with the natural, observable world. Religion, and creation, involve the supernatural, and therefore is a separate subject from science. I realize this will open a new can of worms, but, what about other religions? What about their ideas about life? How do you know your version is correct?
Karl
You said, ” I ask you, how is car is made? Is it just “formed†or “created?†Would I be wrong to describe the process beginning with the smelting of ores to make the steel and other alloys used in the frame, the various plastics synthesized from petroleum stock, etc”
Yes, you would be wrong. The process does not begin with smelted metal or any other component. A car like all other inventions begins with an idea The original designs are formed, sometimes with clay, Today dies for manufacturing can be designed on computer from which templates are made, and duplication can begin. The list of human building material that is presented in scripture obviously does not give all the details or a step by step assembly instructions . But what materials are given are completely accurate and can be tested. On the other hand your religious humanist buddies must ignore this fact and say that’s ridicules or choose to use the scientific term, ‘we don’t know yet’.
You’re wrong about evolution. Every time a theoretical organism make its mystical step up the evolutionary ladder and it obtains new genetic information which was previously unavailable. Such as information, instructions and material to grow legs, fins, eyes, arms, necks, and every addition that didn’t exist before the said invisible change happened, we have a poof. Take any phylogenetic tree and at every branch and every intersection you can place a question mark or a poof.
What do I think? I think there is a large difference between creation and duplication. Creating the first light bulb was a remarkable accomplishment, duplicating them is no big deal. If scientist don’t even know if what they are messing with is alive how would the know they have duplicated life. Can you describe what materials were used to construct this new biologically active viruses so I can make one in the back yard? If they have used functioning pre existing components, then they may not have created anything, but merely modified what already existed.
You continue to be unaware of what most creationist complain about. Teaching creationism in public schools is not the goal of most who believe dirt did not make itself. However you may have unknowingly touched on part of the issue. The propaganda spewed out by religious humanist who use imaginary artist renderings as evidence for the belief that all life has evolved from a single living thing, is a large part of the problem. Imagination is a good thing, but when placed in the hands of religious nuts parading as scientist it’s no good at all. Darwin himself wouldn’t be legally able to do what he claimed must be done to arrive at a fair decision, that being to view both sides of an issue. And I’m not taking about creationism, anything which might question the premise that noting make every thing will be shot down. That’s not science that’s hardcore religion.
It may be legal and very imaginative to teach kids fish became dogs and dogs became whales, but you can’t expect not to be laughed at.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say “the premise that noting (sic) make every thing” that is not what I think, if that is what you are implying. And no one who understands evolution would say that fish became dogs, if a fish became a dog that would go against ToE. Evolution, as I said earlier, is the change in the genetic composition of a population over time. So, when new organisms are born, the allelic frequency of the population changes, and when organisms die, their genetics are gone, and the population changes. That is evolution (very simply). Over a long time, say billions of years, and due to various environmental selective pressures, evolution explains the diversity of life we see on earth.
There is no “both sides” of the theory of evolution. Science may not understand every single aspect of every single thing, but in the scientific community, there is no controversy about whether or not evolution happens.
Green Earth
The biological evolution of many forms of bacteria has produce resistant strains which keep medical scientist jumping. I just did a job for a pharmacist and he said that keeping ahead of viral adaptation is a real problem for the medical field.
It’s possible, if put in a pinch and about to die, I might be able to adapt to a new food source and eat worms.
Your example of penicillin is a good one. But bacteria which has become resistant to penicillin is still bacteria. Regardless of time or environment the bacteria may continue to adapt to new things , but it will not change into some other form of creature as proposed by radical evolutionist. Nor will I become a different creature by eating worms, maybe throw up allot.
The drawings of imaginary creatures are not just representative of what a organism may have looked like. The imaginary parade of creatures paint a picture of a atheistic world view,
Looking at the world through evolution and selecting only evidence that fits it’s claims proves evolution. By the same token creationism looks at the same rocks the same animals with a creationist view and the evidence is there to prove creationism. Both views have scientific methods but these two world views are not compatible.
