When confronted by someone who loudly criticizes evolution and yet obviously has no actual knowledge of the subject, I try to demonstrate for the person how foolish he or she is looking. I typically use an example of a patient loudly criticizing his dentist. He rattles on and on about how flossing is a silly waste of time. He tries to convince the dentist that the way the professional is going about treating a cavity or doing a root canal is clearly all wrong. He cites information he read in some book published twenty years ago; a book that wasn’t even mainstream in the dentistry profession back then. There is obviously a conspiracy afoot among the majority of today’s dentists, according to the patient, because they all are actively trying to suppress the patient’s revelations.
It’s a silly example, and I realize that I don’t know enough about dentistry to even really flesh out my example. But the point I am trying to make is that experts and respected professionals are, well, experts and professionals.
If you have a burning desire to talk teeth with your dentist, but you know you’re not going to become a dentist yourself, you might still manage to earn some basic respect and engage in a worthwhile conversation if you do some current reading on the subject. Dentistry undoubtedly has its own professional journals, respected leaders in the field, active research programs, commonly accepted basic knowledge, and standard practices. So, the guy with the tooth passion should be somewhat familiar with all of that. He probably wouldn’t be an expert, but would still be able to sound like more than just a kooky patient. The other patients might not know the difference, but the dentist certainly would.
Why am I going on and on about dentists? Coincidently, a dentist got some space in the Tampa Tribune on Saturday. To anyone with at least a little bit of honest biology background knowledge, this man sounds like the kooky dentist patient in my above example. He sneers at Darwinists and uses old, long-ago discredited creationist anti-evolution talking points. With all due respect to the man, I sincerely hope he knows more about dentistry than evolution. Putting aside his condescending tone, he trots out three main arguments:
1) Random mutation does not lead to new species. He goes on to claim: “There is no known example of the formation of a new species.†Sure, and flossing actually leads to cavities; didn’t you know?
The dentist needs some educational reading here, here, and here.
2) The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. Sure, and let’s stick a leech in your mouth to ease that toothache, shall we?
Educational reading here.
3) It’s unknown how life first started.
Dr. Dean Kenyon is the dentist’s source for this point. What’s not mentioned in the column is that Dr. Kenyon is a prominent creationist. Educational reading here.
There are some informative comments from readers online.
I can answer your 3 questions:
1. New species are everywhere. In fact every species that exists today did not exist millions of years ago. If they did then the fossil record would be full animals that are alive today.
2. Complicated organ parts did not evolve independent of each other then all of a sudden work as one. Your rotary motor example, evolved over time. Each piece evolved together. 10,000 years ago it was a little different and 10,000 years from now it will have changed some more.
3. Try reading “The Spark of Life†which discussed the Primeval Soup theory. This is just one of many theories though.
Of course these are simple questions to answer for anyone that took high school biology.
1. Evolution is not something that happens overnight. It would take generations for even minor changes to become apparent. It would take tens of thousands of years for any significant changes and much longer for new species to form. But there is evidence of evolution happening all around us today. There are 8 different species of bears and many more sub species. There are over 20,000 species of spiders. These are just 2 examples but nearly every animal has many different varieties that have evolved differently. Recent (remember recent in evolution terms is tens of thousands of years) evolution is also easily seen in humans. Different skin color, facial features and body structure that came about when pockets of the human population where isolated for many generations. We also have an appendix that has no purpose and a tail bone (which is much more developed in some people).
2. Darwin died in the late 1800’s. There has been a lot of research done since then. I suggest that you don’t use a single book written over 150 years ago as your only source. But to address your comments, for the purpose of this conversation it really doesn’t matter where the original cell of life came from. Intelligent design totally discredits the claim that species have evolved into new species (although they do agree that minor changes have occurred). The facts are that the oldest fossils are of very simple organisms. As time passed the fossils became much more complex. NO fossils have been found for animals that exist today. That in itself would lead us to believe that either species evolved into new species or that new species have magically appeared over time. There is a lot more evidence that would lead us to believe that species evolved but I’ll leave it to you to do a little research.
Creationists tend to focus on Darwin for a few reasons:
1) He is credited with conceiving the theory that fatally undermined any support for a literal reading of Genesis, so for them this is payback.
2) It’s easier to rally your supporters against a single man instead of the complex, subtle, and correct explanations that evolution gives us.
3) Lots of creationists think that but for Darwin there would be no theory of evolution; they don’t want to talk about the maturing of the scientific fields whose facts support evolutionary explanations, or they know but don’t want to admit that some other scientist (such as Alfred Wallace) would have picked up the same available pieces and come to roughly the same conclusions.
It’s also sad that Mr. Weihe repeats the standard Creationist misquoting of Darwin. The entire passage is “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. But I can find out no such case.â€
And a nice sandblasting of the opinion piece can be found here.
A separate question I have concerns the newspaper’s policies on what they publish under the “Special to the Tribune” heading. I assume this is meant to be taken as an opinion piece. I certainly understand a person’s right to submit something that is opinion, regardless if others think the opinion is valid or not. But doesn’t the newspaper have some responsibility to check up on basic facts that are not just statements of opinion? What the dentist wrote is not just a string of garbled opinions, but statements of outright falsehoods that can be objectively verified as such. Anyone know what the standard practice is for newspapers concerning this?
C’mon, guys! Write some Letters to the Editor like I did!
Sure, like special Ed
Awwwww, little evolutionists upset because someone mentions Creationism in public and challenges the establishment. You guys are so entertaining. One newspaper mentions creationism and you want to destroy it. Truly pathetic. I know I know, you are just genetically programmed that way. You can’t help it. You’re just an evoluntionary propaganda machine. Come on, the first step to recovery is to admit, “I am a machine.”
McD says …
Oh dear, another propagandist for doctrine decides to wade in with the boringly familiar canards of his ilk.
Tell me Pastor john, how much REAL SCIENCE do you actually know?
Only when I rebutted the nonsense published by that dentist, I cited no less than THIRTY SEVEN appropriate scientific papers that flushed his nonsense well and truly down the toilet.
What part of “evolutionary biology consists of a series of conclusions from observational reality that are MASSIVELY supported by evidence, while creationism is a doctrine-centred fantasy based upon unsupported assertions contained in a text written by people for whom the wheel was high technology” are you incapable of understanding?
What part of “the professional scientists who study and research their specialist subject are far more likely to know about these things than someone who thinks he knows more than them on the basis of uncritical acceptance of the assertions of a doctrine” are you incapable of understanding?
What part of “over 18,000 scientific papers on evolutionary biology were published in 2007 alone, adding to the already vast mountain range of evidence in support of evolutionary theory, whilst creationism has NOTHING to support it and is FLATLY CONTRADICTED BY OBSERVATIONAL REALITY” are you incapable of understanding?
Oh, and once more, there is NO SUCH THING as an “evolutionsist”. There are EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS (namely the people who spend decades of their lives researching and studying their field) and those outside that specialist discipline who accept the evidence-based, reality-based case that they present for their hypotheses (in those 18,000+ scientific papers per year). The word “evolutionist” is a mendacious discoursive elision used by creationists for the purposes of erecting an entirely specious “symmetry” between evidence-based, reality-based science and the unsupported assertions of a doctrine. There IS no such “symmetry” in existence. Evolution is NOT a “doctrine”, it is an evidence-based science with MASSIVE evidential support. Kindly learn this basic fact before shooting from the lip as is the usual wont of propagandists for masturbation-fantasy doctrines.
🙂
Let’s see – so far we’ve had a dentist, a housewife, and a clergyman all give us their ignorance based argument from personal incredulity about what evolution is.
The rest of the Fundy technical experts should be along any minute.
Funny thing is, last time I checked, dentists don’t do any research in evolutionary biology. They should though, if this dentist’s ignorance is any indication: Wisdom teeth are vestigial traits that are lingering remains of our evolutionary history.Not a very intelligent design even for a cosmic dentist!!
Well well so we have those here that question ID. Your conscience is a function not of the intellect but placed within all men as a moral compass. When this is violated it needs to be cleared. If it is not cleared then a man’s thought process will become skewed. He will tend to pick a philosophy of thought that leaves out the one who put the conscience in them. Thus the many philosophies of evolution flourish among the weak in true moral judgement. They may come up with a “floating” moral code, but change it when it has to fit their “lifestyle”. Thence they try to appease their conscience but never quite have the ability too. This ‘floating’ moral code is without a Creator, who is unchangable. So they are ever learning but never coming to the knwoledge of the truth.
Sorry to butt in but —
Judge Stein is an idiot.
Oh, look, the other troll, who him/herself told MickieD to not bother spewing his inane twaddle on another thread (in a kinder, woe-unto-the-eternally-damned-heathens way), wades in here with more evidence-free, “spiritual” woo-woo. I’m so shocked. Once again, this isn’t the “Florida Citizens for Religiously-Based Denial of Observable Reality” website, it’s “Florida Citizens for SCIENCE”. As soon as you have some actual, you know, SCIENCE, to bring to the table which supports your assertions, let us know. 😛
Let’s take a look at this assorted pile of nonsense from “The Voice” shall we?
“Well well so we have those here that question ID.”
This might have something to do with the fact that it is unsupported by evidence from observational reality.
“Your conscience is a function not of the intellect but placed within all men as a moral compass.”
Ah, someone else unaware of the fact that neuroscience has alighted upon an organic basis for ethical behaviour, and located it as being a function of a precise region of the brain, namely the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex. There are several extant scientific papers to this extent. No superfluous supernatural entities needed.
“When this is violated it needs to be cleared. If it is not cleared then a man’s thought process will become skewed.”
Ah, the age-old and entirely specious argument that failure to conform to the unsupported assertions of a doctrine somehow results in “moral turpitude”. Strange how many people seem to lead decent lives without the need for superfluous supernatural entities or adherence to reality-denial doctrines. On the other hand, here’s some of your fellow adherents of doctrine who seemed to manifest some ‘violations of conscience’ of their own, namely:
[1] Rev. Gary Aldridge … found dead in his bath in extremely suspicious circumstances:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html
[2] Arthur Shelton … committed an extremely gruesome murder and justified it because the victim was an atheist:
http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm
[3] Joe Barron, Dallas megachurch minister caught by the FBI soliciting an under age girl for sex:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356467,00.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/051708dnmetministerarrest.107c9d887.html
[4] Ted Haggard, another ‘righteous’ preacher, caught soliciting a male prostitute and taking illegal drugs:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html
[5] Kent Hovind, propagandist for creationist bullshit, serving 10 years for tax evasion:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/HovindIndictment.pdf
[6] Bishop Thomas Weeks, beat his wife to a bloody pulp in a car park:
http://www.transworldnews.co.uk/NewsStory.aspx?id=21478&cat=13
[7] Earl Paulk, another ‘righteous’ evangelist, who apparently couldn’t control his trouser snake:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/19/pzn.01.html
So spare me the bullshit about your invisible magic man in the sky being responsible for conscience, will you?
Moving on …
“He will tend to pick a philosophy of thought that leaves out the one who put the conscience in them. Thus the many philosophies of evolution flourish among the weak in true moral judgement.”
Ah, som many canards, so little time.
First of all, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not a “philosophy”. One that is massively supported by evidence from the real world. Second, that list of people who demonstrated “weakness in true moral judgement” doesn’t include a single advocate of evolution. That’s one convicted murderer, one convicted fraudster, one drug addict, one wife beater, one rampant adulterer, one paedophile and one practitioner of autoerotic asphyxiation. Funny how your invisible magic man in the sky seems to attract this sort of character.
“They may come up with a “floating†moral code, but change it when it has to fit their “lifestyleâ€.
As opposed to those who claim to be able to tell the rest of us how to think, how to run our lives and what to do with our genitalia on the basis of adherence to a doctrine written by people for whom the wheel was high technology, and who promptly go on to attract the attention of law enforcement whilst posturing as being in a position to lecture the rest of us on the basis that they are so-called “men of god”.
“Thence they try to appease their conscience but never quite have the ability too. This ‘floating’ moral code is without a Creator, who is unchangable.”
Funny how this ‘creator’ of yours is unsupported by any critically robust evidence. you know, the sort of evidence that evolution enjoys support from in massive amounts? Plus, it’s also funny how your mythical ‘creator’ attracts some of the most singularly repulsive douchebags as spokespersons. Bit of a cock up there don’t you think?
“So they are ever learning but never coming to the knwoledge of the truth.”
Funny how we know more about the behaviour of living organisms since we started listening to the real world, and stopped listening to the pontifications of adherents of doctrines that were past their sell by date before the ink was dry on the parchment. Don’t suppose you bothered to check any of those 37 scientific papers I cited in my rebuttal of that dentist’s nonsense over at TalkRational, did you? But then the only time creationists ever bother to read scientific papers is for the purpose of quote mining them to twist the words of the scientists to fit the worthless apologetics that is the stock in trade of creationist mendacity.
“Your conscience is a function not of the intellect but placed within all men as a moral compass. When this is violated it needs to be cleared.”
.
The voice sounds like a Scientologist.
I saw that dentist’s letter when it came out. I thought it was hilarious, so I blogged about it: Dentists Gone Wild! The really odd thing was that the Tampa Tribune published it as as a “Special,” as if they really scored big by getting this guy to write for them.
Thus the many philosophies of evolution flourish among the weak in true moral judgement. They may come up with a “floating†moral code, but change it when it has to fit their “lifestyleâ€. Thence they try to appease their conscience but never quite have the ability too. This ‘floating’ moral code is without a Creator, who is unchangable. So they are ever learning but never coming to the knwoledge of the truth.
Yeeeeeoooowwwccchhh! teh stupid burns Make it stop!!!
