Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[betsy]

Your focus on these men has nothing to do with the validity of evidence presented on a scientific issue, and therefore does not qualify as any sort of evidence to back up your claims.

Why?

[betsy]

And since you are advancing a scientific theory, your creationist theory has a burden of proof to explain fossil and genetic evidence.

Darwin was talking about and admitted and tormented about Design. Until the time of his death. Fact. Refer to thread on DARWIN.

Dawkins was referring to Design in that interview. Fact. Refer to thread on DAWKINS.

Flew was referring to ID, denounced atheism and embraced deism. Criticized evolution and endorsed ID theory as far more convincing. Fact. Refer to thread on REJOICE ON THIS DAY.

I'm talking about Design...or ...ID. They all either embraced it and/or admitted to its possibility.

An admission that knocked the legs off Atheism!

Nobody's saying they believe in creationism. Your rant is irrelevant!

Stick to the argument!

Edited May 16, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

You can't just hide behind criticism of prominent evolutionary theorists.

I'm not "hiding."

As a matter of fact, I'm exposing.

[DogOnPorch]

DogOnPorch:

So...

...there were never any dinosaurs...or early hominids...or giant ferns for that matter.

...the trillions of other galaxies in the visible Universe are devoid of life...let alone other planets around stars in our own galaxy.

...science, while right about atomic bombs (they work) is incorrect about the age of the Earth.

...human kind (all shapes colours breeds etc) came from the incestious relationship of Eve and her sons? Help me out here.

...the Earth will end as per: 'The Revelation of St John' rather than when the Sun grows into a Red Giant some 5 billion years from now.

Nice to know religion has the answers.

scorpio: Oh Besty, Dog posted a very insightful post. And I, like him, would like answers to these questions. Please respond.

Irrelevant.

Why are these questions irrelevant? Seems more like you are unable to respond rather than the questions being irrelevant.

Do you believe dinosaurs once walked the Earth?

Is there no other life in the entire Universe?

Is science wrong about the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years or so)?

How did the human race propagate from Adam and Eve?

How will the world end?

Here's a basic primer on science re: creationism...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A00EFCF66E0748E2

Edited May 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[benny]

Why are these questions irrelevant? Seems more like you are unable to respond rather than the questions being irrelevant.

Do you believe dinosaurs once walked the Earth?

Is there no other life in the entire Universe?

Is science wrong about the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years or so)?

How did the human race propagate from Adam and Eve?

How will the world end?

Here's a basic primer on science re: creationism...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A00EFCF66E0748E2

I have responded (for Betsy like for anyone).

[GostHacked]

I'm not "hiding."

As a matter of fact, I'm exposing.

The same way we have been able to expose ID and creationism as all bullshit.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=847...p;q=creationism

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/ <----- heheheh

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=146...onism&dur=3

Dr. Eugenie Scott. This woman is pretty smart.

Admitting to a design and purpose does not mean that automatically leads to ID or creationism. Evolution is a bottom up design. Building on itself over time. Environments change, and in order to survive you have to adapt or die.

OH NOES .. EXPELLED !!!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-51...p;q=creationism

LOL, Ben talking to the Discovery Institute leader.... "Ben, I'd like you to talk to the scientists, you don't want to get your science from me" .... His scientists, or the real ones??

[DogOnPorch]

I have responded (for Betsy like for anyone).

So...did dinosaurs roam the Earth? Early hominids? Were there giant ferns as tall as redwoods? Are we alone in the Universe? Did all humans come from Adam and Eve?

[benny]

So...did dinosaurs roam the Earth? Early hominids? Were there giant ferns as tall as redwoods? Are we alone in the Universe? Did all humans come from Adam and Eve?

Everything you need to know comes from "Loving thy neighbor as thyself".

[GostHacked]

So...did dinosaurs roam the Earth? Early hominids? Were there giant ferns as tall as redwoods? Are we alone in the Universe? Did all humans come from Adam and Eve?

Expect more stupid one liners. That is ALL you get from benny. Pure thoughtless drivel.

[DogOnPorch]

Everything you need to know comes from "Loving thy neighbor as thyself".

That's not an answer.

Did dinosaurs walk the Earth?

Afraid of your own answer? Or is it that you don't have an answer so it is irrelevant as per: betsy?

Trouble is, fossils do exist no matter how much you and betsy deny their existance.

[benny]

Expect more stupid one liners. That is ALL you get from benny. Pure thoughtless drivel.

Koan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan

[DogOnPorch]

Koan

When you shoot an arrow, it goes half way to the target, then half again, then half again...in theory it never reaches the target.

Can I shoot an arrow at you?

[benny]

When you shoot an arrow, it goes half way to the target, then half again, then half again...in theory it never reaches the target.