You and I have a different view of supernatural. Lizards changing into birds is not natural in my view. My version for life may not be correct, but I feel confident based on the evidence that the Bible is correct, regardless of how correctly or incorrectly it is interpreted. I don’t know of any other examples of origins that make sense.
After years of playing with evolutionist, your penicillin example is the only type of evolution I’ve ever been able to find thats not based on imagination. that being adaptation within the species or speciation.
Evolutionist have a very weak presentation of the supposed science. The theory is not very convincing to most people who take the time to look at the so called evidence. This appears to be the main reason evolutionist don’t want it questioned. Calling the people morons, religious fanatics, and idiots is the favored type of explanatory communication side stepping any unanswerable questions. With evolutionary science not being predicated on common scene we can assume that much of the theory stands on stupidity.
Green Earth
I’m not sure about noting make everything either.
Yes, over billions of years evolution explains the diversity of life. Allele frequencies depict the amount of genetic diversity at the individual, population and species levels. However it must be assumed that allele frequency has the ability to produce entirely new individuals from genetic information which it never had or was able to obtain.
Evolution happens is a very broad statement. It can apply to underwear and popsicle sticks. used in this context it has little meaning. As to a controversy, which one?
Wow… you really have problems reading. Did I ask you how was a car INVENTED!?!? I asked you how it was made. Manufactured. How a fully assembled and mobile machine came to be from a pile of metal and plastic pieces. It was to point out that saying that a car is just “formed” or “created” from whatever the automotive equivalent of “dirt” you can think of does not tell us a single thing about the actual manufacture and assembly of a car.
Why do you tell so many lies, Chris? As a Christian, is it not wrong to lie out your ass? What do you hope to accomplish by repeating the same lies about evolution over and over again? Let’s play a mental exercise. If I were to tell you that evolution says life appeared out of nothing and there is no God, wouldn’t you tell me I’m lying. I would to since evolution states no such thing, not in Darwin’s Origin of Species, scientific publication, nor any biology textbook. It is a lie plain and simple. Now Chris, why would you repeat this lie over and over, you dirty little fibber?
Sure I can tell you about the virus components. They specifically made the parts using in-vitro methods, from the nucleotides used for gene synthesis, to using enzymes to convert the DNA sequence into RNA and translation into virus polypeptide components. The reason it took so long was because they didn’t just “cheat” and spliced the sequence onto a plasmid and injected it into a host bacterium, using the existing cellular components of a living organism to manufacture the virus particles. The exercise was to demonstrate that the virus could be synthesized without using a living organism. If you want to make your own, read up on oligonucleotide and gene synthesis. The process is very-well established and commericalized, but too lengthy to post here. Or you can just open an account with companies like Invitrogen and have them make whatever sequence of ACGT you put on a piece of paper, at $0.25 a base pair I think.
Are you really in touch with this whole creationist movement or are you some lone wolf wackjob? Frankly, I don’t give a crap about your complaints. They are all baseless anyways. I do care about your goals and the actions you take to achieve them. Teaching creationism or some variation thereof (ID, IR, and whatever new creationism-derived hypothesis they come up with later) has been the goal of every lobbying effort by the Discovery Institute and their sponsored politicians here in Florida. And yes, this is all part of the ultimate goal to indoctrinate all children in America that listening to Vishnu, Allah, Buddha, Darwin, science, common sense, basically, anything but the words of the Christian God ensures a one-way ticket to hell. A theocracy is the last thing this nation should be, I mean, just look at Iran.
Creationism is nothing but imagination. Fantasy. Speculation. When you yourself read that God created man in his image and try to envision this event in your mind, you are imagining practically every aspect of it, from the grey-bearded entity bathed in glowing light directing beams of divine energy with His hands into a pile of dirt that is slowly forming itself into a vaguely anthropomorphic shape. First of all, you don’t know what God looks like, but in your head, I’d bet that you have him looking like some bearded old man in white robes as depicted in various artwork, literature, movies, and other media. When He breaths life into the lifeless form of man, do you imagine Him hunched over, literally mouth-to-mouth, or is it more in the form of a mystical vapor that travels from God’s mouth into man? Any sort of “scientific” (or any other) explanation you creationists can conjure up from those two sentences in Genesis is purely imaginary, from rationalizing that the “days” mentioned in Genesis do not correspond to the 24hr time unit we know today, or when you yourself, were imagining that God used the various carbon/hydrogen/nitrogen/oxygen/phosphorous/sulfur-containing compounds in the dirt to synthesize human tissue.