Calilasseia
Give the poor pastor a break, you know this isn’t about science, it’s about your religion and his. You simply just have the faith to believe you came from nothing, will go back to nothing and your hear for absolutely no reason. So why be concerned about somebody who thinks your worth something. Get yourself a blow up monkey.
Today’s grammar lesson:
your is possessive; you + are = you’re
hear as in the ability to perceive sound; here as describing a location
They make blow-up monkeys??? Cool!
ABO, must we point out again that this is the blog for FLORIDA CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE. Cali is a scientist. He has no religion that I am aware of and, either way, his theological leanings have no bearing on science. Much as the pastor’s theological leanings (and yours, I would hazard a guess) have no bearing on observational reality. Which is the realm of science, oddly enough. And stop trying to pull the incredibly tiresome “science=faith” logical fallacy crapola. Seriously, it’s old, worn out, and quite frankly makes it painfully obvious that you lack two brain cells to rub together, as if the atrocious spelling and grammar of your post didn’t give us enough of a hint.
http://www.orientaltrading.com/application?origin=page.jsp&namespace=browse&event=link.itemDetails&categoryId=377320&BP=8108&sku=49%2f34&cm_mmc=INK-_-Party%20Supplies-_-Novelties-_-Inflatable%20Monkey
Thanks Wolfhound! That is super nifty!!!
Today’s grammar lesson:
“Which is the realm of science, oddly enough.” SENTENCE FRAGMENT
your – This word should have quotation marks to denote it. It should read, “your.”
I give you FCS guys an “F” for grammar, and an “F” for science. Your arrogant attitudes also warrant a visit to the principal’s office.
Just because you graduated from Oral Roberts does not make you a dentist.
McDonald giving out grammar lessons? Oh, that’s rich.
Perhaps you should re-read the majority of your posts. I’d be happy to point out your grammar mistakes, your misuse of subjunctive mood, ad nauseum. Apparently, you want me to educate you in philosophy and English grammar.
It’s funny that you would call FCS arrogant. You’re a youth pastor for some backwater church in a podunk town in North Florida. Your grasp of science is laughable, your understanding of philosophy is pathetic, and your endless braying about ID and apologetics is annoying. Get a grip.
Right, Pensacola, Fort Walton Beach, Destin, and Panama City are really “podunk.” What kind of beaches can South Florida offer???? Dude, you live in a cesspool of swamp. And Presbyterianism, well, let’s just say we have always been the scholars of Protestantism. So a backwater church really doesn’t apply to us or any other Reformed church for that matter. Now, why don’t you build a raft and float over to where you belong, i.e. with the other communists. Your hatred of God and evolutionary propaganda would be most welcomed by the beourgoisie.
Let’s take a look at this from ABO …
“Give the poor pastor a break, you know this isn’t about science, it’s about your religion and his. You simply just have the faith to believe you came from nothing, will go back to nothing and your hear for absolutely no reason. So why be concerned about somebody who thinks your worth something. Get yourself a blow up monkey.”
Ah, when you’ve lost the argument, resort to playground abuse.
What part of “citing 37 relevant scientific papers containing EVIDENCE for the ideas I consider to be valid” equals “religion” again?
Read my lips. Evolution isn’t a religion, it’s a VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORY MASSIVELY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. As in those 18,000-plus papers that were published on the subject in 2007 alone, plus the vast mountain range of evidence obtained over the past 150 years by people such as Hermann Joseph Müller, Ronald Fisher (who also invented analysis of variance and introduced the F distribution to analytical statistics), J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Theodosius Dobzhansky …people who actually CONDUCTED EXPERIMENTS TO TEST THEIR IDEAS instead of relying upon unsupported assertions from a book written by people for whom the wheel was high technology. Indeed, one of the papers covering EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF SPECIATION that I cited in my rebuttal of that dentist’s nonsense was one of Dobzhansky’s, and involved the EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY. But then I notice time and again that creationists and other entusiasts for reality-denial doctrines only look at scientific papers so that they can quote mine them.
So my advice to you, ABO, is acquire some actual science textbooks and learn some real science, then you might be in a position to criticise those of us who have engaged in the relevant intellectual effort in the past as opposed to offloading that effort onto some mythological entity.
As for our pastor, I would say the same to him. Namely learn some real science before pretending to be in a position to criticise a robust, rigorous theory about which he plainly knows nothing other than the usual creationist cartoon caricatures thereof. Especially as he’s erected the tired old canard of trying to equate a valid branch of science with Marxism, conveniently forgetting of course than when Marxism was the ruling orthodoxy in the former Soviet Union, evolutionary biologists were sent to the gulags to die because evolution was labelled “bourgeois” and “reactionary”, and Soviet agriculture ended up being flushed down the toilet by Trofim Lysenko and his quasi-Lamarckist fantasies. Strange how the religious right shares this with the Marxists.
Calilasseia Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“What part of “over 18,000 scientific papers on evolutionary biology were published in 2007 alone adding to the already vast mountain range of evidence in support of evolutionary theoryâ€
Not to mention that, collectively, all those journal papers are published by professional scientists from incredibly diverse national, cultural, religious and political backgrounds. Fund a mentalists seem to forget (ignore) the fact that scientific research is largely a collaborative global endeavor even though hard competition exists. Who would have it any other way?
Hot news just in … courtesy of Carl ZImmer reporting on the work of biologist Richard Lenski:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
A forthcoming scientific paper to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA will reveal that evolution has been tracked over a span of 44,000 generations in Escherichia coli, including the appearance of de novo mutations that allow the bacteria to exploit a completely new food source, and which are accompanied by genetic audit trails and preserved instances of past populations during that 44,000 generation run. The paper has interesting implications for the meaning of “speciation” for organisms such as bacteria in which horizontal gene transfer is a known mechanism of dissemination of traits, not least because stringent measures to eliminate horizontal gene transfer were taken during the 20-year experiment.
That evidence for evolution just keeps on piling up.
No, I did not mention these areas. I was speaking specifically of Niceville. Home of, and I’m not making this up, the Boggy Bayou Mullet Festival. That is where you spoke, after all. Also, I’ve been to Fort Walton Beach. You can keep it. I much prefer Clearwater Beach, Daytona Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando, and Tampa.
After reading all the comments here, I’ve decided to start inviting some dentists to my parties. They really liven things up. Who knew?
With all the recent evidence to support TOE, such as Tiktaalik roseae
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060405_fish_evolution.html
Gerobatrachus hottoni http://www.mississauga.com/article/14377
and now Richard Lenskis paper,one wonders how much more evidence IDiots require to realize they are simply wrong??
Knowledge limited to just empiricism is limited science. True science which means knowledge. Means to know. The ability to know is not just a function of the mind but also of the God given conscience. If the conscience (the ability to discern right and wrong) is ignored then the total ability to know is not complete. Therefore without the check of the conscience the untrained hearer will not be able to discern the motive of the espouser. When the ability to discern right and wrong is ignored man makes his intellect his god. They then expect everyone to bow down to his knowledge and mocks those who do not. They mock those who listen to their conscience and call them ignorant. However they fail to see that the one who is ignorant is the one that ignores their conscience. Thence the term ignorance. However the ability to achieve total knowledge can be restored if one seeks how to.
John (aka MC Donald):
The reason we go off like that when someone coughs up the hairball known as creationism is this: BS that goes unchallenged becomes conventional wisdom among people who don’t know any better.
That’s right, and that is why I challenge evolution, aka BS
The Voice said ” The ability to know is not just a function of the mind but also of the God given conscience”.
What a load of dogmatic metaphysical bull crap.You don’t possess any evidence what so ever, that any god or gods exercise influence over our thought processes or our ability to reason.
Good grief, learn to think for your self instead of leaning on some supernatural “sage” to think for you.
Calilasseia Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:30 am
Hot news just in … courtesy of Carl ZImmer reporting on the work of biologist Richard Lenski:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
Ahhh…Carl Zimmer…great article!
Speaking of Carl, here’s a book John and his little lamb, the Voice, should read.
“Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain–and How it Changed the World”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743272056
RAmen
The Voice Says:
Yes, knowledge of science is limited to science (no surprise there). But it is knowledge — which creationists reject.
The Voice Says:
It’s not that creationists “listen to their conscience” which makes them ignorant. It’s that they don’t know anything else.
Jonathon, evidently your conscience has been pricked.
Patrick, please read more carefully. The term science has its definition rooted in the term knowledge. Or to know. You limit your perception of knowledge to empiricism. There is no universal theory of evolution. Every espouser has their own view on its philosophy. There is no evidence at all for your theory. Just alot of speculation about “evidence”. Your underlying thesis depends on the dismissal of the supernatural. So from the onset you have a biased approach. Who is being ignorant ?
Sorry, Voice, I’m afraid that you have the theory of evolution confused with “religion” which has a multitude of difference flavors, none of which agree with each other. The dumbass Christian sects (of which there appear to be a gazillion) all seem to agree that Jesus was nailed to a tree but that’s about it. There IS a universal theory of evolution which is accepted by the overhwelming majority of biologists. Science continues to find new data and tinker with the minute details as the evidence continues to mount (that’s part of the scientific process). Aw, heck, why am I even bothering? You and your lame-brained cohort have proven utterly immune to education. Once again, you’re big on evidence-free, metaphysical woo-woo, totally devoid of science. But your constant assertions that there is no evidence for evolution after link upon link to published paper upon published paper do provide any lurkers with a wonderful case in point of religiously based rectal-cranial inversion theory. 🙂
Bleh. Sorry, that’s DIFFERENT flavors.
It doesn’t matter how many papers, publications, and scientists you appeal to. If what they say or write is wrong, you can appeal to these statments and writings all day, but in the end all that you have appealed to is error.
If science can study only the physical, why do you make dogmatic statements based upon your empirical scientism that there is no God? No conscience? No soul? You are clearly confused. You want to explain everything by purely naturalistic terms. Your science doesn’t tell you to do this, you simply DESIRE to do this, and use science as a tool to do so. Science becomes simply an instrument you use to try and defend your atheism. When scientific data points another way, e.g. ID, you quickly dismiss it as not science, throw in a few ad hominems, and reread the God Delusion.
If science cannot speak in regard to God, the soul, etc. then why don’t you as a scientist also remain silent on the matter instead of saying, there is no God, there is no soul. If science only deals with the natural, of course you will not touch on the supernatural. Then why do you make claims regarding the supernatural? So stupid.
Great job John !
Yes re-education camps are what you would like. Sounds like Soviet Russia. We must all fall in line with your dogma. Or otherwise be insulted, mocked and “crucified”. Do you see a pattern here ?
Oh and there is no universal theory of evolution.
Yes, you are completely off your rocker.
Historically, in this debate, it has been the creationists who have abused their authority. Remember the Scopes trial? Who keeps trying to legislate their ideas? Not scientists, but creationists.
What is that even supposed to mean?
What evidence do you have that what they have written is wrong? You have continually DODGED the evidence question. You want to say that they are wrong, but you completely fail to provide evidence as to how they are wrong. Give me evidence, or shut up.
McDonald, I thought you were supposed to be an “expert” at epistemology. No one has said that your god does not exist, what people have said is that there is no evidence of your god’s existence. You are more than welcome to try to provide evidence, but you will fail every time. Most likely, you will ignore this point.
Obviously, you are ignorant of what science is. Here’s a decent definition from Wikipedia:
What part of that definition do you not understand? I’d be happy to break down the big words for you.
ID is not science. See definition above. Absolutely no scientific data points to a creator, period. Feel free to provide an example. Good luck, DI has been trying for a long time with no results.
“Historically, in this debate, it has been the creationists who have abused their authority. Remember the Scopes trial? Who keeps trying to legislate their ideas? Not scientists, but creationists.”
Interesting how upside down you view things. Where have creationists abused their authority ? Scopes trial – did you just see the fictional movie ? or did you read up on it ?
You want to legislate evolution as a fact and if anyone wants to have critical thinking about it you want to censure them. Who is abusing “authority” ?
There is no evidence that points to the theory life evolved from the mud without God’s breathe.
There is no evidence that man evolved out of an amoeba either.
There’s no evidence that life developed with God’s involvement
Funny how you should say that. Let’s read the rest of your drivel.
Please show me the “evolutionist” equivalent of the so-called “academic freedom” bills. Put up, or shut up.
I read about it. Scopes was being persecuted for violating the Butler act, a law passed by fundies to censor evolution.
zygosporangia
I also have a few questions that I would like to see our Fundie friends answer.
!.What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth and what evidence do you have to show this?
3.What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do what you seem to think it did. Where can we see it using these mechanisms today?
4.Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming that ID is all about god, while others are desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics? Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that?
Voice, you are completely ignorant of science. Evolution does not say anything about how life began, only how it evolved after it began. Read a book, please.
Well, man did not evolve from an amoeba. Amoebas came long after the division between what would become animals and their common ancestor. Of course, I wouldn’t expect someone so ignorant to believe that evolution explains the origin of life to understand how life evolved, or which ancestor is common between species.
As for evidence than man evolved from lower life, you could be right… if you completely ignored RNA/DNA, transitional fossils, shared traits, shared organs, shared defects, etc. There are mountains of evidence for evolution.
There is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. There is no evidence for Intelligent Design beyond theological wishful thinking. There are mounds of evidence for evolution and, indeed, common descent and an old earth. So sorry this shakes up your belief system. Or if it doesn’t shake it up, I feel even more sorry for you because you are truly festering in a stew of unassailable ignorance. Can the metaphysical, mystical mumbo jumbo horseshit and bring on some science. You know, that thing you and your ilk hate so much which is the subject of this whole blog.
