The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

[Oleg Bach]

If two activities are separate, I don't have to know both.

You are either an expert in one and not the other - two be expert in both cancels out the credibilty...fence sitter might be a good term ...He must not want take any chances and has both ends taken care of. When it gets down to the crunch - all kneel in the last days and appeal to God for strength and courage and faith - to make the transphere from this life to the next or into oblivion - which is hell.

[benny]

You are either an expert in one and not the other - two be expert in both cancels out the credibilty...fence sitter might be a good term ...He must not want take any chances and has both ends taken care of. When it gets down to the crunch - all kneel in the last days and appeal to God for strength and courage and faith - to make the transphere from this life to the next or into oblivion - which is hell.

We can feel the phony fundamentalism of the scientists for wanting to enforce a neat separation between knowledge and belief.

[Oleg Bach]

We can feel the phony fundamentalism of the scientists for wanting to enforce a neat separation between knowledge and belief.

Bit to high brow for me... just look out for those that say "I think" - who get authorative and switch to "I believe" - I do it all the time...they mystery of God is just that - and not one person has reported back from the other side - so there are no winners just losers in the end...at leasts in the end we are honest and there is hope and that is our eternal wealth..as far as Christian belief - it is Platonic - pure logic...the adherence to reality (truth) and that is why it is the most valuable state of mind to have ever visited this earth - there will be a come back - but you first have to go back and be there to understand - I made the trip...good night benny - are are some fine people here - I see light coming - and the cosmic battle was worth it - even though we did pay with our lives - some how we still live...thanks and go easy on people like Dark Angel - and BC our American friend - is a delight - as long as we have these types in the world - we have HOPE - with that comes life.

[benny]

as far as Christian belief - it is Platonic - pure logic...the adherence to reality (truth) and that is why it is the most valuable state of mind to have ever visited this earth

The Christian belief is all action; it is about believing that making leaps of faith seem to be a transcendental invitation by God.

[ToadBrother]

Well, evidently there's more weight to ID, as supported by several scientists and learned men. Imagine that, to think that what's supposed to be impossible to prove is actually drawing these men towards that direction....

I'd say the number of actual working scientist with degrees in anything vaguely related to biology who claim to accept ID is less than 10. I know of only a frew actual people who you could actually describe as scientists; Dr. Michael Behe, Paul Chien, Guillermo Gonzalez and Cornelius Hunter are among the handful I know of.

I'm afraid your statement is a rather extreme bit of hyperbole. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and all but the tiniest handful of scientist who work in fields related to biology accept ID, and it may not give you much comfort, but the chief "scientific" proponent and co-formulator of ID, Michael Behe, does not, in fact, reject evolution or Common Descent, but, as the Dover Trial demonstrated, thinks certain facets of biological systems could not arise by chance. Two of his more popular examples; bacterial flagellum and vertebrate immune systems, have been debunked.

There is no growing body of scientists being attracted to ID, unless you redefine "scientist" to include people who are not, in fact, scientist at all (ie. William Dembski, a mathematician). Even one of the scientist I mentioned, Gonzalez, is an astrophysicist, and another, Chien, has falsely been described by members of the Discovery Institute as an expert in paleontology, something even he has been forced to admit he is not.

But I tell you what, name ten accredited degreed scientists whose fields of research relate to biology who accept Intelligent Design, and just to reduce your wiggle room, I'm not talking about theistic evolutionists like Dobzhansky (who was a rather famous critic of Creationism), but rather about Intelligent Design, as formulated by Dembski and Behe and others related to the Discovery Institute. I won't be accepting scientists or philosophers or mathematicians, or other folks who are not, in fact, scientist. I'm talking about actual researchers in fields related to or over biology here.

[ToadBrother]

But surely you must love it best when Dawkins tar Creationists, and all religion, and all who have faith in God.

I don't really care what Dawkins' feelings on these matters are. He's at his best when he's explaining his area of expertise, evolutionary research. He's at his worst when he's going around calling anyone who goes to church weak and foolish.

Supposed to.

But what happens when a scientist like Dawkins is a fanatical Atheist consumed with contempt and ridicule for all religion and everyone who have faith?

People get upset. Surely Dawkins does have a right to voice his beliefs.

The evidence speak for themselves.

I'm sure. But his credibility is in question when it comes to the truth of origin.

There's this conflict of interest that come into play!

That omission he did on Einstein's belief on ID is damning!

