(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: From a Darwinian perspective, what the Nazis did was not “wrong”.

From a human perspective, what the Nazis did was indeed "wrong"!

Quote:Even Dawkins admits that if Darwin is correct there is no right and wrong.

"Right" and "wrong" are human concepts. These concepts can be influenced by our culture, upbringing, religion, etc. Slave holders of the 18th and 19th century (most of whom were devoutly religious) saw nothing "wrong" in owning slaves.

Quote:So the fact that you are so appalled by what the Nazis did and you are a Darwinist is a bit humorous.

I am NOT a "Darwinist" (and I'd be willing to bet that no one in this forum is a "Darwinist"). Our position is quite simply that Evolutionary Theory is sound. This is NOT the same as "Darwinism".

Quote:As to your quote you are seeking, this one might help…

“‘At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.”

- Charles Darwin, the Descent of Man

Or maybe this one, where Darwin views Anglo-Saxons as the superior race and compares blacks to “the other great apes”?

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

-Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

“Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton.”

- John C. Burhan, Science Vol. 175

No wonder the Nazis thought whites were the superior race, they were only agreeing with Darwin himself.

Looks to me as though Darwin is saying the Caucasian race is superior. A view that probably 95% of all Caucasians held at that time. He also writes about what he thinks will happen in the future. Nowhere does he propose or condone the wholsale slaughter of people because they are of a different race. Darwin had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by the Nazis. They would have done what they did if Darwin had never lived. You think Jews weren't persecuted before Darwin came along?

Keep trying to link Darwin to Nazis. It's amusing and it makes you look foolish.

Quote:Did Darwin help to fuel Germany’s motivations for war? Looks like it…

“ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.”

- A. Keith, “Evolution and Ethics”

Oh, yes! Because nowhere in history before Darwin came along did strong nations try to invade and conquer what they perceived to be weaker ones. Obviously, without Darwin the Nazis would have been just been a friendly social group.

Thor wrote: "Right" and "wrong" are human concepts. These concepts can be influenced by our culture, upbringing, religion, etc.

Exactly! I don't see what Darwin or the theory of evolution have to do with right or wrong, the lack of a deity does not make it an immoral concept. Right and wrong do not come from gods contrary to most theists claims, they are the result of human interaction based on the concepts mentioned above by Thor.

... Evasion, evasion, evasion.

No wonder these arguements against you, Statler, have gone on for as long as they have. You never directly address any of the counterarguements. You evade and come back with unsupported creationist BS with zero empirical evidence in support of your claims.

(November 29, 2010 at 7:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Come on man! You have got to do better than this. The “Burden of Proof” is generally accepted to lie with the side making an affirmative statement. However, since Atheism and Theism are both belief systems that make affirmative statements (Theism affirms that God does exist, Atheism affirms that he does not exist) the burden of proof lies equally on both sides. However, since you have not even proposed a valid syllogism to make your argument, it’s pretty obvious I have the upper hand. So you can either propose the syllogism, or address one of my premises. Incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof is on my side does nothing for you though.

Atheism is a rejection of the affirmative claim that theists make about reality and, as such, is not an affirmative claim.
If nothing else, you can at least avoid the strawman of telling atheists what they do believe when an 'atheist' is merely a statement about what they do not believe.

As such, my claim about who has the burden of proof is not incorrect.

(November 29, 2010 at 7:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Your argument that new technology somehow affirms that the Earth is old is a complete non-sequitur. I completely agree that empirical science is based on direct observation and repeatability. I am actually a bit excited that we agree on this. The only problem is, the Earth has never been and never will be dated using empirical science. Like all sciences dealing with origins it is nothing more than a historical science. This is because nobody can observe the age of the Earth, nor could they repeat this observation. They can only make conclusions made on assumptions and inductive reasoning. So to suggest that the science that gave us GPS units is the same science that tells us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is a bit irresponsible. Like I pointed out in my previous post some of the greatest modern inventors were YEC. The inventor of the MRI was a YEC, apparently they didn’t think the physics behind the machine meant the Earth was old. I think you are making the mistake of assuming that Old-Earthers don’t make assumptions. It’s these erroneous assumptions that make them wrong about the age of the Earth, not the physics itself.

First of all, yes, my arguement does affirm that all measurements of every kind that professes any testable, repeatable empirical evidence toward the 'old earth' is firmly in the tank for science and not creationism.