Evolution is and was never taught as fish becoming dogs becoming whales. Maybe in your head with whatever bizarro-version of evolution floating around in your mind, but it just doesn’t happen in reality. You need some serious help separating science from religion. Who and what have you been taught to bring you into this damaged state of mind? I’m guessing not a product of the public education system? Do you call your home a “compound”? Lotsa guns lying around the house? Daddy had multiple women around that you call “momma”?
Here we go again, more garbage, no content. It’s like a merry-go-round
The reason I said “evolution happens” is because from your comments, it seems clear that you do not agree. You contradicted yourself, you say evolution is a thing of the imagination, yet you mentioned speciation. That is the means by which new species arise, a component of the theory of evolution. There are many examples of this that have been observed in organisms larger than bacteria- lizards, amphibians, fish, etc. Also, adaptation is not evolution, it is a component, but adaptations are on the level of individuals, and are based on their phenotypes, a result of their genotypes. Those better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce successfully. Natural selection, which is a non-random, passive environmental filter, selects for those individuals who are best adapted, and as a result, the population evolves. You also talk about “new information” which can come about in different ways, mutation is the main mechanism. Back to bacteria, they can acquire new DNA via transformation.
I am not an “evolutionist” in the same way I am not a “gravityist” or a “cell theoryist” etc. Science is not a religion. The supposed controversy is one that has been manufactured by those who want to be allowed to teach religion in public school science. Science and religion are apples and oranges, two different fields, and should not be mixed or compared as if they were the same. It is a horribly false dichotomy that it is either one or the other.
Harping about dogs turning into whales has the same garbage content as me making assumptions about degree of inbreeding in your family, Chris. I suppose it is a positive step for you to actually recognize garbage when it is thrown at you. Now if you could only recognize and shut off the flow of rubbish spraying out of your mouth, maybe a rational and logical discussion can take place.
Green Earth
Lets be clear. You said evolution happens, I agree. Depending on the full context and meaning of that statement, I perhaps we disagree.
Are you satisfied with the validity of proclaimed scientific evidence that shows you as a descendent of Java man?
I don’t understand how the “full context and meaning” changes the fact the evolution happens, unless you are referring to micro vs. macro. So micro you are ok with, macro not so much?
There are fossil species that are understood to be common ancestors, I am not very familiar with Java man, so I will have to do some research.
Yes, micro evolution happens and it can be observed, tested and confirmed. Macro evolution on the other hand can provide none of the above. The major changes implicated by macro evolution must rely entirely on imagination, fantasy and fabrication which which is not a recipe for real science. Today the meaning of macro evolution has obtained some validity not because it has provided evidence but because the definition for macro has evolved to describe the accumulation of micro evolutionary changes. Regardless of how logical this may seem no real evidence exist.
There’s a reason why Answers in Genesis specifically recommends against using this micro/macroevolution distinction as an argument for creationism. The fact that observable changes do occur within species subjected to evolutionary pressure was why AIG conceded that recent scientific findings prove that it may have some validity. Your outright dismissal of macroevolution as mere “imagination, fantasy, and fabrication” and bold claims of how “no real evidence exist” with complete disregard to the scientific evidence supporting it is an example of faulty irrational thinking that AIG specifically wants to avoid.
I think the best analogy I have seen referring to micro vs. macro is saying I can walk across town, but I couldn’t walk across the country. Obviously I could walk across the country, the only difference is the time scale involved.
I think you’re still walking in the micro world going across country. A better analogy would be walking to the moon. Recent scientific findings haven’t proven anthing, only the interpretation of the terms has been expanded to keep the confused confused.
So the fact that comparative morphology, physiology and embryological development all “match up” and lead to the same conclusion means nothing? And transitional fossils?
Do you see now why no one takes you seriously Chris? You think you’re being clever by outright dismissing scientific evidence without any justification? Why do you consider these scientific findings as not proving anything? Any evidence? A counter-example perhaps? Or is it all just pointless posturing?