Einstein did not believe in ID. ID didn't exist in any form until the 1980s. It is the height of dishonest to claim that Einsten was an IDist. He was a Deist. His view of God would pretty much be heretical to any Christian, and Einstein made it very clear he rejected a personal god. As usual, the dishonest and immoral try to twist Einstein's words, but they are very clear:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I think maybe you should consider retracting.

And your problem is your incapacity to understand that the man is not credible wearing those hats.

You may say he is capable.....but the question is: is he credible?

I've openly challenged on a number of occasions anyone to produce any quotation in Dawkins peer reviewed or primary literature which even remotely broaches on the topic of God. Care to take up the challenge?

[betsy]

I'd say the number of actual working scientist with degrees in anything vaguely related to biology who claim to accept ID is less than 10. I know of only a frew actual people who you could actually describe as scientists; Dr. Michael Behe, Paul Chien, Guillermo Gonzalez and Cornelius Hunter are among the handful I know of.

I'm afraid your statement is a rather extreme bit of hyperbole. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and all but the tiniest handful of scientist who work in fields related to biology accept ID, and it may not give you much comfort, but the chief "scientific" proponent and co-formulator of ID, Michael Behe, does not, in fact, reject evolution or Common Descent, but, as the Dover Trial demonstrated, thinks certain facets of biological systems could not arise by chance. Two of his more popular examples; bacterial flagellum and vertebrate immune systems, have been debunked.

There is no growing body of scientists being attracted to ID, unless you redefine "scientist" to include people who are not, in fact, scientist at all (ie. William Dembski, a mathematician). Even one of the scientist I mentioned, Gonzalez, is an astrophysicist, and another, Chien, has falsely been described by members of the Discovery Institute as an expert in paleontology, something even he has been forced to admit he is not.

But I tell you what, name ten accredited degreed scientists whose fields of research relate to biology who accept Intelligent Design, and just to reduce your wiggle room, I'm not talking about theistic evolutionists like Dobzhansky (who was a rather famous critic of Creationism), but rather about Intelligent Design, as formulated by Dembski and Behe and others related to the Discovery Institute. I won't be accepting scientists or philosophers or mathematicians, or other folks who are not, in fact, scientist. I'm talking about actual researchers in fields related to or over biology here.

Ha-ha-ha.....you want science to be confined to just one teeny-weeny area....biology? My "wiggle room" is too much to take?

Why would I only confine it to biologists? What will happen to the authoritative contributions of Mapleleaf evolotionists posters??

Furthermore, what will we do without the opinion of physicists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists and to include the ultimate authority, geneticists???? Surely these fields have something to contribute in the "evolution" of the universe.

OMIT these areas of science????

In other words, you want to manipulate the truth.

Is this some kind of a joke?

The irony....you are defending his credibility and yet at the same time, you want us to omit.... to do exactly what he did!

I should point out that your suggestion is not helping Dawkins at all.....in fact, it only proves my point about credibility! AND this is an example that some followers mimic their master!

Let me repeat: OMISSION OF FACT, whether deliberate....or through negligence....or through irresponsibility, is damning to credibility!

Tell me, why should I take you seriously, let alone bother responding?

By your reply it shows you really have not followed all the pertinent threads that's inter-related.

If you have, you wouldn't be asking or arguing what's already been discussed, argued and rebutted.

Check out post #1 on this thread and read it well! Dawkins said a lot about Einstein's views!

So I mistakenly wrote "ID" instead of Divine Intelligence! My mistake....but really, what's the difference?

Einstein did not believe in ID. ID didn't exist in any form until the 1980s. It is the height of dishonest to claim that Einsten was an IDist. He was a Deist.

How absurd....you accuse me of lying for saying he believes in ID (or Divine Intelligence), and yet on the very next sentence you redeemed me! You said he was a Deist! Therefore, he believes in a god or God! Well?

Btw in that Post#1, it shows, Dawkins himself grudgingly admitted to the possibility of Design.

Seriously, I think Dawkins is beginning to struggle with his own inner conflict....just like Darwin did!

Anyway, for everyone's convenience I've deliberately created three threads: REJOICE ON THIS DAY, DARWIN and this one. Of course, the thread by Jdobbin, CANADIANS DIVIDED... is also related. I suggest you read everything!

Edited May 20, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

Don't look now! But another "missing link" has been found -- a 47 million year old fossil of a primate ancestor:

Early Primate Provides Evolution Clues

It has, among other things, opposable thumbs, similar to humans' and unlike those found on other modern mammals. It has fingernails instead of claws. And by examining the structure of its hind legs (one of which is partly missing), scientists say they can see evidence of evolutionary changes that would eventually lead to primates standing upright.