Second of all, it's not irresponsible if it's true in regard to modern scientific devices being evidence that modern science's reality-based deductions that brought us the enormous array of evidence against the "science" of the bible also brought us the entire modern age and all the of the devices along with it. High School science and history and other classes all recognize this fact.

Third of all, as numerous people including myself pointed out, your ability to quote mine is irrelevant and several of us have already pointed out why. Your inability to address our reasons for ignoring them is evidence that you have nothing to actually show in terms of evidence against the positions you brought them up for.
Once again, you're showing your inability to actually make any counters to our claims against you. Further, you've given no one any reason to believe that those individuals have done their science as a direct correlation to beliefs that they hold that have long since been proven wrong - such as any Y-E-C beliefs that you claim that they have.

Forth of all, you're making a positive claim (that's clearly wrong, due to the evidence) that's unsupported in regards to scientists and their claims about the old-earth. Let me know when you have something other than the word of Statler Waldorf that this is true. Particularly since scientists make these claims because of the evidence and not despite the evidence.

(November 29, 2010 at 7:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are playing the equivocation game. Darwinian Evolution does not merely assert that speciation through natural selection occurs (something YEC agrees with, and actually came up with first), but that all life has a common ancestor.
To say that Darwinism does not have social implications is quite frankly ridiculous. Humans are animals in the view of Darwinists, so Darwinian principles apply just as much to humans as they do ants. This viewpoint has lead to some of the worst human tragedies in reason history.

More unsubstantiated positive claims based on a concept that doesn't even exist.

You do realize that in many creation myths that humans are made from things like dirt and clay right? And you're claiming that christianism views human life in high regard? Pfft.

(November 29, 2010 at 7:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Kind of funny how when I point to a bunch of Atheists and Evolutionists who think you are wrong on this subject, you just say “Well I don’t care what my own experts think! So meh!” The fact of the matter is that Science has much more owed to Monotheism than it ever will to Darwin.
You may not have liked the sources I used, but at least I cited someone, your posts are almost completely devoid of any citations, I guess it’s all just your opinion huh?

and I and others have given you excellent reasons for that, which you promtly ignored and retorted with this useless strawman claim.
It's not that I don't like the 'sources' you've claimed, it's just that they're not nearly as relevant as you've made them out to be. Of course, I can understand why you think this - because your view of what science is and how it works is just outright wrong.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why do evolutionists not like this superior method?

Are you referring to restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis? You do realize RFLP has become largely obsolete.

Quote:Do you have any idea how much difference this actually is?

Obviously considering humans are 99.9% identical to one another on a genetic level.

Quote:The similarities between humans and chimps were not calculated by the Human Genome Project, since a fully sequenced chimp genome has yet to be produced.

The Chimpanzee Genome Project began in what, 2002? The Human Genome Project began in 1984, it's not a surprise it hasn't been completed yet. Though it has been developing more quickly than the former, the first is usually the hardest.

Quote:It was rather done by the very controversial method of DNA hybridization.

As well as analysis of chromosomal structure, and while DNA-DNA hybridization has in fact been criticized for potential inaccuracy in regards to incredibly closely related species (humans and chimps being the relevant example), until the chimpanzee genome is sequenced in it's entirety, hybridization is, at the moment, one of the most accurate methods for determining genetic similarity.

Quote:Even using very liberal estimates of mutation rates, and assuming that mutations always add meaningful information (which they never do) the human/chimp common ancestor would have had to still live billions of years ago.

The average rate of human mutation per generation has been calculated to be 2.5 x 10^-8, though, as a creationist, you'll no doubt take issue with this, as it did use comparative analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA.

Quote:Yet Evolutionists believe it lived 5 million years ago.

This estimate is based on the molecular clock, which in term is based on the fossil record and known rates of molecular change. Scientists didn't just pull the number out of their ass.

Quote:You actually believe this garbage?

I know right? To think I'm actually using my free time to argue over the internet.

Quote:To think, you get on Christians for believing in a faith based system, I don’t have enough faith to believe in something this absurd.

If you think scientists have a complete and utter trust and "faith" in their colleagues' work, you're deeply mistaken. They get off on proving one another wrong. Scientific theories and principles aren't based in faith, they're based in evidence.

Quote:No, this was in response to the claim you made that genome research helped to support Darwinian Evolution; it did not. They had to destroy the tree of life and try to rebuild it. Something does not support a model very well if it destroys it.