Green Earth
“So the fact that comparative morphology, physiology and embryological development all “match up†and lead to the same conclusion means nothing?”
Actually it means quite a bit. And a sound conclusion would be that there is good strong evidence of a common designer who used earth compatible materials. Each organism stands fully formed from the earliest appointed time in the so called fossil record to every living thing seen today. Every organism has its specific abilities to survive in the environment it was designed for. There is good evidence that rapidly changing environments have caused species to relocate, adapt or go extinct.
“And transitional fossils?”
The term “transitional fossil” by it’s very definition is a misconception. Since all living things are believed by the faithful to be in a constant state of transition through natural selection, no single fossil could or can be actually pinpointed as a fossil which is not in transition. However to solidify the belief fossils have been selected according to their assigned relationships and appointed time periods for there existence and placed on imaginary phylogenic trees is text books.
One of the points is that every fossil is a transitional fossil, because as you said, animals are constantly changing, though, at different rates based on the environment and the selective pressures with which they are faced.
I am curious what you think- how old is the earth? the universe?
And what is your evidence for design? And, as you said earlier, is it testable?
I don’t know the age of the earth or the universe. I suppose you would have had to be there to know for sure. It has been possible to assign ages to different creatures and systems based on evolutionary theory. But the theory has no solid foundation in that all claims are based on assumptions or proposals which fit into the imaginary doctrine of biological evolution. For instance, the concept that a life has a single common ancestor. This common ancestor has no identity, no origin, no life support system, no possibility way of stepping to existence from what science has been able to determine. Basing an opinion on this type of reasoning seems rather naive.
The best explanation I have heard for the increase in the mystical genetic information necessary to propel these unseen transitional creatures upward to the next level is explained by Richard Dawkins. Who can’t explain it at all and changes the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh+div-1r-6-HM
As to evidence for design. You have two eyes on the front of your head wired to your brain. This is a very common design among humans an practically every other living thing. This design works well and apparently has been used repeatedly. However sometimes with natural selection and mutational change on an individual level and these conditions are modified , but never for the better.
Is it testable? If you plucked out an eye and moved it to your arm pit would your vision be better? Is there a better location on the human body where two synchronized eyes could be installed for better vision, perception, or survival? This is testable, but not real smart.
Please do clarify as to how the fact that many creatures having eyes in front of their heads is evidence for design while also considering the fact that there is a clear correlation between frontal eye placement and predatory behavior of said creatures. Also consider the fact that there are many creatures that have eye placement perpendicular to the front of their heads, with a correlation to their role as prey to a large number of the aforementioned frontal eye placement creatures. What about the existence of a third parietal eye in some species of reptiles, amphibians, and jaw-less fishes? What about creatures with eyes located on the tops of their heads, like the stargazer? Or hell, exceptions to this rule like several whale species, who, although predatory, also have eyes on the sides of their head (but due limited function of mammalian eyes underwater and their reliance on echolocation to find prey, have acoustic focusing structures known as melon organs, or specialized audio-receptive teeth arrays located on the front of their heads where one would expect to find eyes on a terrestrial predator)? What about the numerous species which are both predator and prey to others, with all manner of eye configurations between perfect binocular and peripheral vision? Take the chameleon, with eyes that can be positioned in all sorts of independent angles(and is both predator and prey to various other species)? What about invertebrates, like insects, mollusks, etc? On some species, it’s not even clear as to where the eyes are oriented in relation to the head/brain/brain-like nerve cluster, if present at all.
Don’t you think your reasoning is overly simplistic?
“I don’t know the age of the earth or the universe. I suppose you would have had to be there to know for sure.” Then by the same logic you cannot argue that you know it was your god that created it.
And the human eye is not evidence of design. If it was created, designed by god, why are there so many problems with the eye, why do people need glasses? Why is our vision weak, especially compared with some other animals?