Oh dear, not this again …
“It doesn’t matter how many papers, publications, and scientists you appeal to. If what they say or write is wrong, you can appeal to these statments and writings all day, but in the end all that you have appealed to is error.”
And how much science do you actually KNOW to be able to judge whether these papers are “in error”? Especially as they have been subject to intense critical scrutiny by people who have probably forgotten more science than you have thus far demonstrated you possess the capability to learn?
What part of REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS WITH REAL WORLD SYSTEMS don’t you understand here? Experiments that anyone who studies the papers can REPLICATE FOR THEMSELVES and therefore OBSERVE DIRECTLY that the papers are right?
“If science can study only the physical, why do you make dogmatic statements based upon your empirical scientism that there is no God? No conscience? No soul?[/quote]
Provide us with substantive evidence that your pet supernatural entities actually EXIST, and we’ll take notice. Until then, all you have is blind assertion. Science prefers something a little more robust to base its conclusions upon, by the way.
As for conscience, I’ve already stated above that we have EVIDENCE for an organic basis for this phenomenon, and that it has been associated with a specific part of the anatomy of the brain. Again, EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE led us to this conclusion. You know, something OBJECTIVELY OBSERVABLE?
“You are clearly confused. You want to explain everything by purely naturalistic terms.”
You have a shock coming to you as to just how much IS being explained without the need for superfluous supernatural entities. You’re about 150 years behind the state of the art.
“Your science doesn’t tell you to do this, you simply DESIRE to do this, and use science as a tool to do so.”
Actually, the whole point of science is to LEARN FROM OBJECTIVELY OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA. What part of this are you incapable of understanding again?
“Science becomes simply an instrument you use to try and defend your atheism.”
Oh dear, not this boring canard again.
We don’t NEED science to do that. All we NEED to defend a reality-based world view with respect to your pet supernatural entities is the FAILURE OF ADHERENTS OF DOCTRINE TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THEIR ASSERTIONS. Again, what part of this elementary notion are you incapable of understanding?
“When scientific data points another way, e.g. ID, you quickly dismiss it as not science, throw in a few ad hominems, and reread the God Delusion.”
Read my lips. NO SCIENTIFIC DATA POINTS TO ID. ID is merely a means of trying to sneak supernatural wibble into science classes behind the back of the Establishment Clause. Didn’t you read the Dover Trial transcripts?
“If science cannot speak in regard to God, the soul, etc. then why don’t you as a scientist also remain silent on the matter instead of saying, there is no God, there is no soul.”
How about people like you stop telling scientists what they can and cannot do, can and cannot research, and can and cannot think?
Haven’t you people learned ANYTHING from Galileo?
Plus, where is your CRITICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE for these assorted entities that you assert exist? Try PROVIDING SOME. Then we’ll listen. You and all the other adherents of doctrine have had 2,000 years to get your act together in this respect, how about getting off your backsides and developing a methodologically rigorous means of establishing the validity of your claims, instead of relying upon pontification?
“If science only deals with the natural, of course you will not touch on the supernatural.”
Well try PROVIDING EVIDENCE that your beloved supernatural actually EXISTS and we’ll listen. Until then, the critical thinkers are under no obligation whatsoever to give your blind assertions and presuppositions any credence whatsoever.
“Then why do you make claims regarding the supernatural? So stupid.”
Actually, you’re the one making the claims here. We’re simply demanding that you put up or shut up in accordance with rigorous evidential standards. Until you do, we have no reason to regard your wibblings on the supernatural as being any more worth of credence than Grimm’s Fairy Tales.
Johnny Mac:
The crucial difference is that evolutionary theory has scientific and factual support, while creationism only has the support of people sticking their fingers in their ears and going “la la la la”.
Science properly concerns itself with the natural, material universe. It has to, since you can’t test something you can’t draw predictions from and you can’t draw predictions from something you can’t describe objectively.
Your problem, I suspect, boils down to the ever-shrinking supernatural world. It used to be that God personally made the sun come up and go down and the earth was the center of the universe. Not so much anymore. It used to be that people thought God had a hand in creating and shaping each and every child born and raised on earth, which tied theologians up in knots trying to explain how God could raise a Genghis Khan or Stalin or Ted Bundy. From *that* little conflict sprang up a whole bunch of “stern father testing our faith” fairy tales that never really rang true.
You want a personal God, not some remote “blind watchmaker” you can’t call on for backup. Fair enough. Have faith in that idea of God; it may even be true. But why can’t faith be enough for you? Why do you need to corrupt the scientific method to give your faith some worldly support?
Folks,
Casting aspersions back and forth will get us nowhere.
John,
Evolution is not the same as atheism, just as science is not theology. If I recall correctly, several posts back, we agreed that science and religion need not be in conflict. Indeed, this is the position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as stated formally in 2002 (I realize that there are evangelical and mainline traditions among Presbyterians, but I think it’s very instructive):
The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA):
1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and The Reformed Confessions.
2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.
3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in public schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.
4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.
I have proudly supported science side-by-side, metaphorically speaking, with people like Rev. Dr. Brant Copeland, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Tallahassee, one of ten speakers at the public hearing in support of the Florida State Science standards. I serve as a scientific consultant for the Clergy Letter Project, which includes hundreds of Presbyterian ministers. Common ground can be hard to find, but I will keep working toward it.
James, I have no problems whatsoever with people like you, who adopt a reasonable approach.
The people I have a problem with are those who seem to think that their adherence to a doctrine gives them the right to tell the world’s scientists that they are ALL wrong, just because the experimental results and the conclusions derived by those scientists fail to genuflect before whatever doctrine said adherents seem to think they have an inalienable right to force upon the rest of us.
The people I have a problem with are those galactically hubristic propagandists for doctrine who seem to think that the stance “when reality and my doctrine differ, reality is ALWAYS wrong and my doctrine is ALWAYS right” constitutes a valid intellectual position. Especially when those propagandists for doctrine demonstrate time and again with their words that their rampant scientific ignorance is exceeded only by their vainglorious arrogance.
These people are not interested in reasonable accommodation as you are, James. These are people who have decided that their world view is necessarily right, that their world view is the ONLY right world view, and that all other views exist solely to be expunged and erased from the face of the Earth in pursuit of the hegemony of their doctrine over millions of people who quite frankly don’t want their doctrine. These ideological warriors for doctrine are not interested in anything you have to offer, they partition the world into an “us” and a “them” on the basis of adherence to their doctrine, and basically hold a position that consists of “conform or else”. Ironic that quite a few of these ideological warriors for doctrine accuse science of the very activity they pursue, a classic example of reality inversion and projection that is the all too frequently observed hallmark of the creationist aetiology.
Just ask yourself this question, James: what gives Pastor John above the right to claim that the scientists who wrote the papers I’ve cited are ALL WRONG? Has he ever READ any of those papers? Has he ever studied the relevant scientific disciplines? Has he examined the relevant methodologies, subjected all of the mass of detail contained therein to intense critical scrutiny, as happened during the peer review process when dozens of other scientists pored over those papers deliberately looking for errors, weaknesses and flaws? No. All he does is ASSERT that because these scientists dare to arrive at conclusions that do not genuflect before his doctrine, they must necessarily be wrong. As a natural corollary thereof, he effectively asserts, as stated above, that when reality and doctrine differ, reality is always wrong and his doctrine is always right. If the absurdity of that position isn’t blatantly manifest to anyone with functioning brain cells, it should be.
I really admire the tenacity of the commentors here in dealing with these Christian fundamentalists. For me, however, I see it as pointless considering this is their starting point (exerpted from AiG, as they have sourced AiG numerous times)
No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Of course, I’m an Ex-fundy so I have a low threshold of tolerance for this midieval mind set, let alone the provicialism inherent in the statement (i.e. their particular interpretation of the Bible and Genesis account(s)).
Prebs USA have long ago foresaken their belief in the scriptures.
“1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and The Reformed Confessions.
2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator. ”
Those two statements contradict each other.
What part of “Evolution does not confirm OR DENY the existence of God nor his role as the creator of all life on earth” do you not understand?
Prebs USA have long ago foresaken their belief in the scriptures.
OMG does that mean the Westminster Presbyterian Church (made famous by our resident John McDonald) has also forsaken scripture?
Wonder what Pastor William H. Tyson would say about this? Maybe McChurch can ask him directly…
By his own admission, no. He gets all of his information from AIG.
Only in your ignorance, Voice. Once again, evolution does not cover how life began.
Karl – another lesson for you. Presbyterian(PCA) and Presbyterian(USA )are two distinct denominations.
Wow an admission Zyg ! Good for you ! We are getting somewhere. Can you then admit that man did not come from lower forms of life ?
Apparently. One is moderate, and the other is one step above snake handling.
The evidence says otherwise.
The evidence does not show such a thing Zyg. Should I ask you what you have been smoking or only your side can make derogatory statements ?
Common descent is throughly supported by genetics, paleontology, and physiology – nothing in the scientific literature refutes it, in fact. Interestingly, even scientists who “dissent from Darwin” generally support common descent, as DonExodus showed with a bit of sleuthing.
Repeating a lie does not make it true, Voice.
Here’s some reading material that I’m sure you will ignore that provides all the evidence required.
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Voice and Mc D:
I will ask my questions again UH HUM,(clearing throat):
!.What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth and what evidence do you have to show this?
3.What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do what you seem to think it did. Where can we see it using these mechanisms today?
4.Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming that ID is all about god, while others are desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics? Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that?
***************(Sound of crickets chirping)
So I take it that the PCA are just a step away from picketing soldier’s funerals to protest America’s tolerance of homosexuality… Might I suggest you register http://www.godhatesevolution.com?
My apologies on the confusion betwen Presb. USA and PCA. A more thorough check on the website confirmed this. That being said, the PCA were known to be some of the more intolerant religious organizations in U.S. history. Most people don’t know its origins stems back to the Presbyterian Church in America, AKA Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, which split off from the main national body of Presbyterianism due to their insistence on maintaining the institute of slavery. After reunification, the members of this denomination continued to uphold the proud traditions of their founders by opposing civil rights and racial equality in the name of preserving “the spirituality of the church” eventually splitting off again to form the PCA in 1973. Burning crosses and lynch mobs have their appeal I suppose.
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_the_United_States
There was a time when your church cited scripture as justification for the continued enslavement of African Americans, and again in the 1960’s scripture was again cited as justification to keep them as second-class citizens. For a denomination that prides itself as “faithful to the Scriptures, true to the reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission,” it must have been a tough cookie to swallow having to reinterpret scripture to comply with basic human rights. Or was this just a smokescreen as well? The South shall rise again am I right lol.
You make for a good laugh James. The only thing other forms of life and man have in common, in their origin, is the same Creator.
So Karl a few minutes ago you didn’t know the distinction between the two. Now you are an expert. Did you use the same method of research to form your conclusions about evolution ?
James do you even believe in God ? Or at least one of your own design ?
Jonathan Smith –
Neither McDonald or Voice will answer your questions, because (and to parody McDonald) their world view cannot accept the implications of those questions. 😉
I will ask you a few questions Jonathan.
1. How can you prove you were born ?
2. What is the scientific theory of knowing right and wrong and how do we test it using the “scientific method”?
3. Were you there when the earth was formed ?
4. How do you form something from something you don’t see ?
5. Do you think religion and God are the same ?
Voice –
I think you should answer Jonathan’s questions first.
A few more,
1. Why hasn’t the evolutionary process overcome death if it is been in place for billions of years ?
2. Why does the light scatter away darkness ?
3. Where does the earth come from ?
4. What is the origin of time ?
5. Where does fear come from ?
6. Show me from your “scientific method” all of the above.
See, Voice is unable to answer Jonathan’s questions. Voice has failed.
Never said I was an expert, just reiterating what the facts tell me. I’m not an expert on religions, and I wouldn’t even say that I am an expert on biology or evolution despite my educational background and the fact that my field of work demands extensive knowledge of biology. I’ll leave that distinction to the Ph.d’s. I can say with confidence that I definitely know more about biology and evolution than you, The Voice, McChurch, and the geniuses behind AIG collectively.
Are you disputing the racist and intolerant past of the PCA? If you have some new information, by all means, share it with us. Or is it beneath your southern pride to make polite discussion with those of “lesser” ethnicities…
🙂
Zyg has failed to answer mine. Because he knows what ever attempt he makes to answer those put forth, that he will be nailed with the answers he gives because they will be used to take your theory apart.
Voice –
I will gladly answer your questions if you answer Jonathan’s first.
Zyg are you Jonathan ?
No, but I like his questions. Why are you continuing to dodge them?
Well folks have to go now. Not on the public dole like you are. See you tommorrow.
Nice cop-out. As expected, Voice cannot answer Jonathan’s questions. 😉
Zyg you should know all about what a cop out is. Your arrogance is worse than the boot clickers who exercised your beloved theory and took it to its ultimate conclusion.
You still aren’t answering Jonathan’s question. You are desperately trying to change the topic. Wait… I thought you had to go?
The Voice Says:
Yes. Prove I wasn’t.
Voice,
Will you answer MY questions? ********************** (Sound of crickets chirping).
You post on this site to spread false claims, lies and misinformation with no intent to support yourself with facts. IDers like you are especially dispicable, you pose questions then sign off from the discussion with no intent to offer a valid response.
Messed up the formatting.