Can I shoot an arrow at you?

It's you who believe in the law of large numbers (to explain life) not me.

[DogOnPorch]

It's you who believe in the law of large numbers (to explain life) not me.

1. You can continuously divide a number in half (other than zero) without it equaling zero. That's a fact.

2. You can shoot an arrow at a target and it will cross the distance and hit it despite #1. This is also a fact.

3. You don't explain life, at all.

Edited May 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[benny]

1. You can continuously divide a number in half (other than zero) without it equaling zero. That's a fact.

2. You can shoot an arrow at a target and it will cross the distance and hit it despite #1. This is also a fact.

3. You don't explain life, at all.

Science, not life, is caught in this paradox.

[DogOnPorch]

Without science, we wouldn't be discussing why religion is ultimately stupid on the internet. Meanwhile...did dinosaurs walk the Earth?

[benny]

Without science, we wouldn't be discussing why religion is ultimately stupid on the internet. Meanwhile...did dinosaurs walk the Earth?

Internet like anything is make-shift. God is underdetermining everything.

[WIP]

Why?

Here's why, courtesy of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

Human endogenous retrovirus K solo-LTR formation and insertional polymorphisms: Implications for human and viral evolution

This research paper - one of the minority that include the full text available without subscription, primarily deals with the possibility that some of the endogenous retroviruses, that usually lie dormant as junkDNA in our genomes, (like the HERV-K group) have remained intact and capable of coding new copies of themselves and subsequently altering the course of human evolution.

Once again, they show ERV's that we have in common with other primates, and imply a common ancestor (unless you can find that creationist explanation for these common insertion patterns):

At least 8% of the human genome is made up of endogenous retroviruses and related sequences, which form ≈200 distinct groups and subgroups (1–3). Most of these elements represent ancient retroviral infections, as evidenced by their wide distribution in primate species, and no infectious counterparts of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are known to exist today. Many HERV elements have been found to be at identical sites in both Old World monkeys and apes, which diverged ≈25 million years ago (4, 5), implying that the virus that gave rise to them existed at least that long ago.

The elements in our genome that appear to be the most recently active belong to the HERV-K family. The oldest members of this family entered the genome before the Old World monkey–ape divergence, but HERV-K elements have undergone several periods of expansion throughout primate evolution (7, 8). For example, there are many HERV-K elements that are present in the African great apes and humans but not in orangutans and the lesser apes, indicating a relatively recent integration time of 8–15 million years (4, 9).

Explain!

[betsy]

So what if dinosaurs walked the earth!

I've strayed off-topic a while back just to satisfy one of the poster's question and brought up Genesis!

The argument here is that Evolution theory has nothing solid! It's full of holes, being patched up through extrapolations by fundamentalist evolutionists who - quite understandably, being atheists - are fighting for the survival of their faith!

Your fight is not for scientific truth of origin. Your fight is for the survival of Atheism!

You know that the theory of ID blows Atheism to extinction!

Darwin and Dawkins - both leading men of the theory of Evolution - then and now - both admitted to the possibility of Design!

Philosopher long-time Atheist Flew compounded that by not only admitting to its possibility...but also dropped Atheism like a hot potato AND embraced deism! That ought to be a clear message.....there is Something out there beyond your ken! They call it "Design."

But we all know what "Design" really means, don't we.

Face it! You're the ones with delusions! Important men behind the theory of evolution have all but abandoned ship! I wouldn't be surprised if twenty years from now, Dawkins will "come out" and do an Antony Flew-like recant!

Edited May 16, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

Darwin was talking about and admitted and tormented about Design. Until the time of his death. Fact. Refer to thread on DARWIN.

Even if that bogus story was true, it would have no bearing on evolutionary theory that began with Darwin and has been developed and refined over the last 150 years. Darwin's deathbed conversion back to Christianity was a fraud perpetrated by a huckster who could not prove that he was near Charles Darwin at the time of his death. Darwin's son refuted the story many times, as late as 1915; this article in the U.K. Guardian refutes that myth along with other myths and misconceptions about Charles Darwin's personal beliefs and statements that he supposedly made: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths

Dawkins was referring to Design in that interview. Fact. Refer to thread on DAWKINS.

You just can't get it through your head that rationalists do not live by faith, so arguments from authority have no weight, as they would in a religious setting where people put their faith in trusted leaders and authority figures.....that BTW is why power-hungry fascist-leaning political leaders love fundamentalist religion....but that's another issue.