Not to mention the presence of non-functional eyes in organisms like olms and other cave-dwelling creatures? Let’s even use your “testable” logical reasoning in this case, Chris. What kind of design/designer would put a rudimentary eye with partially functional photoreceptors under a flap of skin? Of course, even with this obvious obstruction, the eyes still retain some light sensitivity, but why then go on to line the entire skin surface of the olm with melanopsin-containing cells, making its entire body photo-sensitive? Given that the eyes themselves can function as light receptors with and without the skin flap, why bother covering them at all? Wouldn’t they work even better without, especially if some designer saw fit to make the entire body photo-receptive to increase its light sensitivity? Or better yet, why do olm larvae posses functional eyes that begin to regress into an atrophied state as the larva develops into adulthood, even though the entire life-cycle happens in a low-light environment? Also, what evidence of good design is it to include drastic and vibrant skin pigmentation changes that occur in many amphibian species upon sexual maturity for the an organism such as an olm, which cannot see and relies largely on smell and vibrations in the water to navigate and interact with each other?
I would say that the chances of my God created everything are allot greater than the chances of your god creating anything. But aside from that the scenario outlined in Genesis is plausible with a creator, it isn’t without one. The creation process recorded in scripture gives the method and order of the creation events. The amount of detail or lack of it doesn’t prove it didn’t happen as described. The Biblical creation process described will not fit or coincide with the hypothetical theories imagined by evolutionist. Millions of years just don’t work with the Bible or life as we see it today.
How many millions of years did flowering plants wait for insect evolution to produce the right bug to pollinate each specific variety of plant? And if plants were so smart to start with, why didn’t they all just pollenate themselves. And why did the need it in the first place? Stupid bushes.
Why are there so many problems with eyes, ears, toes, hair, livers and every thing else? Good question. Here’s a good question, if evolution and the mystical abiogenesis event has brought life to this point from nothing, why hasn’t evolution been able to advance even one simple organism forward to repair itself continually.
This question is answered in Genesis chapter 2 & 3. and it’s not evolution.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen. 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: —- Better to read both full chapters together.
Man and all living things were put out of the garden and allowed to fall subject to degeneration and physical death. The tree of life reappears in Revelation at the end of the Book after sin has been dealt with.
Because of sin every thing dies, every thing eventually breaks down and looses function as you an Karl have indicated. It’s called the bondage of corruption. Nothing can escape it. Romans chapter 8 talks about it.
This is the good news of the Bible. God will restore those who choose forgiveness of sin and restoration thru faith in Jesus Christ to eternal life. Every thing will be fixed, no need for medicine or doctors. Won’t have to hoe anymore.
So it’s not a matter of bad design, it’s a matter of intentional design. It’s a cleaning process. Your stay on the planet will be temporary.
Okay. Restraining all impulse to mock you for essentially responding with a no scientific or logical answer, let me ask you:
How would you test this bondage of corruption assertion as you claim to have with design? How would you apply scientific scrutiny (testability/repeatability/etc) to this assertion?
Also, there are organisms that do repair themselves continually and never suffer from cellular aging, or can continuously revert back to earlier stage of its life cycle, essentially becoming biologically immortal. The recently discovered immortal jellyfish
Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula
and the simple Hydra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_%28genus%29
are two examples.
Unusual but possible result of evolution, or did God chose to spare these two innocuous organisms from the consequences of sin?
Also, you probably know this already, but you did brush off the counterpoints to your earlier assertions on the testability of design.
Wow, I was unaware of these creatures. So is it safe to assume that all of these creatures which have ever existed are still here. None have been eaten, washed ashore, hit by boat props or died of any biological malfunction? Where are they all?
I didn’t brush off anything, Pop your eye out, put it in your arm pit. Now can you see better? If you can think of a better place to put it, put it there.
Ummm… say what? I gave you two examples of biological immortality that you claimed evolution could never produce.
You said:
“Here’s a good question, if evolution and the mystical abiogenesis event has brought life to this point from nothing, why hasn’t evolution been able to advance even one simple organism forward to repair itself continually.”
One example (the jellyfish) simply reverts to an younger state instead of dying, like a child developing into an adult, but instead of aging further into old age/death, reverts back to childhood again in an endless cycle. Another, the hydra, continuously repairs itself from all manner of mechanical damage(cut apart, pureed, etc), and its cells don’t “age” as most other organisms do (limited replication, loss of cellular function over times, etc).