Heh. Voice spends lots of time spewing his ignorant dreck here and presumes that WE are the ones on the public dole. Bwah-ha-ha-ha! I actually happen to spend my day helping the children of mostly church-going, hallelujah Jesus lover parents who are themselves mostly on the public dole. Thus far, I haven’t encountered any scientists, atheists or otherwise, on my case load but plenty of the wife beaters, child molesters, drunks, and drug abusers have crucifixes around their necks. Shall I then make the generalization that all Christians are this way? Voice would certainly love to make that assertion if the anecdotal evidence pointed to primarily known atheists behaving in such a fashion. Oh, wait, he actually HAS pretty much made that claim…
Ooooooo! Voice pulled a Godwin! I love it when the creos are backed so far into a corner that they are forced to play the Nazi card as a final act of desperation. Contrary to what the liars for Jesus behind “Expelled” have vomitted forth, Hitler was a Christian. I know the chances are slim to none that you will attempt to educate yourself on this subject, but I offer you a most excellent link with CITED SOURCES, most from Hitler himself, which blows your stupidity out of the water. Behold: http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=56766#post56766
Yes, Cali, it’s from the fabulous Gladiatrix!
In regard to the PCA, the split from the PCUSA in 1973 was because liberalism had overtaken the PCUSA to the point that they no longer affirmed that the Scripture was the inspired Word of God. They denied verbal and plenary inspiration and rather adopted a more Neo-Orthodox positon (The Bible is not the Word of God but rather contains the Word). They taught a more naturalistic origin of the Bible, like JEPD stuff from the Jesus Seminar crowd.
As to the split during the Civil War, MANY DENOMINATIONS separted along political lines. It was an organizational move and does not necessarily reflect a denomination’s particular belief in regard to slavery or secession.
Jonathon –
I have already answered these questions before on the site. ID simply says that we find information in biological systems, and that there is no known way to produce information by natural processes alone. Information requires an intelligence. The obvious conclusion is that there is a Creating Intelligence. ID does not try to identify who this Intelligence is. ID also does not necessarily imply any certain framework of time. As a Creationist, I can certainly utilize many of the principles found in ID, but they do not have the ability to make assertions beyond the basic facts of information and what that entails. As a Creationist I can. I can identify the Intelligence. ID and Creationism are not the same thing, although ID is compatible within a Creationist framework.
Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche. Nietzsche was of course an evolutionist, but he questioned the driving force of modern evolution, survival of the fittest. He said evolution should not be seen in terms of a struggle for survival, but rather in terms of a survival for POWER.
or should I say, a struggle for POWER
Oh I see the “evolution=Nazism” canards are being brought out … not that long after we saw the specious attempt to link it with the Soviet Union above. Is there no level of duplicity and mendacity that creationists will not resort to?
For the record, the Nazi Party ordered that books on evolutionary biology be taken from libraries and burned as seditious. Here’s a link from the University of Arizona covering this:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
Note the section entitled “Guidelines from Die Bücherei”, 2:6 (1935), in which part 6 states the following:
“6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).”
Translation:
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
Oh dear. Rather flushed that specious canard down the toilet hasn’t it?
Plus, as anyone who has actually STUDIEED the relevant history and the relevant documents will know, Hitler and his entourage were guided by PSEUDOSCIENCE. For example, the works of Lanz von Liebenfels, whose major work boasts the wonderfully Pythonesque title of:
“Theozoology, or the Account of the Sodomite Apelings and the Divine Electron”
The contents of this weird work were later to appear in condensed form in Liebenfels’ racist periodical “The Ostara”, which Hitler subscribed to whilst in Vienna. Indeed, Hitler is recorded as having visited Liebenfels directly during his younger years in order to obtain back numbers. Plus, if one searches through “Mein Kampf”, one finds not a single reference to Darwin anywhere. I have a searchable copy on my hard drive for the specific purpose of nailing creationist canards about Hitler and evolution, and I’ve studied it extensively, so the creationists here can put the bullshit on hold before they even start.
As for this nonsense from Pastor John:
“I have already answered these questions before on the site. ID simply says that we find information in biological systems, and that there is no known way to produce information by natural processes alone.”
This is errant nonsense. The computer you are typing your post on generates information by natural processes. The human brain generates information via natural processes. In fact, computer scientists are constructing the first large-scale simulations of the human brain using computers as I type this, viz:
http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/
If information could not be produced by natural processes, this project would be impossible.
Moving on …
“Information requires an intelligence.”
Wrong. No less than TWO mathematical analyses of information, namely the analyses by Shannon and Kolmogorov, both say you are wrong.
“The obvious conclusion is that there is a Creating Intelligence.”
Wrong. No superfluous entities of this sort are needed. Both Shannon and Kolmogorov didn’t need any in their rigorous analyses of information.
“ID does not try to identify who this Intelligence is.”
Ah, someone else who pretends that the Wedge Strategy document doesn’t exist. The one in which the Discovery Institute’s assorted charlatans explicitly state “Design theory promises to reverse the stilfing dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” Interested parties can find the Wedge Strategy document here:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
“ID also does not necessarily imply any certain framework of time.”
The only thing ID seems to imply is “invisible magic man did it”. This is supposed to be science?
“As a Creationist, I can certainly utilize many of the principles found in ID, but they do not have the ability to make assertions beyond the basic facts of information and what that entails.”
Which apparently they are incapable of understanding properly. I sense Shannon and Kolmogorov laughing at the ineptitude of all this from a continent away.
“As a Creationist I can. I can identify the Intelligence.”
No, all you can do is ASSERT this. Until you provide something akin to methodologically rigorous evidence for your assertions, that’s all they are.
“ID and Creationism are not the same thing, although ID is compatible within a Creationist framework.”
Rather more compatible than the ID proponents like to admit in public apparently. See the Wedge Strategy document above.
So, are we done with the canards for one evening or are there going to be more?
Mr. McDonald, you say this
“ID simply says that we find information in biological systems, and that there is no known way to produce information by natural processes alone.”
Please define ‘information’ as it pertains to biological systems, and please give us a way to accurately measure this ‘information’.
If you define ‘information’ as the structure or expression of a genome, then it’s trivially easy to show natural processes that can cause an increase in genome (or its expression) size and complexity.
If you have some other definition, then you also have to have a way to quantify it or else you have no way of knowing whether new ‘information’ was produced or not.
The sad fact is, the whole ‘no new information’ canard is a worthless rhetorical dodge thrown up by the IDists merely because it sounds ‘sciency’.
Prove me wrong by actually answering the above questions.
McChurch, granted, the various splits between different presbyterian denominations were political, the actions of the PCA and its direct predecessors were extremely hypocritical to this context and has much to do with your own arguments on interpretation of scripture. Regardless of the other liberal causes that resulted in the formation of the PCA, racial equality and civil rights were among the issues. And as with the rest of the liberal issues, the PCA contends that the separation was to preserve the spirituality of the church through abstaining from political action.
Now the PCA as of today is probably more race-inclusive(debatable to a degree based on membership statistics), and engages in a whole lot of political action. The fact is, interpretation of scripture has changed to the point where the founding principle of the PCA is ignored. From all this, I’m sure even you yourself can’t help noticing the parallels between the PCA’s reluctance to accept civil rights and its reluctance to accept evolution. The same arguments are being made regarding their supposedly uncompromising interpretation of scripture. Kind of a sorry excuse when it can all fly out the window in a few decades…
1. Evolution is not a retirement fund. Death is part of the natrual process of life. A better question would be, why does yuor god allow little children to die?
2. Duh! Teh stupid burns! Light makes the adrk go away cause we have rotated to face the sun. Your bible says that your god made light blah blah blah, yet, there are pahses of the moon with little or no light.
3. This question is not about evolution, which is what we are taling about. You would have to go find an anstronomy blog to flood with your inane questions. May I suggest http://www.badastronomy.com there I think you will find all you could ever want about that stuff.
4. The origin of time is an easy one, a dwaddle to answer. Time is a unit of measure we humans use to track our daily lives. The universe doesn’t care if we’re here or not.
5 Fear comes from people such as yourself who are terrified of the unknown. People who are terrified that their religion they hold so dear can be crashe upon the rocks of science and progress.
6 We have shone, and posted links in previous posts for these answers/questions. You and your ilk have ignored them and then used your bible as a defense.
Evolution is a religion as bald is to hair color.
No, no, no, Carl! MickieD wants you to laboriously show him the answers to his inane questions, step-by-step by using the scientific method. Should you even bother to do such a thing (even though he has dodged the questions first asked of HIM), he will pooh-pooh it, raise some stoopid philosophical/theological objections (since facts to fundie Christians are as garlic to vampires), and then resume his usual chess-playing pigeon routine. You must remember that he and his ilk, who lack in curiosity and imagination, take the intellectually lazy and dishonest route and declare that “Goddidit” for every one of his questions. How simple is that? Ask ’em how they “know” that Goddidit and the answer is “For the Bible tells me so”. Classic circular reasoning only they are too brainwashed and willfully ignorant to understand this fact. It’s too late for such as he but I do, indeed, weep for the poor, benighted offspring of people like him who are indoctrinated from birth to unquestioningly swallow this crap and face life with a large portion of their brains atrophied. Fortunately, there is some hope for them as a portion of them, statistically, come realize that nothing fails like prayer, there IS no supernatural peeping Tom, and the whole thing was a filthy lie, like most of us here did.
Karl, please provide your source for info on the PCA. I don’t know what you are talking about in regard to racial problems, etc. The PCA has always been inclusive, and so has its predecessors. Talking about slavery, etc. I know of one church est. in 1840 that later incorporated slaves in the worship service. At that time the church would have been PCCSA.
The PCA does not advocate a young or old earth view. It does however deny the possibility of theistic evolution. However, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, which is the doctrinal standard for the PCA, does seem to clearly teach a six day, 24 hour creation. It reads, “in the space of six days God created the heavens and the earth.” While the PCA does allow men to hold to an old earth view, it will not allow theistic evolution.
Wolfhound, you idiot, I didn’t ask those questions. It was the Voice. I don’t know why you bother to post stuff here since you rarely read anything carefully enough to respond intelligently.
Mr. McDonald, you seem to have ignored my questions about your ID claims. Here they are again:
Please define ‘information’ as it pertains to biological systems, and please give us a way to accurately measure this ‘information’.
I’d hate to think a religious man like yourself was just mindlessly regurgitating empty ID bluster. Can you give me a reason to believe otherwise?
I’m sorry, John, I honestly DIDN’T read your posts, skipping right by them and only noticing your twaddle when others quote you so I must have mistakenly taken The Voice’s crackpottery for your own as they are virtually indistinguishible. I happened to notice this one because it was the most recent comment so I am breaking my own rule and responding.
Since you have DIRECTLY called me a name, I will now respond in kind and call you a fecking dipshit who serves absolutely no purpose on this board other than to spread the manure which comprises your warped masturbation fantasy of a death cult. I don’t know why you bother to post stuff here since you have absolutely no interest in real science and don’t know enough about anything but your own philosophical twaddle (which is apparently up for debate in and of itself since Zygo is handing your your ass in that department) and Bronze Age myths to post intelligently.
There. Now I consider us to be even and I will resume ignoring you. 🙂
Occam,
As I am sure you know, DNA is basically like a language system or code, and it also has a code reader or interpretation device to read the code/language and turn it into function. There is nothing in nature that could bring this about, especially at the same time! This kind of information system requires an intelligence.
I am not sure exactly what you are asking in regard to measuring info. How do you measure the info in your computer? How do you measure it in a book? How do you measure it in your mind? The DNA language system only has four “letters” and contains a “dictionary” of sixty-four three-letter words. Is this what you are wanting?
Wolfhound, I don’t know what your obsession with fecal matter is, but it’s disturbing. Anyway, Zygo has not responded to my last Locke post, so I think he has chosen just to quietly dismiss himself as one who knows he has been shown up. Maybe he is smarter than I think he is. Now, why don’t you go explore your local sewer system and try to find an undiscovered species of tapeworm.
Getting late. Time to abandon thread! If, during my absence, you guys convince the creationists to abandon their madness and come to reason, it’ll be an internet first.
McDonald: “As I am sure you know, DNA is basically like a language system or code, and it also has a code reader or interpretation device to read the code/language and turn it into function. There is nothing in nature that could bring this about, especially at the same time! This kind of information system requires an intelligence.”
No, DNA is not like a language system or code. This is another fallacy propagated by the IDists. The whole argument is based on an equivocation of the definition of “code”.
Language is a method of using abstract symbols to pass meaning over a communications medium. As such, it is totally independent of that medium. I can send an English message via telephone, or email, or smoke signal, and the same message will be passed.
DNA is simply one step in a complicated chemical reaction, the end result of which is the formation of a protein. As such it is completely dependent on the physical layer, and must follow the laws of chemistry and physics. DNA is no more an abstract code than sodium and chlorine combining to form table salt is a code.
CODE (1) a set of abstract symbols used to convey a message
CODE (2) any process that maps a specific input to a specific output
Language is definition (1). DNA is definition (2). When scientist talk about the “DNA code”, they are using definition (2) NOT definition (1). IDists are fond of equivocating between the two very different meanings. And as such, arguments about ‘code’ and ‘information’ as applied to biological systems like DNA are less than worthless.
McDonald: “I am not sure exactly what you are asking in regard to measuring info. How do you measure the info in your computer? How do you measure it in a book? How do you measure it in your mind? The DNA language system only has four “letters†and contains a “dictionary†of sixty-four three-letter words. Is this what you are wanting?”
No, I want you to support your claims by providing YOUR concise definition of ‘information’ in biological systems, and explain to me YOUR METHOD of measuring to determine that no new ‘information’ was produced.
Right now all you are doing is repeating the standard ID empty propaganda and avoiding my questions. I’d like to see how much you really know about the topic, and how much of your knowledge is ignorant regurgitation.
Now will you please answer the questions? Thanks.