Except the phylogenetic tree being proverbially uprooted by new findings doesn't discredit evolution. If anything, it's made the tree more precise, and with more precise placement and measurements comes more precise results. So of course the HGP has helped evolution, or rather it's helped build a better understanding of evolutionary biology, which, while you may not accept, has been vital for progress within the field.

Quote:According to Darwinian Evolution the fossil record should show a historical timeline of life on Earth. It should show the gradual evolution of animals from simple to the complex. It was long thought that this is what we saw when we saw amoebas at the bottom of the tree and humans towards the top since amoebas look very simple and humans look very complex. However when we examine their DNA, many amoebas are just as complex (some even more complex) at the DNA level as humans are. Since DNA is what Evolution actually has to “work with”, this shows that the fossil record actually does not move from simple to complex.

Except modern day amoeba have been evolving as well. Our common ancestor with amoeba would be near the roots, sure, but amoeba aren't exempt from evolution. You mentioned bacteria in a later post, and if you'll note, bacteria are highly adaptive.

Quote:Religion- –noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. (dictionary.com)

Darwinism falls under all three of these definitions.

Since the phrase "beliefs and practices" is present in the two latter definitions, I'm afraid it doesn't. As accepting evolution doesn't entail any rites or rituals. As to the first definition, even lobbing off the inapplicable "esp." addendum, evolution doesn't concern the universe, that's the realm of cosmology. But even if the word were changed to the phrase "life on Earth", evolution doesn't concern the cause (that's abiogenesis), or the purpose outside of functionality. What it does is explain the nature of life, which isn't enough to warrant a religion by any definition.

Quote:I can always just quote my buddy Michael Ruse (Atheist) again…

Yeah, a philosopher and tone troll. Not impressed. I suspect he may have been S.E. Cupp's inspiration...

Quote:You are wrong about the burden of proof; Atheism has always been defined as the affirmation of the non existence of God.

Using your same dictionary source...

Atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Quote:“Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’

-Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (The most widely used Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Except atheism isn't a stance on a philosophical concept, but a theological concept.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, this was in response to the claim you made that genome research helped to support Darwinian Evolution; it did not. They had to destroy the tree of life and try to rebuild it. Something does not support a model very well if it destroys it.

That is not necessarily correct Statler. In this case, the re-working of the tree of life was done due to increased understanding.

That is, it was made more accurate without vastly affecting Evolutionary theory as a whole. In short Genome Research never destroyed the ‘model’ of evolution – it simply re-categorised the ‘products’.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually Darwinism is just as much of a religion as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Mormonism. It’s a faith base system that people adhere to.

Religion- –noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Evolutionary theory deals specifically with the development of life on Earth i.e. the development and progression of species from common ancestry. As such, this definition is inapplicable.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 2 .
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. (dictionary.com)

These last two have no application in Evolutionary Theory, they are specific about ‘beliefs’ & ‘practices’. Evolutionary Theory is not a belief, it is an evidence based theory.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Darwinism falls under all three of these definitions. Have you ever seen Richard Dawkins speak about Darwin? The guy goes giddy! Even more giddy than many televangelists talking about Jesus. I can always just quote my buddy Michael Ruse (Atheist) again…

Please define specifically what you think ‘Darwinism’ is and how it fits the above categories.

So now passion is an indicator of religion? Do you class Football as religion? What about Golf? People can be passionate about any number of things; it doesn’t make them a religion.

You’re comparison is fundamentally flawed because of this;

“Have you ever seen a Manchester United Fan talk about them? They go giddy! Even more so than televangelists talking about Jesus! – Therefore football is a religion”

It makes no sense whatsoever.

As for Michael Ruse, his opinion is interesting but not conclusive. This is how he views something and is entirely subjective.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I find it interesting that all you guys stand up for Darwin so much. You stand up for him with the same vigor that many Christians stand up for Christ with. Just goes to show how much of a Religion it really has become.

Is that because only Religious people can defend their viewpoint? Or did you just throw the whole “Valid logic is important to me” bit out of the window?

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There is numerous works done on the subject of how the Scientists in the Nazi regime were deeply influenced by Darwin. This directly led to Eugenics and the Holocaust. Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the holocaust was deeply interested in many of the ideas put forth in Darwin’s the Descent of Man.