"She is a transitional species showing characteristics from both the non-human (prosimians and lemurs) and human (anthropoids, monkeys, apes and man) evolutionary lines," said the producers in a statement reviewed by the authors of the PLoS One paper.

[betsy]

Hundreds of "missing links" had been claimed to have been found. It's not the "finding" and the "claiming" that matters.....it's the conclusion.

Anyway, that same article also has this to say:

But there was a divide between the documentary producers and the scientists over the importance of the find.

"In this time of economic hardship, it is nice to turn to another time, 47 million years ago, to the story of a little girl, who possibly connects to us," said Anthony Geffen of Atlantic Productions, which produced the documentary.

But Jens Franzen of the Senckenberg Research Institute in Germany, who was on the team assembled to examine the fossil, said, "I don't think so, that we are dealing with a direct ancestor.

"We are not dealing with our grand, grand grandmother, but perhaps with our grand, grand, grand aunt."

In response to a reporter's question, Hurum also agreed it would be hard to call "Ida" a direct human ancestor. But he said he was comfortable with the publicity surrounding it.

"That's part of getting science out to the public, to get attention," he said. "I don't think that's so wrong."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Science/s...5988&page=1

So, it's to be offered as a distraction because of the economic woes...a form of "escape", like going to the movies?

Like watching Star Trek....Planet Of The Apes...Planet Of The Apes Returns.....Planet Of The Apes Returns Again....

....or....like a carnival side-show? Say Hello To Gramma.

Edited May 20, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Note: Post #307 and #309 were edited and some additions have been made.

Edited May 20, 2009 by betsy

[cybercoma]

I think you make far too much of Dawkins' omissions of Einstein's views.

He doesn't omit Einstein's beliefs at all. Flew has must not have read The God Delusion because Dawkins devotes an entire section to discussing "Einsteinian Deism" or nature as God. This point of view is not one shared by millions of people, nor is it the one that theists are teaching kids from infancy. They do not believe nature is God; they believe God is a unique individual entity existing in some "other" place, and, through prayer, interceding on their behalf in this world. The nature as God belief is not the same as the Judeo-Christian belief in a single omnipotent and benevolent God. Dawkins believes Einstein held this nature as deity belief, which is not the focus of his book because those people are not the ones arguing for a creator and trying to destroy scientific education in America.

[cybercoma]

edit: already covered.

Edited May 20, 2009 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

Hundreds of "missing links" had been claimed to have been found. It's not the "finding" and the "claiming" that matters.....it's the conclusion.

Don't be facetious Betty. You know that evolution is a work in progress. And every piece of evidence found, tested and scrutinized, fits the science. That is the conclusion. But there will never really be a conclusion to 100% solidify evolution in your eyes, and people who have your frame of mind. Since it is not complete, people give up and take the lazy way out and says God did it.

....or....like a carnival side-show? Say Hello To Gramma.

Kent Hovind used this tactic often. Saying Grampa was a speck in the primordial soup. Kent Hovind is now doing time for tax evasion.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16451/kent...y-on-all-counts

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple’s sentencing on Jan. 9.

Wether or not Kent believed in paying taxes, the truth did not set him free.

EDIT for this nugget

Kent Hovind, whose life’s mission is to debunk evolution, says he and his employees are workers of God and therefore exempt from paying taxes. He pays his employees in cash and does not withhold their taxes or pay his share as an employer.

“There’s a difference between wrong and committing a crime,” Richey said in his closing argument. “You can do all the wrong things you want and still not commit a crime.”

Edited May 20, 2009 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

Gosthacked: But there will never really be a conclusion to 100% solidify evolution in your eyes, and people who have your frame of mind.

That's the kicker. You'll never convince betsy to even look at the evidence behind evolution/dinosaurs/exo-planets as it isn't needed. She already has the answer. Just have a giggle to yourself that without evil science, she wouldn't have a computer or an internet to post on.

[betsy]

Just have a giggle to yourself that without evil science, she wouldn't have a computer or an internet to post on.

Thank you for giving an example of a classic distortion of fact!

So now, it's everything-science that's under attack!

[ToadBrother]

Ha-ha-ha.....you want science to be confined to just one teeny-weeny area....biology? My "wiggle room" is too much to take?

Why would I only confine it to biologists? What will happen to the authoritative contributions of Mapleleaf evolotionists posters??