Previously, before I got fed up wasting time on your anti-Dawkins thread, I made it known that in my opinion Richard Dawkins was not a very good philosopher, and should either leave that field to the experts or wait till he has some tangible evidence to back up his Meme Theory - that ideas are promulgated in the same manner as genes in the biological realm. There maybe something of value in his meme idea, but it does not likely explain the whole story of how we construct a worldview, since studies of pre-school children show that they will confabulate explanations of things they have not learned any empirical explanations for. This implies that much of our beliefs and how we construct a theory of the world, are formed before we have been influenced by the teachings of parents and trusted adult members of the community.....and therefore, eliminating wrong memes will not remove the source of these ideas that partially come from a personal, subjective way of understanding the world.....long story short, Dawkins's dream of a rational world where everyone has abandoned supernatural and mystical beliefs is a fantasy that cannot be realized, and some accomodation has to be made with the majority of people who have an intuitive rather than an analytical way of understanding the world.....and that's all I got to say about Richard Dawkins!

Flew was referring to ID, denounced atheism and embraced deism. Criticized evolution and endorsed ID theory as far more convincing. Fact. Refer to thread on REJOICE ON THIS DAY.

And Flew's opinions are his own, just like Dawkins's. I base my decisions on what they have to offer, not their standing in the science or philosophy community.

I'm talking about Design...or ...ID. They all either embraced it and/or admitted to its possibility.

An admission that knocked the legs off Atheism!

And for the last time, I don't care if what is attributed to them is accurate or is just the usual quote-mining mischaracterization of their views; it is totally irrelevant unless it is backed up by evidence.

I said before that evolution by natural selection provides a way of explaining the diversity of life on earth without an active creative agent interfering in the process; but, that is not the reason I am an atheist! There are many religious leaders and theologians who have incorporated evolutionary theory into their theologies with varying degrees of success -- my reasons for being an atheist, especially regarding the type of transcendent creator you believe in are primarily because the attributes of this creator: all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful and omnipresent - are self-contradictory! These virtues cannot be fitted together even by the most convoluted theologies that try to separate the horns of this dilemma.

But, this thread is on evolution; if you want to debate the merits of the Omni-max God vs. no gods, why not take it to the Atheism thread.

[benny]

If one wants to separate reason from faith, Kant is still the man he has to beat.

http://www.nutters.org/docs/kant-sap

Edited May 16, 2009 by benny

[DogOnPorch]

So what if dinosaurs walked the earth!

The Flintsones wasn't a documentary.

[WIP]

Why are these questions irrelevant? Seems more like you are unable to respond rather than the questions being irrelevant.

Do you believe dinosaurs once walked the Earth?

The big problem for YEC is that The Flood 4000 years ago is supposed to be the first mass extinction event, so all of the "kinds" of animals that are preserved in the rocks (including dinosaurs) would have had to be given a spot on that ark. It's beyond me why they haven't moved to the fallback position of old earth creationism! Some fundamentalists figuratively drive a stake in the ground and tie their legs to it as Plains warriors would do to show their defiance against overwhelming odds. At least the rhetorical version isn't a life or death struggle, but the end result is a further retreat from science and rational thinking....which could be more dangerous in the long run!

Is there no other life in the entire Universe?

Is science wrong about the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years or so)?

These questions may not disprove the Abrahamic version of creation in themselves, but a vast, empty universe almost devoid of complex life forms does not make sense with the Biblical version of a designed creation. Even the Mormon argument that the human race was created to explore and conquer the universe is bogus now that we are aware that the rate of expansion is increasing, and exploring distant galaxies will be impossible as they keep moving away from each other faster and faster.

The age of the earth is another thing that doesn't fit "design" since the oldest bacteria microfossils discovered are over 3.6 billion years old. This means that "God" dilly-dallied for two billion years before figuring out how to make more interesting complex life that would lead to the desired creatures who worship and and make burnt offerings to him.

How did the human race propagate from Adam and Eve?

for people who don't believe in evolution, they have to accept an almost instant creation of different races and ethnic features....although when I was young, there were still white Southern Baptists and the Mormons teaching that Africans were cursed black for being the descendents of Noah's cursed third son - Ham.....they don't talk about this particular racial diversification theory much anymore for some reason!

How will the world end?

I don't want to hear the answer to that one! Blowing up the world is a bad thing to everyone except for endtime Christians and Muslims anxiously awaiting salvation.

[WIP]

WIP, why bother? Seriously. I put "God-Fearing" Atheist under my handle because it scares me that the idea of god can make a person so vehemently ignorant.

Most people are not going to become atheists or rationalists, but efforts should still be made to keep believers in various supernatural ideas grounded with the real world.

[benny]

Most people are not going to become atheists or rationalists, but efforts should still be made to keep believers in various supernatural ideas grounded with the real world.

Rationalists cannot be atheists because nothing can be divided (ratio) by zero.