If these are not the answers you are looking for, perhaps you should rephrase your question.
Also, your eye design logic is flawed and also hilariously contradicts your earlier assertion.
You claimed:
Is it testable? If you plucked out an eye and moved it to your arm pit would your vision be better? Is there a better location on the human body where two synchronized eyes could be installed for better vision, perception, or survival? This is testable, but not real smart.
Do enlighten us as to why that popping out the eye and moving it to an armpit is a smart way to prove that the eye was designed while popping it out and moving it to all sorts of other places to see if it’s function could be improved over the original frontal head region isn’t? I’m really trying not to laugh here.
Oh also, regarding what you said about the “stupid bushes” and pollination, some plants do pollinate themselves. Ever heard of peanuts? What about the soybean? Peas? Sunflowers? Ever seen an orchid at a plant nursery?
The progression of plants colonizing land allowed for animals to “invade” land. Insects first, then others, and we see many different adaptations in these inverts and vertebrates for life on land, such as water retention in the large intestine, amniotic eggs, etc. Also, not all plants rely on insects for pollination, some “use” birds and other animals, or the wind or even water, sometimes moist soil is enough to move games from one plant to the next.
I fear this will turn this into a debate/discussion about religion, but I am curious, do animals have souls? can they sin? because if they can’t why are they too subject to this “punishment.” And what about people who lived before Christianity? Or those in remote areas of the world who don’t know about the “forgiveness of sin and restoration thru (sic) faith in Jesus Christ to eternal life”?
*gametes, not games (typing too fast!)
Karl , I’m trying not to laugh either. Eyeballs on the front of you face for humans looks like the best place to put them to me. It’s doubtful that millions of years of hit and miss evolution would have located them there along with all the necessary wiring, skull modifications, etc. Looks more like a good plan.
The reason I’m laughing is because the argument you use to support design as a plausible explanation is the same argument you criticize as being “not very smart” when used to see if there are better places for eye placement on a human.
Should I again ignore the fact that you brushed off the counterpoint to your continuously self-repairing organism challenge against evolution?
As to your reasoning on eyeball placement, isn’t “looking like the best place to me” just an opinion?
So if the present placement of the eye isn’t the best location for it where is? And how have you determined that?
Biological immortality doesn’t mean forever, but rather is the absence of a sustained increase in rate of mortality as a function of chronological age. No actual organism or individual cell is inviolably immortal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality
Because of sin every thing dies, every thing eventually breaks down and looses function. It’s called the bondage of corruption. That’s the Biblical reason. Nothing can escape it.
With that being said it appears everything has been designed to die. Nothing has evolved beyond it’s present state of eventual destruction.
Green Earth
No need to fear talking about religion we have been talking about it all along. One belief that a creator created everything. And the other religious humanist doctrine that everything made itself.
Do animals have souls? I don’t know, but there will apparently be animals in heaven. Now whether those animals are the same animals resurrected, is questionable. The Bible doesn’t give any reference to this, it was written for the salvation of mankind not animals. However Romans 8:21-23 says, “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they but ourselves also, which have the first-furits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, and the redemption of our body.”
Can animals sin? There are good ones and bad ones for sure, but it look like man’s sin has put them in their present state, Romans 8:18-20. “For I reckon the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.” It sounds like the animals didn’t have a choice in the matter. The whole place is screwed up even the ground. Gen 3:17: Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
What happens to those who lived before or have never heard of Jesus. All people are still accountable to God.  Psalm 19:1-4 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Romans 1:20  “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Sin and the followers of it are condemned. Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” This site has some good answers to some of those questions.
http://www.gotquestions.org/never-heard.html
Ephesians 2:8″ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.”People are saved by faith in God, believing that God is. According to scripture Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. There is the overwhelming contrast between the two beliefs, that being that God is and God isn’t. This is why the two are so incompatible. Believers in God clearly see His handy work and can identify His awesome power thru creation. Those who believe the is no God must rely on the changing claims of so called science and man’s imagination for their spiritual fulfillment. And for humanist the continual fear that death may not actually be the end.