I confine it to biologists because biologists are actually the people that work with fields related to evolution. I wouldn't go to a climatologist for questions on planet formation or stellar evolution, so why would I care what an astrophysicist thinks about evolution.

Furthermore, what will we do without the opinion of physicists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists and to include the ultimate authority, geneticists???? Surely these fields have something to contribute in the "evolution" of the universe.

The evolution of the universe is not biological evolution. What you're committing here (likely intentionally) is the etymological fallacy. Because cosmologists and the like will refer to the "evolution" of the Universe does not mean in the least that they refer to processes related to biological evolution.

OMIT these areas of science????

Where they don't touch on biology, why would you include them? Where they do, by all means include them. For instance, the discovery that complex organic molecules like alcohols and amino acids can be found in space is of some import to abiogenesis, but to take people whose disciplines are wholly unrelated to biology and then claim their proclamations one way or the other are important is ludicrous.

In other words, you want to manipulate the truth.

That's simply a lie. I just want to stop you from grabbing every engineer out there and try to foist them on to me as experts on evolution.

Is this some kind of a joke?

The irony....you are defending his credibility and yet at the same time, you want us to omit.... to do exactly what he did!

I should point out that your suggestion is not helping Dawkins at all.....in fact, it only proves my point about credibility! AND this is an example that some followers mimic their master!

My challenge stands. Unless you can provide citations in his actual research work where he even broaches the topic of God, you have no point.

Let me repeat: OMISSION OF FACT, whether deliberate....or through negligence....or through irresponsibility, is damning to credibility!

Tell me, why should I take you seriously, let alone bother responding?

You are taking me seriously, and you are responding, in part because I suspect you know my points are valid, and you need to invoke a whole bunch of fallacies and misdirections to try to keep away from answering my challenges. Mainly, I suspect, that's because you have no idea what work Dawkins has actually done in biology. In fact, I'm fairly certain you've probably never read any of his popular works. The earlier ones, at least, are somewhat more conciliatory towards religion, or at least towards theism, where he admits freely that science cannot answer questions like "Does God exist".

By your reply it shows you really have not followed all the pertinent threads that's inter-related.

If you have, you wouldn't be asking or arguing what's already been discussed, argued and rebutted.

That's it, keep the misdirection coming. I do love it when I get you guys on the run.

Check out post #1 on this thread and read it well! Dawkins said a lot about Einstein's views!

So I mistakenly wrote "ID" instead of Divine Intelligence! My mistake....but really, what's the difference?

A good many people on both sides of the coin get Einstein's views wrong. He was a Deist, but I'd say he was probably the weakest form of Deist you could imagine.

How absurd....you accuse me of lying for saying he believes in ID (or Divine Intelligence), and yet on the very next sentence you redeemed me! You said he was a Deist! Therefore, he believes in a god or God! Well?

ID is not Divine Intelligence. In fact, ID advocates have even said that the Designer could be an alien, or that the Designer might be dead. I think you'd better investigate what Intelligent Design is further, because it's clear you don't even know what guys like Behe and Dembski actually say.

Btw in that Post#1, it shows, Dawkins himself grudgingly admitted to the possibility of Design.

Seriously, I think Dawkins is beginning to struggle with his own inner conflict....just like Darwin did!

Dawkins states that biology is filled with examples of *apparent* design. That means things look designed, but are not.

Anyway, for everyone's convenience I've deliberately created three threads: REJOICE ON THIS DAY, DARWIN and this one. Of course, the thread by Jdobbin, CANADIANS DIVIDED... is also related. I suggest you read everything!

And I suggest you read something related to Dawkins, Intelligent Design and evolution, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[betsy]

Here's an excerpt from:

The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston•

IVF pioneer attacks 'patronising' evolutionist

• Claim that insulting tone damages public trust

But Professor Richard Dawkins' strident views, and the way with which they are delivered, came under surprise attack yesterday from an equally eminent scientist, though one better known for his more avuncular style.

Lord Winston condemned Prof Dawkins for what he called his "patronising" and "insulting" attitude to religious faith, and argued that he and others like him were in danger of damaging the public's trust in science. He particularly objected to Prof Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, which is an outright attack on religion.

"I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord Winston, "I have a huge respect for Richard Dawkins but I think it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think that is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light."

“The reason I've called it the Science Delusion is because I think there is a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to believe that science is the absolute truth and that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted," said Lord Winston. "Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and it is dangerous in the fundamentalist scientists."

Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can run the universe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr...lution.religion

[ToadBrother]

He doesn't omit Einstein's beliefs at all. Flew has must not have read The God Delusion because Dawkins devotes an entire section to discussing "Einsteinian Deism" or nature as God. This point of view is not one shared by millions of people, nor is it the one that theists are teaching kids from infancy. They do not believe nature is God; they believe God is a unique individual entity existing in some "other" place, and, through prayer, interceding on their behalf in this world. The nature as God belief is not the same as the Judeo-Christian belief in a single omnipotent and benevolent God. Dawkins believes Einstein held this nature as deity belief, which is not the focus of his book because those people are not the ones arguing for a creator and trying to destroy scientific education in America.

I think it's pretty clear that Betsy's "sources" of information are likely Creationist sites, and if there's one thing Creationists are capable of, it's quote mining (taking quotes out of context). I think it's reasonably clear now that Betsy has never read Dawkins, has never read anything about Intelligent Design, has likely read nothing by any biologist, and is pretty much just feeding off of Creationist sites and literature.

[ToadBrother]

Here's an excerpt from:

Lord Robert Winston doesn't reject evolution. Maybe, instead of just simply Googling things up in the vain hope that they support your view, you should investigate further.

[betsy]

I think it's pretty clear that Betsy's "sources" of information are likely Creationist sites, and if there's one thing Creationists are capable of, it's quote mining (taking quotes out of context). I think it's reasonably clear now that Betsy has never read Dawkins, has never read anything about Intelligent Design, has likely read nothing by any biologist, and is pretty much just feeding off of Creationist sites and literature.

Translation:

We can't dispute her claims...so we try another tactic.

Edited May 20, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

I think it's pretty clear that Betsy's "sources" of information are likely Creationist sites, and if there's one thing Creationists are capable of, it's quote mining (taking quotes out of context). I think it's reasonably clear now that Betsy has never read Dawkins, has never read anything about Intelligent Design, has likely read nothing by any biologist, and is pretty much just feeding off of Creationist sites and literature.

In Dawkins' book, Flew has looked in the index of names and saw "Einstein" associated with very few pages.

Edited May 20, 2009 by benny

[betsy]

Lord Robert Winston doesn't reject evolution. Maybe, instead of just simply Googling things up in the vain hope that they support your view, you should investigate further.

You think that's the reason I posted that???? Read again and maybe you'll get it!

Hint: Bold

Edited May 20, 2009 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Thank you for giving an example of a classic distortion of fact!

So now, it's everything-science that's under attack!

Everything science is under attack. You attempt to turn it into some sort of religion with followers and leaders. Now you want to cherry-pick what parts of science you see helpful to your belief in your mythology. Classic Creationist hooey.

Tell me betsy, did dinosaurs walk the Earth? When did they walk the Earth?

Are Hindus going to Hell?

Why are some bacteria now immune to anti-biotics?

So many questions...so very few answers.

[benny]

You think that's the reason I posted that???? Read again and maybe you'll get it!

Hint: Bold

A mutual understanding (inter-subjective) problem cannot be solved by a method geared towards repetition or objectivity.

[betsy]

I think it's pretty clear that Betsy's "sources" of information are likely Creationist sites,

Ha-ha-ha, coming from someone who relied heavily on...TALKORIGIN!

I bet most of your spoutings are still coming from TalkOrigin!

Speaking of TalkOrigin, you never did get back to me about that observation I mentioned about that site. Strange......you disappeared from the radar screen when I questioned you about it.

and if there's one thing Creationists are capable of, it's quote mining (taking quotes out of context).

Out of context quoting....hmmm....someone from your side of the fence here can better explain to you about that ploy.

I think it's reasonably clear now that Betsy has never read Dawkins, has never read anything about Intelligent Design, has likely read nothing by any biologist, and is pretty much just feeding off of Creationist sites and literature.

Not true!!! I posted from an Atheist site! You know, the Atheist who reviewed the book, The Irrational Atheist (Dissecting The Unholy Trinity Of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens).

Remember? The atheist who said he found it "painful" reading the book because it really tore apart the arguments of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens!

You must've missed that. That guy (Rasmussen) implored the Unholy Trinity to come up with a good rebutt. Here, check this!

http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727

Anyway, you fed from TalkOrigin ! So why should it be different for you? I can't and you can????

That must mean you are losing!

Btw, feel free to go to Apologetics and Creationist sites.....you're invited.

Ciao. I won't be replying until there's something worth responding to.

Edited May 20, 2009 by betsy