Calilasseia,
Believe me, I oppose any doctrine that contradicts entire bodies of scientific knowledge without any evidence. It’s more than willful ignorance (although there is a lot of that), it’s flat-out denialism. Unfortunately, so many people equate evolution with being against all religion that they resist learning about it. Ultimately, that’s why evolutionary creationist scientists are so important; they can discuss the issues within an Evangelical worldview (see, for example, Francis Collins’ The Language of God, Richard Colling’s Rational Designer and Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith Miller). I do think there is hope: the idea that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun is no longer heresy, and the geological age of the earth is accepted even in some creationist circles.
John Mc D said “I have already answered these questions before on the site” No you have not!!
You have answered these questions with personal opinions and failed to provide a shred of scientific evidence to support those opinions.
Your personal opinion does not constitue a valid scientific argument my friend and contains no more authority than the guy who delivers my pizza.
ID and you can make any statements you like, but, without scientific evidence it means absolute zero.
Please tell us, as you state, what information in biological systems,can not be produced by natural processes alone,and show us the scientific evidence you have to support that position.
You will not directly answer my questions because you and your ID/Creationist cohorts simply can not.Learn to think for your self instead of relying on some supernatural “sage†to do your thinking for you.
Voice says:
>I will ask you a few questions Jonathan.
>1. How can you prove you were born ?
“Prove”? Hah. Lay off with the Intro to Philosophy fortune-cookie slips. Start off with proving you exist.
>2. What is the scientific theory of knowing right and wrong and how do we test it using the “scientific method�
Depends on what you mean by “knowing right and wrong”. You could test it relatively easily using any of a dozen protocols from social psychology.
One of them involved student student volunteers who were given electrical dials and told to shock what they thought were other volunteers. They were more willing to shock the other students with higher voltages when told to do it by authority figures than by non-authority figures. The implication was that “knowing right and wrong” could go out the window under the right circumstances.
Next question?
>3. Were you there when the earth was formed ?
Only after enough alcohol.
>4. How do you form something from something you don’t see ?
You mean like forming hailstones from water vapor?
>5. Do you think religion and God are the same ?
No. That’s a no-brainer.
Karl, please provide your source for info on the PCA. I don’t know what you are talking about in regard to racial problems, etc.
I provided a wiki link on its history. And yeah, before you go on about the unreliability of wikipedia, historical records do show that the PCUS/PCCSA did break off from the main Presbyterian body over slavery. Regardless of whether or not slaves were allowed at the worship service, the PCUS/PCCSA as a whole supported the institute of slavery and “seceded” along with the rest of the South at the start of the civil war for that reason.
The PCA’s historical stance against civil rights and racial equality can be seen through the words of Robert Lewis Dabney, whose works are still studied by PCA theologians. Pro-slavery aside, Dabney especially loathed interracial marriages. John Richards, a pastor and administrator for the organization committee for the PCA, would repeat these views in a letter written in 1965, extolling the evils of “racial amalgamation” and “miscegenation” as a response to the growing support for the civil rights movement by the more liberal members of the PCUS.
*FUN FACT* Dabney himself argued in biological terms of species and “bastard races.†I’m sure even Darwin would cringe at this…
and voice says also:
>1. Why hasn’t the evolutionary process overcome death if it is been in place >for billions of years ?
Death is necessary for life on earth to continue – cows have to die so we can have hamburgers, soybeans have to die so we can have tofu. And animals and people have to die so we don’t run out of space.
>2. Why does the light scatter away darkness ?
Um, because darkness is the *absence* of light? Any middle-schooler who took physics could get *this* one.
>3. Where does the earth come from ?
The original material that coalesced into our solar system.
>4. What is the origin of time ?
12:00 midnight (0:00 military time). Try reformulating the question a little more scientifically and less rhetorically.
>5. Where does fear come from ?
Self-preservation. If you’re not afraid, you’ll charge over a cliff or start beating up on water moccasins.
>6. Show me from your “scientific method†all of the above.
Common sense does pretty well for most of them.
Karl wrote “historical records do show that the PCUS/PCCSA did break off from the main Presbyterian body over slavery. Regardless of whether or not slaves were allowed at the worship service, the PCUS/PCCSA as a whole supported the institute of slavery and “seceded†along with the rest of the South at the start of the civil war for that reason.”
Actually, the War for Southern Independence was not over slavery. It was fought for the same reason the American Revolution was fought, i.e. to throw off tyranny. The South was tired of being the “milk cow” of the North and had every right to secede. In fact, it was the Northern States who asserted the right of states to secede way back at the Hartford Convention circa 1814. Not to mention the fact that it was the Northern States who observed the slave trade and was really responsible for bringing slaves into the U.S. So the North was just as guilty. The PCCSA agreed that the South had the right to secede and ought to secede.
Dabney did defend the institution of slavery in so far as it was conducted with regard to the sanctity of life and respect due to another human being, and when considered an economic institution (i.e. the slaves worked for food, clothing, and shelter). And in a sense, we virtually do the same thing today but we just have an intermediary step, i.e. money. Although I do recognize the difference that we assent to this economic arrangement rather than being forced into it.
I fail to see why denominational history has any bearing on the subject at hand. And, if you are such a history buff, then why didn’t you in all fairness mention Darwin’s racial thoughts? And don’t say he didn’t have any, because I can supply them.
I never said the war was fought solely over slavery. Granted, slavery was just one of many issues of contention between northern and southern states, the main issue that is cited for the reason that the PCUS split was over slavery and the attitudes against it by the rest of the presbyterian body.
Dabney’s defense of slavery was largely moot by the 1960s, but his views on race were very prevalent and were a significant contributing factor in shaping the attitudes of the PCA founders towards what they saw was a growing liberal movement to adopt civil rights into the PCUS. I suggest you read Pastor John Richards’ letter to all PCUS churches written in 1965 about the evils of racial amalgamation and miscegenation.
As for Darwin, whatever racist notions he may have had was due to the society and time period that he lived in, and I’m not arguing that he didn’t have them, but he did oppose slavery and treated many of these so-called “inferior” races with respect and compassion through missionary work. Whatever racist notions he may have held has nothing to do with his works on evolution. Perhaps you are referring to the term “favoured races” in Origin of Species which was actually used to describe how variations within a species contribute to its survival.
What IS racist, are the views held by Dabney, Richards, and others who cited the inferiority of blacks and other minorities as an excuse to reject civil rights. Regardless of the hilarity in trying to defend Dabney’s views on slavery as the more humane of pro-slavery arguments, it still…. pffft hehehhahahahah okay I’m done. It still does not overshadow the fact that he saw nothing wrong with the forcible subjugation of a people who happen to have darker skin then most others. You failed to mention that he goes on to explain that blacks as a species were inferior in a biological sense and were considered a “bastard race” as justification for their enslavement. Lets consider for a moment that Darwin also had the racist notions that one would expect from from a person living in the Victorian Era. Darwin opposed slavery and actually shows compassion and respect to these supposedly inferior races while people like Dabney wants to lock and in chains and put them to work in the cotton fields… Who is more racist???
And in a sense, we virtually do the same thing today but we just have an intermediary step, i.e. money. Although I do recognize the difference that we assent to this economic arrangement rather than being forced into it.
Wow.. a reference to wage slavery… how LIBERAL of you… If you start spouting off on the virtues of communism, my head’s gonna explode…
My previous post on this subject disappeared into the ether for some reason (is there a length limit on posts here?) so I’m resubmitting this piecemeal.
I see the “evolution=Nazism” canards are being brought out … not that long after we saw the specious attempt to link it with the Soviet Union above. Is there no level of duplicity and mendacity that creationists will not resort to?
For the record, the Nazi Party ordered that books on evolutionary biology be taken from libraries and burned as seditious. Here’s a link from the University of Arizona covering this:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
Note the section entitled “Guidelines from Die Bücherei”, 2:6 (1935), in which part 6 states the following:
“6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).”
Translation:
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
Oh dear. Rather flushed that specious canard down the toilet hasn’t it?
Plus, as anyone who has actually STUDIEED the relevant history and the relevant documents will know, Hitler and his entourage were guided by PSEUDOSCIENCE. For example, the works of Lanz von Liebenfels, whose major work boasts the wonderfully Pythonesque title of:
“Theozoology, or the Account of the Sodomite Apelings and the Divine Electron”
The contents of this weird work were later to appear in condensed form in Liebenfels’ racist periodical “The Ostara”, which Hitler subscribed to whilst in Vienna. Indeed, Hitler is recorded as having visited Liebenfels directly during his younger years in order to obtain back numbers. Plus, if one searches through “Mein Kampf”, one finds not a single reference to Darwin anywhere. I have a searchable copy on my hard drive for the specific purpose of nailing creationist canards about Hitler and evolution, and I’ve studied it extensively, so the creationists here can put the bullshit on hold before they even start.
Quick tangential diversion …
Could whoever operates this blog get in touch with me by E-Mail? Only there’s a technical glitch needs sorting out quickly.
Mr. Mcdonald, I’m still waiting for you to back up your ID claims and answer these questions:
Please define ‘information’ as it pertains to biological systems, and please give us a way to accurately measure this ‘information’.
Tell us John, which has more information:
1) a dog or a cat?
2) a fish or a tree?
3) a human or an amoeba?
and how do you know?
Please, no more empty bluster from you, just some serious answers. If you are ignorant on the topic and can’t answer that’s fine, just say so. Or have you chosen to quietly dismiss yourself from the topic as one who knows he has been shown up?
What a joke this conversation is. McDonald once again proves he’s a frigging bigot and an anti-science fanatic, and his sock-puppet Voice chimes in to help but runs when confronted.
The place for this “discussion” is properly somewhere like TalkRational (linked above in multiple posts). Is this place really a good one for this crap?
“War For Southern Independance”! ROFLMAO! Get this through your skulls, trolls…the Civil War was about slavery. Everything else you guys are claiming was added LATER as a weak-assed cover. Claiming otherwise simply shows you for what you really are.
“Stars and bars forever” right?
Occam,
A human has more genetic information than an amoeba. There are more advanced structures requiring more information to build. It’s really quite simple. Your other questions are irrelevant. Information requires an intelligence. That is true outside the biological world, and it’s true in the biological world as well.
Ivy Mike – sorry dude, your historical revisionism won’t work here. The majority of southerners did not own slaves, so their reasons to fight were totally disassociated with slavery. The South also was aware that machines could eventually replace slaves, and Davis wanted to educate the slaves first before they were freed so they could vote and better contribute to free society. Lincoln messed that up of course, as he did most things.
Now, I still don’t understand why we are talking about this??????????? Besides, you spelled “independence” wrong. So, how about instead of ROF, you take a hike and try rolling around in some poison ivy.
Hey, McDonald?
Fuck off, you wannabe-Rebel Talibornagain. While you’re at it, fuck your mother, too, since you’re such a good little hick.
See, I can say that, since you started it. Besides, I feel absolutely no need to afford you any respect whatsoever.
You’re the one trolling THIS board. Why don’t you toodle over to TalkRational, richarddawkins.net, or IIDB and preach your “revisionist” (and that’s exactly what it is) history there? That is what those sites exist for. However, you might find that the heat’s a little much for you. Those folks not only have brains, most are credentialed scientists in relevant fields. You know, those guys you think are “wrong” even though you won’t even read their papers and wouldn’t have a clue in hell about even if you did.
Or maybe just go back to fleecing your flock of sheeple out of donations to pay your salary.
I seem to have caused a great reaction in Ivy Mike, or was that just the poison ivy kicking in? And if anyone’s a hick, it’s you dude, with your foul language and terrible spelling. You may go now.
Ziiiing
How come you’re still here, Mac? I told you to go fuck your mother.
Only one needs to GO, Slick, is you. You’re the troll here. Tell Mama I said “Hi!”…she’ll remember me.
For the rest of ya,
The reason I don’t post that often here is before you. We have a science-supporting site here for the state of Florida. Yet, we continue to humor and feed a set of trolls who not only object to solid science education and well-founded scientific theory, but also continue to spew religious bigotry, philosophical bullshit, and history-revisionist redneck crap. It’s frankly nauseating to read that Bravo Sierra in this day and age.
These people deserve no more than what I’ve been giving them. Anyone who truly believes that the slaves would have been “better off” under the Confederacy is, frankly, sick. Not to mention, un-American. I don’t care if they are some sort of pulpit-pounder…that does NOT insulate them from condemnation for their smug, self-righteous idiocy.
John:
“Information requires an intelligence. That is true outside the biological world, and it’s true in the biological world as well.”
Um, no. Information is simply a data pattern that reduces the uncertainty of some event. You may be thinking of knowledge, which is something altogether different. Biological ‘information processing’ requires a bit stricter definition than you have been given, apparently. (If you’re cribbing it from Answers In Genesis, who is undoubtedly cribbing it from Michael Behe, that’s not a surprise. He seems to specialize in writing turgid papers that employ mathematical techniques he doesn’t understand.)
Biological information processing encompasses pathways as diverse as neural signal transmission, auditory and olfactory sensory processing, hormone and pheromone signaling, homeostatic set-points, and DNA encoding/expression. (And many more, but you get the idea.)
Which of these (or any others) can you tell me requires intelligence to operate?
Gosh, I wonder how many members of that First Redneck Church of Our Racially Superior Savior of Bum-Frick Egypt, Reformed are African Americans. And then I am forced to wonder how many of them (if there are any and I wouldn’t count on any honesty from our resident Liar for Jesus on this one) are aware of the rather shocking views of their Youth Brainwasher. Gosh, sure would be a tragedy if the more politically savvy church elders knew what a bigot their Youth Brainwasher was. Unless they prescribe to the same brand of bigotry, of course.