“And the other religious humanist doctrine that everything made itself.”
No, this is incorrect, I already said this is not the case. This is a straw man, this is not what I think, this is not what “evolutionist” think. And again I will say that I am not an “evolutionist” in the same way I am not a “Darwinist” or a “gravityist” or a “Newtonist” or a “cell theoryist” etc.
“Those who believe the is no God must rely on the changing claims of so called science and man’s imagination for their spiritual fulfillment.”
Science is not religion, you saying it is does not make it as such. This is why I said that science and religion are apples and oranges. Science makes no claim one way or another about god/the supernatural. Science is based on what can be observed in the natural world, it has nothing to do with “spiritual fulfillment.” I find it interesting that you mock “so called science” as you say, yet you have no problem using the products of “so called science.” You are using a computer, and the internet, that is thanks to science and those who worked to invent these technologies. If you receive modern medical treatment, that is thanks to science, and those who study, research and experiment.
Reciting bible verses is not proof of anything, other than your ability to read and recite them.
“Reciting bible verses is not proof of anything, other than your ability to read and recite them.”
If you recall it wasn’t me who ask the questions about animal souls, eternal life and forgiveness of sins. If you don’t want an answer don’t ask the question. I don’t know every thing but I can find somethings.
So called science and real science are not the same thing.
I agree, science in not a religion but I would have to disagree, that there are not people who hold a portion of evolutionary theory as a part of their own personal religious doctrine. Not a straw man a real belief system.
If you’re not an evolutionest you should have not problem recognizing the difference between the scientific method and the imaginary claims of pea brained fanatics who claim to know there is no creator like Richard Dawkins.
Oh quit skirting around the issue Chris.
“So if the present placement of the eye isn’t the best location for it where is? And how have you determined that?”
Well, as you yourself have said, I could theoretically place the eye on a number of locations all over the human body and measure it’s function (field of view, etc) versus the original frontal facial eye placement. I do agree with you that this method is not very smart, since there are a number of factors that determine the usefulness of eye placement other than mere eye function, such as human behavior, movement, etc. My original question is, why is it that this exact same stupid method somehow validates design as a plausible explanation? You put the eyeball in the armpit and it’s function and usefulness decreases drastically. “Boom, this proves design!” you say. Stupid method amiright? Please do elaborate as to why in this case, it isn’t.
Regarding your self-repairing organism challenge, perhaps you should rephrase your question to evolution producing something that is indestructible against all manner of forces.
Allow me to rephrase it using your own words:
Here’s a good question, if evolution and the mystical abiogenesis event has brought life to this point from nothing, why hasn’t evolution been able to advance even one simple organism forward to complete invulnerability against anything and everything?
Given that even the subatomic particles atoms which make up everything in our world are not immune to destruction (LHC represent), why would you assume that evolution would even claim to defy this? This question doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s like asking if buses are driven by bus drivers, then why do submarines use sonar? By all means, if you were making an entirely different point, please rephrase the question yourself.
Oh, and before I forget, any response on the self-pollinating “stupid bushes” like peanuts, peas, sunflowers, orchids, etc which supposedly don’t exist?
Sorry you can’t comprehend my questions.
The question doesn’t make any sort of logical sense. You asked one thing, I gave an answer, you then make a counter-claim that changes the meaning of your original question entirely. Make up your mind, get your story straight, etc. Should I apologize for your lack of English comprehension skills?
I did want answers to the questions, not recitation of a bunch of bible verses.
And yes, it is a straw man for you to criticize/mock/attack a position/view that I do not actually hold. I was referring to your comment that everything made itself, or that nothing make everything. I will say again, this is not what I think, and it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the change in genetic composition of a population over time, it pertains to living organisms. Evolution is not about how the universe started, or how the earth was formed, etc.
I actually do not agree with Dawkins about that, in the sense that it is connected with science. Because science deals with the natural, observable world, it can make no claim one way or another about the existence of supernatural beings.
Green Earth
Sorry, I stand corrected. I happen to agree with you.
Well, the article is really the greatest on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the fantasti c clarity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates.Gratifying work and much success in your business endeavors!Thank you.
Great post!