The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

[segnosaur]

So, there's nothing more to discuss....or I might say argue about! You've provided the undeniable conclusion

I rest my case. CASE CLOSED! The End.

So I will say bye-bye.. But before I go, let me give you a little meaningful present. Here's an excerpt from....

Why am I reminded of the Brave Sir Robin sequence from the Holy Grail. I mean, just who do you think you're fooling?

Don't you mean the Black Knight scene?

Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!

King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!

Black Knight: No, it isn't!

King Arthur: Well, what's that then?

King Arthur: I've had worse.

Actually, with the way Betsy likes to quote people she doesn't understand, I'm reminded of one of the scenes from A Fish called Wanda:

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

[benny]

When discussing a core theory of biology, yes, I think restricting it to researchers in that and related fields is important. When's the last time you took your car to the plumber for a tune-up? Science fields are complex, and there just aren't a lot of polymaths out there. Having, say, a cosmologist or physicist making claims about the veracity of evolution isn't terribly compelling, any more than having a biologist making grand statements about cosmology or physics would be very compelling. Scientists, historically, have got themselves into trouble when they start making statements out of the area of expertise (a good example is Roger Penrose, whose quantum-mind foolishness has been a sad cap on an otherwise brilliant career).

You know what, I can't decide whether you're dishonest or illiterate. I said "related fields". Genetics, paleontology and geology are related fields (the first two are intimately related to evolutionary biology, and the latter is the producer of the key faunal succession concepts of Common Descent).

Mutations are often provoked by astrophysical events.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Mutations are often provoked by astrophysical events.

Benny has now won the privilege, along with oleg bach, to be placed on ignore as most of his posts are meaningless and don't ad to the discussion what-so-ever. Goodbye benny, good luck in your quest to reach 2000 useless postings by the end of the week.

[WIP]

Flew's arguments are no more compelling than Dawkins. But no, philosophers do not get some automatic pass on science. They are not scientists, though certainly there are philosophers OF science, but these guys don't actually claim to be scientists either.

If I might interject, scientists cannot necessarily speak with authority on topics that are outside of their fields of research. For example, E.O. Wilson is an entomologist who has developed a wide ranging expertise on ecology and related issues to be regarded as a credible authority on the subject; but on the other hand, another entomologist, David Suzuki, has made so many bad predictions over the years, that it's worth asking if he knows any more about climate change issues than Al Gore does!

"Inspire Einstein"? You're taking one single quote by Einstein, who was trying to describe his deism, and then trying to enlarge beyond that. Einstein was very clear. He did not believe in a personal god. He was no atheist, but he was no stock theist either.

Is it possible that Einstein may have changed his views over the course of his lifetime? I have and so have many other people, famous and not famous. Einstein on at least one occasion, declared himself to be a believer in Spinoza's God, which was the classic god of deism -- impersonal, and uninvolved with the creation. It certainly wouldn't put Einstein in any kind of god-believers category that followers of the Abrahamic gods believe in!

And, all that aside -- do Christians only believe what they believe because some authority figure has told it to them? That seems to be the implicit message behind quote-mining Einstein, Darwin, and Dawkins....and elevating a marginal philosopher (Anthony Flew) to celebrity status -- am I supposed to change the views I'm developing, just because some guy named Anthony Flew has? If this is the case, can I deconvert Christians to atheism, since former evangelist and gospel music composer - Dan Barker gave up at a time when he was a rising star on the Pentacostal, faith-healing circuit, to try to eek out a living with his new wife - Annie Laurie Gaylor, as co-directors of the Freedom From Religion Foundation? If Dan Barker lost his faith, and decided that his "faith healing" was misleading parishoners, I guess that's it! Case closed! Every Christian will have to follow Dan Barker's example and become an atheist!

[segnosaur]

No matter the numbers of years you spent sitting in biology classes, no matter the amount of books you've read from cover to cover, no matter the resources - most notable TalkOrigin - you wield about as your answer to everything.....you have not - I repeat - have not, really given any sensible rebuttals to most of the arguments I've presented!

The fact that you do not consider what has been presented as 'sensible rebuttals' is more a symptom of your lack of understanding of basic science.

Just out of curiosity, how many university-level science courses HAVE you taken? How many actual real scientists doing actual scientific research?

All you did was to use various forms of contortions - a lot of extrapolations.... various attempts to derail the flow of arguments by persistently bringing in irrelevant matters that were already addressed in the past..

Rather ironic that you would accuse people like me of doing so, considering YOU are the one that keeps falsely and repeatedly suggesting people like Dawkings might be pro-intelligent design/pro-god, even after your error has been pointed out to you.

...irrelevant demands..

Actually, they're quite relevant. The fact that you're unable to address them doesn't make them irrelevant, it just highlights the flaws in your belief system.