Wow… the slavery/racism issue really set off a lot of nerves… The irony of it all was that people like McDonald would spout off about how Darwin and his theories are racist while ignoring the fact that their own PCA was founded on the desire to maintain a system of racial segregation. Not trying to pull a Godwin or anything. Just merely addressing a point brought up by McDonald et al.
People like the The Voice, and you yourself, McDonald, who try to downplay slavery as the cause of the civil war, are just parroting the classic arguments of your average southern apologists. It is undisputed that there were many economic factors involved, and that very few out the the entire population of southern states actually owned slaves, but to go on about how the slaves “had a good life,” were “treated humanely” or “educated” and “to be freed eventually” are all the hallmarks of the 20’s revisionist movements which occurred concurrently with the rise of the KKK. Remember, too that many of these same arguments were used in the defense of slavery BEFORE the civil war, trying to portray the slave as one who works in comfort and leisure to kind and benevolent masters. If the slaves were to be eventually freed, educated, and treated decently, why then were they subjected to decades of racism, second-class treatment, and segregated from the rest of society?
I’m beginning to see the same racist attitudes from the comments of The Voice, who keeps insisting that we are on the dole. WTF? Now I know of no stereotypes, contemporary or otherwise that portrays pro-evolutionists as poor/lazy and unemployed. Maybe he thinks we are all minorities, which actually is a common stereotype? The fact that he cut and run so fast when slavery and racism was brought up shows his true colors. Nothing spooks a closet racist faster than getting called out for being a racist.
“Your hatred of God and evolutionary propaganda would be most welcomed by the beourgoisie.”
This from a man who would correct other people’s writing.
“Actually, the War for Southern Independence was not over slavery. It was fought for the same reason the American Revolution was fought, i.e. to throw off tyranny.”
Let me guess. You were a Democrat before Nixon and are now a Republican. Somewhere in the middle you supported George Wallace.
Karl,
Usually, when somebody spouts that “War For Southern Independance” (translation: “The Civil War wasn’t REALLY about slaver, nosiree, and them blacks really had it good, anyways…”) crap, you can bet there’s a Confederate flag tacked up on the wall in their garage.
MWT, I have a funny feeling that Johnny Boy wasn’t even born prior to the Ford administration. But I could be wrong.
How many at his “church” know the kind of bullshit he posts on the internet?
How many would still be there if they could read it?
So a human has more genetic information than an amoeba?
Oh dear. Once again, the EVIDENCE FROM THE REAL WORLD makes a mockery of your assertions.
The human genome has been sequenced in its entirety. It contains approximately 3.6 billion base pairs. The amoeba species Amoeba dubia possesses a genome comprised of 670 billion base pairs, approximately 200 times the size of the human genome (in fact it’s the largest known to date). So on the basis of base pair count alone, the amoeba contains more information. A related species, Amoeba proteus, has 290 billion base pairs in its genome.
Plus, it’s instructive to look at some representative genomes, and compare their sizes:
Homo sapiens : 3.6 billion base pairs
Fritillaria assyrica (plant) : 130 billion base pairs
Protopterus aethiopicus (lungfish) : 130 billion base pairs
Tetraodon nigroviridis (puffer fish) : 385 million base pairs
Apis mellifera (Honey Bee) : 1.7 billion base pairs
Felis catus (domestic cat) : 3.0 billion base pairs
So there is a lungfish and a plant that each possess a genome 36 times larger than that of a human being. The Honey Bee has a larger genome than some vertebrates.
Looks like your idea of what constitutes ‘information’ is, as I suspected, woefully non-rigorous. But then I don’t suppose you’ve ever read any of the seminal papers by Shannon or Kolmogorov on the mathematical analysis of information content, have you Pastor John? Why does that not surprise me in the least?
@Calilasseia – Brandon Haught is the one who runs the website -you can find his e mail address on the main page if he doesn’t contact you quickly enough.
I was wondering where all of you guys were today – still on this thread I see. 🙂
@S.Scott:
Just E-Mailed Mr Haught about the technical gremlins … I’m wondering partly if it’s a time issue, because quite a few of the gremlins I experience tend to occur if I post late at night local time.
A book could have lots of words, but not necessarily lots of differing information. It could say the same thing over and over. There can be no doubt that the human body is the most complex of all organisms. It takes specific information to do this.
And of course you’ve studied the genome sequences in question haven’t you Pastor John?
Care to cite the data here arising from when you did this?
Care to cite what sections of the Amoeba dubia genome you found to contain “not necessarily lots of differing information”? Only those papers by Shannon and Kolmogorov on what constitutes a RIGOROUS basis for the analysis of information content are there waiting to haunt you over this one.
Evolution forces you to be racist, since human organisms did and are evolving at different rates – making some obviously inferior to others because they are lessed evolved than others. Ivy Mike is definitely a more primitive specimen. He is as obsessed with incestual relationships as Zygo is about fecal matter. Somehow, I could see these two getting together…
MWT – your assumptions about my age are much like the assumptions made to fuel your evolutionary theory – groundless, careless, and more along the lines of wishful thinking than anything else.
Ah, doding the question Pastor John. How familiar.
Plus, what part of “recognising the value of genetic diversity” which is an integral part of evolutionary understanding, is “racist” again?
Your tiresome canards and evasions merely demonstrate to those of us with functioning brain cells how vacuous, intellectually bankrupt and morally duplicitous creationists are.
So, when did you perform a sequence analysis on those genomes in order to allow you to make that assertion of yours about ‘information’ again? Did you ever analyse those genomes? Or is this merely another instance of your parroting blind assertions and oft-debunked shibboleths from AiG and other disreputable sources of misinformation and outright intellectual fraud?
Correction … “dodging” the question. Dratted cheap keyboard. 🙂
Strange how the only individual here who seems to be espousing racist ideas is you, Pastor John. Along with your other well-known instances of discoursive malfeasance such as the erection of the entirely specious “evolution=Nazism” canard, which somehow you fail to see is inconsistent with your earlier assertions about evolution being connected to Marxism.
You make it so easy to bring your absurdities into the glare of critical daylight.
Cali – try this for starters – genome size to complexity, etc.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=451
McDonald: “A human has more genetic information than an amoeba. There are more advanced structures requiring more information to build. It’s really quite simple. Your other questions are irrelevant. Information requires an intelligence. That is true outside the biological world, and it’s true in the biological world as well.”
I see Cali has beaten me to presenting the amoeba dubia data punch line to McDonald’s joke of an answer. No worries Cali, good on ya!
I also see John McD can provide no definition of biological ‘information’, nor can he provide a way of quantifying said ‘information’ to see if it ever changes. In typical cowardly Creationist/IDer fashion, he has blown off pertinent questions and refused to provide any justification for his claims. He has fallen back on the standard Creto/ID argument from personal incredulity – “the human body is SOOO complicated, it must have LOTS of informations!”
Exactly as I suspected, John McDonald is a scientifically ignorant blowhard who is just parroting back the standard ID garbage without having the slightest understanding of the words he is typing.
How does it feel to be such an ignorant tool John?
Well, Cali, you got your answer…more AiG parroting.
You solidly owned him.
Johnny Mac, you have absolutely no valid opinions to share anymore. Anything you post is either disgusting bullshit or completely ignorant fanaticism.
It’s actually frightening to think that a useless jerk like you has wormed his way to a position to influence young people. Do you hand out complimentary Confederate Battle Flag bumper stickers, too? Maybe those funny ones with “Fergit, HELL!” on them with an old Rebel stomping his foot?
Come to think of it, that image sums you and your ilk up nicely.
John McDonald writes, “It doesn’t matter how many papers, publications, and scientists you appeal to. If what they say or write is wrong, you can appeal to these statments and writings all day, but in the end all that you have appealed to is error.”
Well, John, by the same token if what they say or write is correct — and all the mountains of physical evidence and careful experimentation indicates that they are — it doesn’t matter how many holy books, religious tracts, and preachers you appeal to. If what those religious sources say or write is wrong, you can appeal to these evangelists and old books all day, but in the end all that you have appealed to is error.
I’ll stick with science, thanks — it at least has been meticulously refined to match and describe what we find in the real world, while religions keep adhering to the standard, spelled out in the signs at the “Creation Museum”, “DON’T THINK — JUST BELIEVE”.
Cali – you need to read up on some philosophy. That’s right. Get out of the lab and think critically. Marxism is based upon evolutionary theory. Nietzsche also expoused evolution. Hitler was drawing from Nietzsche, and the Communists from Marx. What it boils down to then is that they were both drawing from evolutionary theory.
And I do not advocate racism. In fact, my worldview gives the answer to racism. Humanity is one race, one blood. We all descended from Noah, and ultimately from Adam. There are no “races” when it comes to humanity.
Wrong.
Marxism isn’t built on evolutionary theory.
The fundamental axiom upon which Marxism is built is the principle of Labour Theory of Value. Which states that the value of a commodity is exactly equal to the value of the labour required to produce it.
No mention of evolution anywhere in there.
The second axiom Marx erected was the principle of Surplus Value. Which again was an ECONOMIC AXIOM and not a biological one.
Seems like you’re the one who needs to do the reading.
Johnny, saying now you’re not a racist is like a holocaust-denier saying he’s not an anti-Semite.
You’re now simply repeating stuff that’s already been slaughtered in detail. You’re pathetic.
John McDonald writes, “Cali – try this for starters – genome size to complexity, etc. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=451”
Um yeah, so? I just read that, and it doesn’t do a thing to support your wild claims and hand-waving, nor to refute anything Cali wrote. Did you actually read it yourself, or did you just assume that anything at ICR would necessarily automatically support anything you wanted to make up, and automatically refute anything someone with a good knowledge of biology might actually say?
Mr. McDonald, you’re out of your depth in a science discussion, because you come to it unarmed. Go study the subject for several years — and no, reading anti-science propaganda from creationist sources doesn’t count as an actual education — then get back to us when you’re better able to hold up your end of the discussion.
Ichneumon writes,
“I’ll stick with science, thanks — it at least has been meticulously refined to match and describe what we find in the real world, while religions keep adhering to the standard, spelled out in the signs at the “Creation Museumâ€, “DON’T THINK — JUST BELIEVEâ€.
“And when rigorously OWNED, keep repeating the same BS”.
So Pastor John, when did you perform the requisite analysis on those genomes again?
Only your ICR page link is a pile of bunk. It’s replete with blind assertions and factual errors. But then, since I bothered to acquire an actual science education, I’m capable of working this out for myself. Apparently you are not. So, once again, on what RIGOROUS basis (preferably in conformity with the KNOWN FACTS about information analysis from the requisite scientific sources) do you base your assertions about ‘information’ in the genome? And links to discredited creationist websites full of apologetic propaganda won’t cut it here, I want valid scientific citations with rigorous methodologies, rigorous deductive analyses and testable evidence as opposed to your usual nebulous blather.
John McDonald writes, “Cali – you need to read up on some philosophy. That’s right. Get out of the lab and think critically. Marxism is based upon evolutionary theory.”
ROFL!!!
Okay, we can add history *and* philosophy to the subjects which McDonald is woefully prepared to expound upon.
So “Marxism is based upon evolutionary theory”, eh?
Marx’s ‘The Communist Manifesto”, published 1848.
Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, published 1859.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Yes, that’s right, Marx would have needed a time machine, to take him 11 years into the future, in order for him to have even *seen* “evolutionary theory” and used it as a basis for anything in his 1848 book laying out what is now known as “Marxism”.
So Mr. McDonald, along with your other bits of lunacy, you also believe that Marx had a time machine, eh? Here’s a cookie, run along and play now.
John – you need to read up on some philosophy and history and science. That’s right. Get out of the pulpit and think critically.
Okay, Ichneumon beat me to the publication dates thingy.
So I’ll just quote this:
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
Sir Walter Scott Marmion, Canto VI, Stanza 17
It seems possible that the Pastor gets a good deal of his science from AiG – in which case he might be interested to take on board this fact.
On one of the ceation/evolution fora (IIDB, I believe) a challenge was issued to the resident creationists to point to any – ANY- of AiG’s so-called “science” articles that did not either contain direct lies, or that did not lie by omission of telling evidence against whatever tripe they were pushing.
They couldn’t find one – NOT ONE
No-one was surprised, though
Ichneumon –
You beat me to the publication date punchline as well.
McDonald has stepped far outside of his depth here. I wonder how long until he crawls back under the rock he came from? I also wonder if the folks at his church know just how ignorant their youth minister is? I’m just glad he’s not corrupting the minds of my kids with his drivel. 😛
John:
“A book could have lots of words, but not necessarily lots of differing information. It could say the same thing over and over. There can be no doubt that the human body is the most complex of all organisms. It takes specific information to do this.”
Most complex? Based on what metric? When someone trying to write on scientific matters begins a sentence with “There can be no doubt”, it’s a clear signal that what follows is a big steaming pile of nonsense. There can *always* be doubt, which is why scientists don’t talk about “proving” things; we talk about “is supported evidence” or “is not supported by evidence”. (It’s like a mathematician or philosopher trying to get away with “it stands to reason”, to which the appropriate response is “No, it doesn’t. Show me all the steps.”)
correcting blog link
Damn the creationism house of cards is falling fast. Here we go with the Hitler thing AGAIN. This time from the Nietzsche angle of all things…
nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth4
Once again, poor research and taking AIG propaganda at face value.
You want to play the racism angle (again)? Rousas Rushdooney, influential author and theologian with the PCA tried to cite scripture (Deuteronomy 22:10) as justification for avoiding miscegenation around the same time as Richards was ranting about the evils of racial amalgamation.
Evolution forces you to be NOT racist when you accept the fact the the biological differences between races are insignificant in terms of species and that these differences are necessary and contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. You still seem to have problems letting go of the Stars and Bars, John.
Ahh, Rushdoony! I’d forgotten about him…
“Rushdoony’s most important area of writing, however, was law and politics, as expressed in his small book of popular essays Law & Liberty and discussed in much greater detail in his three volume, 1894-page magnum opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law. With a title modeled after Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Rushdoony’s Institutes was arguably his most influential work. In the book, he proposed that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and that there should be a Christian theonomy, a concept developed in his colleague Greg Bahnsen’s controversial tome Theonomy and Christian Ethics, which Rushdoony heartily endorsed. In the Institutes, Rushdoony supported the reinstatement of the Mosaic law’s penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one’s virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case.[9] Although supporting the separation of church and state at the national level, Rushdoony understood both institutions as under the rule of God,[10] and thus he conceived secularism as posing endless false antitheses, which his massive work addresses in considerable detail. In short, he sought to cast a vision for the reconstruction of society based on Christian principles.
The book was also critical of democracy. He wrote that “the heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state … Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.” He elsewhere said that “Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristocracy,” and characterized democracy as “the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”[5]
Due to the work’s perceived denial of the Holocaust and defense of segregation[11] and slavery,[12] it did not gain an immediate following. In the work, Rushdoony argued against “inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.”[13] But his condemnation of inter-racial marriage appears to have been his personal view and not related to the biblical text; it was not shared by other Reconstructionists.[14] The book garnered more attention starting in the 1980s when Francis Schaeffer began espousing many similar ideas .[15]
Rushdoony’s work has been used by Dominion Theology advocates who attempt to implement a Christian theocracy, a government subject to Biblical law, especially the Torah, in the United States.”
…from Wikipedia article on Rushdoony. What a nice man! (Not)
Cali wrote
“What part of “citing 37 relevant scientific papers containing EVIDENCE for the ideas I consider to be valid†equals “religion†again?
Read my lips. Evolution isn’t a religion, it’s a VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORY MASSIVELY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. As in those 18,000-plus papers that were published on the subject in 2007 alone, plus the vast mountain range of evidence ”
Come on Cali. The billion or so pages of evidence posited over the past 150 years is trumped by one thing. A book written by man claiming to be the word of God. Not only was this book written by man, but it has been edited, translated and changed. Ideas were taken from other cultures and legends. Yet, we are supposed to believe creationism is a literal fact even though man is a sinner and man wrote the book of God. Adam and Eve had three sons sons. Who did these sons marry to populate the earth?
Oh – and a handwave of support from England for Florida Citizens for Science.
Hi – May you flourish and prosper!
Ich, I said Marxism, not Marx. The theory as it developed incorporated evolution and became evolutionary based. But consider this quote, “What began to take shape in Marx’s mind from this exposure to Hegelianism was (1) the notion that there is only one reality, an this can be discovered as the embodiment of rationality in the world, (2) THE RECOGNITION THAT HISTORY IS A PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE FROM LESS TO MORE PERFECT FORMS IN ALL OF REALITY, INCLUDING PHYSICAL NATURE, soical and political life, and human thought…” Stumpf, p. 403
Also:
So scientific materialism spread like wildfire. Karl Marx, the father of communism, out of gratitude to Darwin, sent him Das Kapital, his principal book on com—munism. “Although developed in the crude English fashion,” he wrote to his communist colleague Friedrich Engels, “this [Darwin’s The Origin of Species] is the book which in the field of natural history, provides the basis for our views.” To another he wrote that Darwin’s work “suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle” (Browne, p. 188). Taken from “The Good News”
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn71/darwin.htm
Like I said, time for you guys to hit the books…
Ivy Mike and Karl,
Then there’s Rushdooney’s son-in-law, Gary North (who also worked for Ron Paul at one time)
“So let us be blunt about it,” says Gary North. “We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
Cute. Of course, he advocates stoning disobedient children. Seriously. And defends it because it is “cheap”, because free-market capitalgasms are just as important to these sociopaths.
Anyway, this movement (Chalcedon) is one of the versions of post-millilialism.
Johnny, nothing you just plopped up provides any connection between BIOLOGY and ECONOMICS.
So Marx liked Darwin’s work. Big deal. It still doesn’t make Darwin wrong or Marx right. Marx did just what you did…linked a scientific theory with a social/economic one incorrectly.
Owned again. And that’s even if the quotes you use are accurate.
Face it, Johnny Mac…you have been completely destroyed and shown up for the ignoramus you are. You are totally out of your league.
I love the optimism of the “scientists” here. They can’t trust their minds to give them any true knowledge, but they continue to vomit stupidity left and right. They waste their time because they can never be sure as to what they “find.”
McDonald –
You are trying to cover your ass, but you were wrong. Like most creationists, you cannot admit to it. You said, “Marxism is based upon evolutionary theory.” Marxism was started more than ten years after Darwin wrote his first book on the subject. So, claiming that Marxism is based on evolution is ludicrous at best. You were wrong, and now you are trying to weasel your way out of it.
However, as pointed out, Karl Marx actually published the Communist Manifesto eleven years prior to the publication of Darwin’s work. You are the one who needs to hit the books. Marx was heavily influenced by the commentary made by Engels during his stay at Primrose Hill in England (The Condition of the Working Class in England), and the deplorable conditions there. That book was written fifteen years prior to Darwin’s work, and is considered by historians to be the pivotal motivator for Marx to begin his crusade for the proletariat.
If you read more books than your holy book, I wouldn’t be correcting you right now.
“The Nihilist” a.k.a. “The Voice” a.k.a. John McDonald.
Marxism was started more than ten years before Darwin wrote his first book on the subject of evolution… Sorry, bad typo.
I am the Nihilist, but I honestly don’t know who was the Voice. Let’s see how you guys do with full fledge Nihilism in your face.
McDonald –
You are only fessing up to being “The Nihilist” because you screwed up on the other thread by posting as “The Nihilist” but saying something in the context of McDonald.
You are losing, and you have resorted to cheap tricks and other immature behavior to continue trolling here. As others have said, and as I have said, you are way over your head here.
Hmmm. I wonder if, by his own words, Marx shows he was influenced by someone else?
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=7393740
Zygo, I did mess up, but I really want to see how you guys could handle a Nihilist position
So you admit to sock puppetry? Or, do you mean that you screwed up by attempting to make the evolution to Marx jump? Both are severe blunders, you should feel just a little embarrassed for yourself.
I thought your world view was against bearing false witness? How does creating sock puppets to attempt to shift arguments count? That seems to be a fairly obvious violation to me. I wonder what your youth group would say about this little exchange?
Zygo, it was an “experiment.” I wanted to take the approach of a Nihilist and see how you guys would respond.
I do not admit to making a blunder with Marx, however.
So what part of “Marxism is an economic and social theory” equates to evolution again?
What part of “the fundamental axioms of Marxism are economic axioms” has anything to do with evolution again?
Only Marx spent TEN CHAPTERS of Das Kapital explaining in funereally turgid prose the Labour Theory of Value axiom that I encapsulated in a single sentence above. Never mentioned evolution in any of that prose. oh, by the way, the prose is even worse in the German original than it is in the English translation.
But then if Pastor John had actually READ the work in question, he would know all of this.
Here’s some advice for you Pastor John … come back when you have REAL KNOWLEDGE to bring to the table instead of blind assertion that is flatly contradicted by evidence from the real world in support of your bad apologetics for the theological pornography that is creationism.
So how do you guys resist Naturalism’s slide toward Nihilism?
Paster John wrote:
“Zygo, it was an “experiment.†I wanted to take the approach of a Nihilist and see how you guys would respond.”
1) You weren’t trying an *experiment*; you got caught lying and are now trying to cover your lying ass. And we’re supposed to be impressed when cretards like you lecture us about our lack of morals because we accept the evidence for evolution? What you did was the very definition of *Lyin’ for the Lord*.
2) Your post as *The Nihilist* failed on a more basic level as well; it didn’t sound like a nihilist. You sounded more like a POMO cretard.
Your use of multiple sock-puppet accounts shows the level of your integrity. It’s a scary thought knowing you have influence over young minds, considering how little you care about intellectual honesty.
Personally, I think someone ought to send a link to this whole thread to his church and see how the ministry feels about his posts here. I wonder if they also believe that lying for Jesus, and deception for Jesus is morally correct?
Oh, by the way, I took a look at that ICR link. Turned out to be the usual collection of creationist hot air, assertions etc. Full dissection of that article is here:
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=69187#post69187
Nice. 🙂
Right, because you guys operate a blog where anyone can hide behind a handle name. You are the ones without integrity. I stated my name from the very first. How about you guys revealing your real names and place of employment??? Because I chose to post under another “pen” name on a blog and try to ascertain how you would respond to a nihilist perspective makes me dishonest? Get real.
Some more interesting reading for you:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/darwin.asp
McDonald, you admitted to your mistake, and you admitted to sock puppetry. The only reason why you need sock puppets is to distract people from your blunder with the Marx-evolution connection.
“Right, because you guys operate a blog where anyone can hide behind a handle name. You are the ones without integrity. I stated my name from the very first. How about you guys revealing your real names and place of employment??? Because I chose to post under another “pen†name on a blog and try to ascertain how you would respond to a nihilist perspective makes me dishonest? Get real.”
No, you have no integrity because you signed up as multiple people here ( to make it look like your position actually had more supporters than it did) and then lied about it when questioned. People like you accuse evolution accepters of being immoral, yet creations have to resort to one lie after another. Doesn’t your religion have those 10 Commandments? And isn’t lying one of the things you aren’t supposed to do?
Why should I tell a nut like you my name? Why would that give me any more or less integrity? I don’t tell anybody online what my real identity is; there are too many risks and little or no rewards. It makes no difference who we are; what matters is the arguments we use. Period.
You’re flailing, and it’s getting pretty embarrassing watching you try to defend your deception.
BTW, your *nihilist* position was not nihilist. It was just obnoxious. You don’t even know how to present an opposing viewpoint without letting your inner S.O.B. come shining through.
> “So how do you guys resist Naturalism’s slide toward Nihilism?”
Most of “us guys” are rational. While there are others here that have a belief in a deity or deities and they’ll have to argue their point … But speaking for myself, not expecting salvation from the Invisible Sky Daddy (ISD) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) or the thousands of other gods and spirits man has believed in, I can concentrate on the only life that I have. Right here in this world, right now. When I’m dead, I’m dead. Over, done, kaput.
It’s been my experience that it’s the fundies that become depressed and “slide toward Nihilism” after a “crises of faith”.
Of course, many pick themselves up, dust off any thought, and continue in their ignorance until the next crises … but some don’t. And they begin to wonder “how did I ever act morally without a ISD looking over my shoulder” …
“yet creations have to resort…”
That should be *creationists*
Didn’t we go through the implausibility of Darwin being linked to any of these tyrants and the supposed philosophies they followed? Broken record anyone?
You want to continue making these outlandish connections? I can too. I contend that the PCA is reluctant to adopt evolution theory NOT because of scripture, but due to the racist attitudes of prominent PCA members. The insignificance of biological differences between races under evolution threaten to undermine their notion of racial and cultural superiority over minorities and remove justification for the system of privileges that have been built upon them.
Now there are several things wrong with this assessment, which I’m sure you, McDonald, can easily point out. Racism and the desire to maintain it as an institution did exist as a foundation of the PCA, as proven by the PCA’s own literature at the time, but what evidence do I have to say that these same attitudes exist today? Probably none, although the recent southern apologist talk gives me some credit. Whatever racist notions Darwin may have had, his work on evolution made him realize the absurdity of holding such notion. Most of the people mentioned by AIG who supposedly attributed their beliefs to Darwin were actually twisting Darwin’s words to justify their own views, most of which were already well established by the time they were even familiar with Darwin’s works. For the rest, i.e. Hitler et al, the connection is literally non-existent.
I can say with great certainty that you McDonald, are a racist, but whether or not your racist views have anything to do with your rejection of evolution, that’s between you and your god…
Good point, CG. “Handles” exist on the Internet to prevent stalking, identity theft, and a variety of other crimes. I especially don’t want to put my real name out there on blogs such as this and the various freethought sites because, while there have been no cases I am aware of where an atheist killed or made a plausible threat against somebody religious, there have been plenty of documented cases of people with a love of Jesus in their hearts vandalizing vehicles and other property, making death threats, and even murdering atheists/pro-choice advocates/doctors/scientists. ‘Cause without God there is no morality, y’know. 😉
MickieD was previously wearing his name and a direct link to his odious church’s putrud website like a proud declaration of his willful ignorance. Bully for him. Wonder why he no longer has the link up, though…
Karl, just because I happen to believe in state’s rights and popular sovereignty doesn’t make me a racist. Please prove that I am a racist with empirical evidence.
CarolinaGuitarman, or whoever the freak you are – I have never posted anything except under John McDonald and The Nihilist. Sorry dude, but your allegations are without merit. You know why I posted under the Nihilist. That didn’t work out, my bad. I apologize. But I think that nihilists do have valid points to offer naturalism, and since you guys would rather fire ad hominems against anyone who is ID or Creationist, I thought that the ability to post as a Nihilist and interact with people would be cool.
Calilasseia your point by point refutation (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=69187#post69187)
of the ICR article McDonald used as a reference is excellent. I predict he doesn’t have the honesty to address your points, retract his claim or stop using the article as a reference in the future.
“CarolinaGuitarman, or whoever the freak you are -”
That’s some Christian love there. Do you kiss Jesus with that mouth?