..self-acclaimed "authorities" on the science of biology and therefore, "experts" on the topic of evolution..

Many of those 'self-acclaimed authorities' who accept evolution are Nobel Prize winners. Others have had articles accepted into peer reviewed journals. So much for 'self-acclaimed'.

...unfair demands in usage of resources....distortions.....dishonesty by deliberately taking my statement out of context....etc..,

Again ironic that you would accuse us of deliberately taking my statement out of context, considering the quote-mining you've been doing (espeically regarding Darwin and the Origin of Species).

Then there's this ridiculous notion PHILOSOPHERS don't count! It gives me the impression that there is this negative feeling towards rational thinkers. Rational thinkers who present rational arguments and/or criticisms, like FLEW!

Doesn't matter how "rational" a philosopher is; if his understanding of basic science is faulty, then any conclusion that they may derive from his arguments are also going to be faulty.

If the greatest philosopher in the world wrote an essay talking about the effects of us having a pink-coloured sky, that essay would be worhless because we do not actually have a pink sky, we have a blue one.

But the biggest kicker of all time is the narrow-minded and ridiculous demand to omit other sciences and just confine ourselves to BIOLOGY!

Ummm... "other sciences" do not have to be ommitted. And hey, if I want to find the answer to some engineering or math problem, I will have no problem asking an engineer or mathematician.

The issue is when those other scientists attempt to make statements that involve evolution. Being an expert in one area of science does not make someone an expert in all areas of science, regardless of how accomplished they are. The greatest mathematician in the world may be no more qualified to comment on evolution than my mechanic.

All you did was prove what Antony Flew said in his scathing review of Dawkins:

And you proved what I've said:

Dawkins is more into his Atheistic religion,....

Stop right there...

There is no such thing as an 'Atheistic religion'. Religion, pretty much by definition, involves a belief in the supernatural (i.e. god or gods). If you are Atheist, you do not have such a belief in the supernatural, so it fails the definition of a religion, regardless of how charismatic the athiest is or how many followers he has.

So why exactly should we care about the opinions of some idiot who can't even understand the simple definitions of religion or athiest?

[benny]

his posts are meaningless and don't ad to the discussion what-so-ever

Sun rays cause mutations. Understand: isolating one science from the others will not lead you very far.

Edited May 22, 2009 by benny

[GostHacked]

Betsty.

I have been watching and reading some stuff on Dawkins. Personally, I really like most of what he says, but is too 'preachy' when it comes to atheism. However, he did expand on Darwin's work as do most scientists.

Also, this one Christian I watched last night always ended a segment of his hour long speach by saying 'Trust in god, not man'. So trust god, and not the scientists who are doing the work on evolution. I can't recall his name. When I find it I will post it. But to me, I have to trust man. Man is what we all deal with. Man does talk to me often. So even by his rhetoric, I should not trust his word about putting my trust in god. Man is falible. God apparently is not.

He also talked about how science was always changing it's answer. And refining the answer. This man simply does not understand the scientific process when it comes to science and the study of evolution. Because science at least understands that answeres will change if evidence is out there that challenges it.

So even people preaching the word of god are falible. Should you really trust them? (I know this is creationist logic at work here)

The one thing we have to consider is the time frame in which Darwin made his discoveries. There was not much tolerance for athiests or agnostics. And Darwin knew that if he published his work, there would be conroversy. We as humans have come a long way in the last 200 years. And you can thank science for the advancements.

Dawrin's work has been going on for about 150 years. And there is evidence growing by the day with the new technologies we devise to study evolution.

How do you feel about the Muslim view on creation? How about the Roman-Catholic view? How about the Hindu's and bhuddists?

How can all these religions be right when they are all drastically different in the interpretation of the text that is the bible? OH and I think I will pick up a bible this weekend to start reading. Which one should I go with? The old or new testament? And if the word of god was right, why was there a need for a new testament? Have answers changed?

[ToadBrother]

Sun rays cause mutations. Understand: isolating one science from the others will not lead you very far.

Lots of things cause mutations. A molecular biologist need not be an expert in stellar astronomy or particle physics to study the mutational effects of high energy particles.

Oh, and lots of things cause mutations. Certainly high energy particles from the sun or from elsewhere (cosmic rays) play a role, but there are other ways mutations occur. And it is debatable if mutations are in fact the most important engine of evolution. A good many scientists feel that neutral drift and various gene recombination factors (gene duplication, screwed-up transcripting and the like) may be as big a forces of variation as mutation.

[benny]

Lots of things cause mutations. A molecular biologist need not be an expert in stellar astronomy or particle physics to study the mutational effects of high energy particles.