“I have never posted anything except under John McDonald and The Nihilist.”
Still lying. You posted as The Voice.
“You know why I posted under the Nihilist”
Yeah, to make it look like there was another person who was attacking evolution when it was just you. It’s a common tactic for a forum troll. Your God must be so proud!
“But I think that nihilists do have valid points to offer naturalism, and since you guys would rather fire ad hominems against anyone who is ID or Creationist, I thought that the ability to post as a Nihilist and interact with people would be cool.”
But while you may have used the name *Nihilist*, your post was just an obnoxious screed against evolution, filled with ad homs and the like. It contained no argument that pertained to nihilism. It was an adolescent attack.
Oh look. A link to a venomous AiG screed that slanders Darwin is duly presented by our resident propagandist for theological pornography. Since he can’t address actual scientific questions because his knowledge of science has been demonstrated repeatedly here to be inferior to that of my tropical fish, he resorts to the tired and specious guilt-by-association ad hominems that have been debunked so often before.
Tell me Pastor John, does it make you feel good to believe in such lies? Does it make you feel good to propagandise for such lies? Because if so, you have simply provided yet more proof of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your thoroughly discredited and worthless belief system. The moment cannot come too soon when people like you are an irrelevance in the affairs of the world.
Wait…You mean Jesus wasn’t coloured???
I’m not harpin on your stance over states rights and sovereignty, McDonald, just your willingness to defend Dabney’s views on slavery and all the supposed good graces that were coming to the slaves courtesy of their benevolent masters if they just wore the chain a little longer. Classic racist argument there. I suppose you would go on to justify the post-civil war treatment of blacks as being a result of conflicts due to their ill-preparedness in rejoining society as free men and women, what having missed out on all that freedom and education that was promised to them by J. Davis. Blame the North, blame the ex-slaves themselves, but not the South for she can do no wrong am I right? Racist.
Wolfhound Says:
“there have been plenty of documented cases of people with a love of Jesus in their hearts vandalizing vehicles and other property, making death threats, and even murdering atheists/pro-choice advocates/doctors/scientists. ‘Cause without God there is no morality, y’know. ;)”
The hate mail and death threats that Bobby Henderson at the CoFSM receives from the *ever peace loving* (Trade Mark*) fundamentalist religious extremists is good testimony for that. Many have been serious enough to warrant reporting.
Definitely comes across as a politically orientated hate cult attempting to cloak itself in Christian doctrine and religiosity.
Often plenty of racial slurs in said hate mail as well.
I’m sure that they’re not True Christians(tm), though! 😉
Of course. No true Scotsman… I mean Christian… would do such a thing. 😀
Dude, if I was the Voice I would admit it. I am not the Voice, and I honestly don’t know why they are not posting anymore.
I don’t defend Dabney’s views, I simply explained them. I am not racist. The way I see it the South did wrong things as well as the North. Neither were innocent.
And everyone is taking me the wrong way here. I said that Marxism was based on evolutionary ideas – not Darwinism. The idea of evolution did not begin with Darwin. I also said Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche’s views of evolution. But it was evolution just the same even though it wasn’t Darwin’s brand. I am not here to beat up on Darwin. Frankly, what Darwin believed matters little. It is the logical consequences of evolution itself that troubles me.
Just for fun
A reading of Siegfried Morenz’s book Egyptian Religion (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1973 – see especially the footnotes on Horus, etc.) and a reading of Erik Hornung’s The Secret Lore of Egypt and its Impact on the West, will help cure any vagueness on this subject. Hornung, who is without question one of the leading Egyptologists of our time, says pointedly on page 73:
“Notwithstanding its superficial rejection of everything pagan, early Christianity was deeply indebted to ancient Egypt. In particular, the lively picture of the Egyptian afterlife left traces in Christian texts; thus among the Coptic [Christians] … we encounter a fiery hell quite like that of the Egyptians. The descensus [descent into hell] of Jesus, which played no role in the early church, was adopted into the official Creed after 359, thanks to apocryphal legends that again involved Egypt. Christ became the sun in the realm of the dead, for this descent into the netherworld had its ultimate precursor in the nightly journey of the ancient Egyptian sun God Re…â€
“the Christian slayer of the dragon [St.George] had its model in the triumph of Horus over Seth and there was a smooth transition from the image of the nursing Isis—Isis lactans—to that of Maria [Mary] lactans. The miraculous birth of Jesus could be viewed as analogous to that of Horus, who Isis conceived posthumously from Osiris, and Mary was closely connected with Isis by many other shared characteristics.†(See especially p.75.)
Any first year seminary student [except perhaps at the most extreme conservative Bible Colleges in the countryAnd this is where McChurch comes from] knows that the four Gospels are decidedly NOT “four independent witnesses†of the supposed historical Christ. For example, Matthew and Luke plagiarize Mark, the earliest Gospel, to the extent of reproducing between them roughly 75% of Mark’s material, often verse for verse. The last 200 years of biblical criticism has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the Gospels are faith documents, benign propaganda, if you like. But they are NOT history or even biography. If indeed there is, as Gasque has said repeatedly and not just in the documentary, “incontrovertible evidence†of Jesus’ historicity why does he never produce even a shred of it? The scholarly world itself is waiting.
McDonald: “And everyone is taking me the wrong way here. I said that Marxism was based on evolutionary ideas – not Darwinism. The idea of evolution did not begin with Darwin. I also said Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche’s views of evolution. But it was evolution just the same even though it wasn’t Darwin’s brand. I am not here to beat up on Darwin. Frankly, what Darwin believed matters little. It is the logical consequences of evolution itself that troubles me.”
So that’s why you passed all the ID flatulence about ‘information’, then cowardly slunk away from the topic when called on your BS? Because you are troubled?
So, what about Josephus, Tacitus, etc. Does their testimony not count?
Occam, I am a theologian, not a scientist. I do believe that ID is correct when it says that information requires an intelligent origin.
John sayeth:
“Occam, I am a theologian, not a scientist. I do believe that ID is correct when it says that information requires an intelligent origin.”
You have hit on a key distinction here. (And I commend you on your candor here, btw.) Scientists are trained to think differently than theologians are; we’re trained to follow evidence and not hang on to cherished ideas that aren’t supported (at least in our work), and we’re trained to work to reduce our errors instead of “proving that we’re right”.
That’s the reason that creationists are so bad at usefully questioning evolutionary theory – they really aren’t bone-deep scientists, they’re lawyers and theologians and divinity students and wanna-bes (and some of them are grifters and hustlers). You have your smattering of people like Behe who have some scientific credentials, but they quit being serious scientists about the time they turned into creationists.
I wish I did have greater scientific knowledge. It seems however impossible to truly master theology, philosophy, and science.
It doesn’t take Darwin to influence Marx with evolutionary thought. “Engels wrote that life originates from nonliving matter, that man is a product of nature, and that thought is a product of the brain.” Clark, p. 477. It seems then that it was Engels that gave Marx the foundation of materialism and evolution.
More info: Marx cited the ideas of Democritus and Epicurus and, like them, believed that the universe is a closed system in which everything has a natural explanation.
It seems then that his own research mixed with the influence of Engels led Marx to a belief in at least an incipient form of evolution, and Darwin’s work only seemed to better confirm what Marx had already speculated.
McDonald –
You are losing the argument, so you are re-defining evolution in a pathetic attempt to be able to attack it.
You started with attacking Darwinian evolution, by first trying to expand its definition to encompass abiogenesis and morality, then when this failed, you are reaching desperately for something that you can attack.
Darwinian evolution is a remote cousin to the current scientific understanding of evolution. What existed before Darwin could not be considered evolution by any stretch of the imagination.
“Authorized King James Version of the Bible”
Being a theologian, I wonder if John can tell us what was in the unauthorised versions? 🙂 Were some gospels left out of the “authorised” version John?
McDonald: “Occam, I am a theologian, not a scientist. I do believe that ID is correct when it says that information requires an intelligent origin.”
OK, then why did you mindlessly regurgitate all that ID BS when you are now admitting you don’t understand a word of it, and can’t defend it? Truth is, you can’t even DEFINE terms like ‘information’ you are throwing around. Why did you come to this board and try to bluff your way through with nothing but buzzword catch phrases? Just to defend your fellow ignorant creationist? My, but that’s noble.
I know you guys think it’s OK to lie for Jesus. I didn’t realize you think it’s OK to lie for an anti-science wingnut. That, and you got caught being less than honest with your sockpuppetry also. That’s one fine example of a Christian you’re setting here John. Looks like you have a long way to go to mastering theology too.
Occam, how does one even “master” theology, anyway? Millions of people have died due to one particular brand of godbothering adherants thinking that they knew more about THE TRUTH than the other. That is exactly the problem with something unprovable, undefinable, untestable, with no rules, no clear interpetation, and no basis in reality holding sway over so many mindless sheeple who are convinced they, and only they, know the One True Path. “Master theology”? As if!
Occam, I didn’t say that I did not understand ID, I just said I wish I knew more about science. I am sure Dawkins does also. As far as dishonesty goes, is writing under a pen name dishonest? And if one has the ability to argue from another viewpoint, is that dishonest? It is dishonest to put them together? It would be dishonest to say that I was not the Nihilist. But to write under the name and viewpoint of the Nihilist is not dishonest.
I find it funny that someone who has no basis for morals is calling someone immoral. I think that you have forgotten that absolute right and wrong is an illusion if all is matter.
Noodle – I am glad you find me funny. Sometimes it seems the guys here are more interested in ad hominem than anything else. If they want to have a Yo Mamma contest and set it up under another blog heading, that would be awesome. I really don’t think they could handle it though.
The 1611 Authorized (KJV) version is in reference to the Anglican Church. However, the KJV was never officially authorized by King James! He wanted it printed but never actually signed off on the project. It originally contained the apocrypha, which most Protestants detested. The Geneva Bible was the most popular version of the Bible at the time complete with the Reformers marginal notes. It took over 100 years for the KJV to eventually supercede the Geneva as to popularity. When speaking of versions, we are of course talking about translations, and also the inclusion or lack thereof of marginal commentary. It is not as if the original documents of Hebrew and Greek were changed in anyway, just the translation of those documents into English. The KJV was a very accurate translation for its time, as was the Geneva.
Even if Zygo’s position was granted, no one can doubt that the stage was set for Marx to espouse Darwin’s more developed theory, and this he did.
McDonald: “Occam, I didn’t say that I did not understand ID”
You didn’t have to say it John. Your ignorance laced posts and cowardly refusal to answer the simplest questions about your blustering claims said it all for you.
Feel free to give us that definition of biological ‘information’, or your method for quantifying it any time at all John.
Occam, why not ask him exactly *how* he understands ID? The way you say it, it sounds like you’re granting ID some limited scientific status (which it does not deserve). Here’s a few questions to start with:
1. In general, how do you tell something designed from something not designed? How do you deal with false positives (e.g. “monkey face” on Mars)?
2. In speaking about irreducible complexity, what complexity metric are you using and is it monotonic? How do you measure it and compare its values between (for example) a seed and the plant that grows from it, or a rabbit and an amoeba?
3. What defines a “species”?
4. What is the difference between information and simple patterns?
That’s all stuff that ID tries to speak to, so to say you “understand ID” you need to understand these. If John doesn’t have his head around even *this* list of items, he’s got more studying to do before he can claim to understand ID with a straight face.
“Dude, if I was the Voice I would admit it. I am not the Voice, and I honestly don’t know why they are not posting anymore.”
Why should anybody believe you? The only reason you *admitted* you were *The Nihilist* is because you got caught lying about it. You’ve already shown you lack the necessary moral strength to tell the truth. That you have some authority over children is a truly frightening proposition.
“But to write under the name and viewpoint of the Nihilist is not dishonest.”
Sure it is. It’s a classic tactic of internet trolls like yourself. And the position that *nihilist* took was not in fact *nihilism*; it was just the same old same old creationist obnoxiousness. You couldn’t even get nihilism right- talk about hopeless!
“I find it funny that someone who has no basis for morals is calling someone immoral. I think that you have forgotten that absolute right and wrong is an illusion if all is matter.”
I find it funny that someone who claims such moral superiority has to lie and deceive in order to try to win a debate. Why do you speak of *absolute right and wrong* when you don’t live what you preach, Johnny?
John McDonald, Director of Student Ministries, Westminster Presbyterian Church Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
So, what about Josephus, Tacitus, etc. Does their testimony not count
NO is does not,read: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
What a lack of faith to think God could not create a universe, in which evolution was the mechanism by which life developed and then allow the mechanism to run.
Your point is asinine, McDonald. Marxism is anti-evolutionary. To over-simplify Marxism: “From each by his ability, to each by his need.” Take from the strongest and most capable, and give to the most needy. The latter is not necessarily, and most likely, not the same as the former. Robbing from the strong to give to the weak would be the antithesis of social Darwinism (which, of course, does not actually exist!).
If you were to create a social Darwinist strawman, your best bet would be to look at laissez-faire capitalism. Of course, for many reasons, this also makes a terrible analogy. This form of capitalism is self-organizing. Producers and consumers quickly evolve to handle each other and to fill niches created in the market. Changes are taken care of without government oversight. As Darwin did not espouse any particular social view as part of evolution, the point is ridiculous anyway.
If we were to create strawmen, then Marxism would be closest to the Christian ideal. Here we have enforced altruism. The poor and the weak have just as much bread as the rich and powerful. Everyone starves, but they all starve together. Once again, the point is ridiculous, but it makes far more sense than your straw-grasping attempt to link Marxism and evolution. Charade you are.
These comments are being closed. Please see here for why:
https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=600