Oh, and lots of things cause mutations. Certainly high energy particles from the sun or from elsewhere (cosmic rays) play a role, but there are other ways mutations occur. And it is debatable if mutations are in fact the most important engine of evolution. A good many scientists feel that neutral drift and various gene recombination factors (gene duplication, screwed-up transcripting and the like) may be as big a forces of variation as mutation.

Even (retro-)virus doesn't belong per se to the field of biology since they are not living things (i.e. they cannot reproduce themselves by their own means).

[ToadBrother]

Even (retro-)virus doesn't belong per se to the field of biology since they are not living things (i.e. they cannot reproduce themselves by their own means).

First of all, there's still a good deal of debate about the "aliveness" of viruses. Certainly they cannot independently metabolize, and yet they are evolveable genetic packages, so yes, they fall within the domain of biology. Your definition of "living organism" seems to be about half a century or more out of date.

[DogOnPorch]

Viruses not living? Oh my.

Edited May 22, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[benny]

Your definition of "living organism" seems to be about half a century or more out of date.

Virus is more an organule than an organism.

[Oleg Bach]

Virus is more an organule than an organism.

Yah - there are more like a mini-bioish machine - odd things - I wonder what the original purpose of the virus was - and why they came into being. Much like a bug that sucks blood - what the hell is that about?

[DogOnPorch]

Virus is more an organule than an organism.

Calyx in kidneys are organules.

[benny]

Calyx in kidneys are organules.

Will they stay there or will they go? Human subjectivity will decide if needed.

[GostHacked]

Yah - there are more like a mini-bioish machine - odd things - I wonder what the original purpose of the virus was - and why they came into being. Much like a bug that sucks blood - what the hell is that about?

Well, we can look at the creationist answer for this. Which is god did it. Does that work for you?

[ToadBrother]

Virus is more an organule than an organism.

You don't even have any idea what talking about. I think you must mean organelle, and no, a virus is not an organelle. An organelle, or at least some organelles, like mitochondria and chloroplasts were most certainly prokaryotic cells that likely began as symbionts of early eukaryotic cells, but viruses are not cells.

I'm not a complete idiot, you know. I'm no biologist, but I know enough about biology to recognize someone throwing out words that he likely doesn't understand. Maybe you might impress people of equal or greater ignorance, but when you encounter someone who knows at least a little on a subject, well, you just open yourself up to derision.

[ToadBrother]

Yah - there are more like a mini-bioish machine - odd things - I wonder what the original purpose of the virus was - and why they came into being. Much like a bug that sucks blood - what the hell is that about?

Why does there have to be a purpose? Life's only "purpose", so far as it goes, is procreation, to pass on the genes. Viruses are compact gene transporters. Not having to spend energy on metabolism or any other cellular mechanisms, they are rather successful at it.

[ToadBrother]

Viruses not living? Oh my.

Well, for the high school biology definition of life, that's probably true, since metabolism is usually a key aspect of that. But, for the more nuanced notions of what constitutes an organism, well, viruses sit on the cusp. They can't metabolize or reproduce on their own, but they certainly have some interesting mechanisms to get other organisms to do it for them.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, for the high school biology definition of life, that's probably true, since metabolism is usually a key aspect of that. But, for the more nuanced notions of what constitutes an organism, well, viruses sit on the cusp. They can't metabolize or reproduce on their own, but they certainly have some interesting mechanisms to get other organisms to do it for them.

No worries; I know. Unlike some (cough*betsy*cough) here, I've attended some biology classes.

Re: viruses. I guarantee if a virus turns up on Mars (fossil or otherwise) it will be called life.

[DogOnPorch]

Will they stay there or will they go? Human subjectivity will decide if needed.

I suggest you look up calyx.

[benny]

You don't even have any idea what talking about. I think you must mean organelle, and no, a virus is not an organelle. An organelle, or at least some organelles, like mitochondria and chloroplasts were most certainly prokaryotic cells that likely began as symbionts of early eukaryotic cells, but viruses are not cells.

I'm not a complete idiot, you know. I'm no biologist, but I know enough about biology to recognize someone throwing out words that he likely doesn't understand. Maybe you might impress people of equal or greater ignorance, but when you encounter someone who knows at least a little on a subject, well, you just open yourself up to derision.

Organule: Google it!

[DogOnPorch]

Organules are sub organs...ie part of an organ. Organelles are parts of a cell.

[Oleg Bach]

Organule: Google it!

You sure love you science. I bet your idea of having a good time is staying in bed and going over the latest publication... What's interesting here is that you are (correct me if I am wrong) discussing a thing that is boardering on being a life for and not a life form..kind of seeing evidence of what might in time change the way we look at living matter and what we persume to be static matter.

[DogOnPorch]

Hey...if viruses aren't alive, you'll have no problemo with me smearing you with India-1967 variola.