You miss my point. Even if it were true that it had been proven the Nazis were “Deeply Influenced” by the ideas of Darwin, it wouldn’t make Evolutionary Theory culpable for their actions.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to the notion that Hitler was a Christian, this has been refuted time and time again, and I am a bit surprised to see it even brought up on here. Hitler was born into a Catholic family but left his faith at an early age. He would often speak of “God” to fire up his men, but to say that he was a Christian is ridiculous. Let’s look at some quotes he actually made concerning Christians (unlike you I will also include when he said them).

---

“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”

-Adolf Hitler, July, 1941

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

- Adolf Hitler, October, 1941

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse The only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little. Christianity the liar. We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”

-Adolf Hitler, October, 1941.

“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”

-Adolf Hitler, October, 1941.

“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease.”

-Adolf Hitler, December, 1941. (quotes from “Hitler’s Table Talk”, Oxford Printing Press)

---

It’s kind of looking like your assertion that Hitler was a Christian is a bit ridiculous. Well maybe you are right, maybe the Nazis were all a bunch of idiots who didn’t understand Darwinian Theory so they misused it to try and ensure the survival of the Anglo-Saxon, and Hitler really was a Christian who happened to hate Christianity. Sounds a bit farfetched to me though.

First of all; You will include when he said them unlike me?

Why don’t you scroll up and see how I actually quoted Hitler you arrogant prick? You’ll see the date is clearly listed in the quote header.

Now, you may believe that this has been refuted but indeed it hasn’t. Many of your quotes were relayed through Hitler’s private secretary Martin Bormann who was a staunch anti-christian himself and often imbued this attitude onto Hitler. As well as this, the Historical validity of ‘Hitlers Table Talk’ is widely known. This is primarily because the quality and accuracy of the English Translation has been widely discredited.

Hitlers work in Mein Kampf along with other writing often references his feelings ‘as a Christian’ or ‘Doing God’s Work’, this attitude is also reflected in the statements of senior Nazis who knew Hitler.
It is true that his opinions on organised religion fluctuated throughout his reign which has caused doubt about his beliefs in later life but up to and including his writing of Mein Kampf he clearly held Christian beliefs.

So actually, when you approach the subject objectively, you can see that in fact the issue can never be clear cut and if anything, the Christian influences in early Nazism are clear.

References

• Ian Kershaw. 1999. Hitler 1889–1936 Hubris. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Manheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999.
• Richard Carrier. "Hitler's Table Talk, Troubling Finds." German Studies Review 26.
• Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Derek Hastings, Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism, Oxford University Press, 2010.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to the Newton thing, so when a man believes the World should make sense because he is a Creationists and uses this to derive the laws of Gravity, the fact he is a Creationist means nothing? However, when Evolutionists come up with Gene Therapy (which has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory itself), Darwinism gets all the credit? Now that is having your cake and eating it too.

Genome Research was a direct result of Evolutionary Theory and the investigation of life on Earth, as such its existence is in part an effect of Evolutionary Theory.

Please show how Newton “Used Creationism” to derive the Laws of Gravity and we’ll talk. The fact is that not one part of what Newton did was related to his views on religion or the motivations you claim he had. Instead they were entirely to do with a scientific mind analysing the world.

(November 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: . . . However, you can logically prove he does exist, so it looks like I am standing on the side that can have proof, and you are standing on a side that can never have proof.

You can logically prove God exists? . . . I’m waiting.

The fact is you cannot prove anything by logic alone. In order for any logical argument to have any merit it must be both sound logically and in terms of the premises you state.

Also, if you understood anything about Atheism you would know that Agnosticism is completely compatible with it and in fact, with theism as well.

Agnosticism is a concept related to knowledge which can easily be combined with a dis-belief in deities to from an ‘Agnostic Atheist’ as I laid out previously.

Cheers

Sam

(December 1, 2010 at 7:19 pm)Lethe Wrote: Are you referring to restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis? You do realize RFLP has become largely obsolete.

Not obsolete (considering it is newer than the method used), rather it is considered “inappropriate”. Do you know why? It’s because it shakes the very foundations of the old Earth paradigm. The methodology behind it is legitimate and used by Old Earth people all the time in Geology and when it yields old ages. Observe a rate (generational mutations), assume this rate is constant, extrapolate how far back mitochondrial eve would be given the amount of genetic diversity in humans today. The result…..6500 years. Uh oh! This doesn’t match our old earth paradigm it must not be an acceptable method! So you really just proved my point.

The old earth crowd loves to operate like this. We will throw out any method that yields a young earth, and then we will tell the young earth crowd that they don’t have any evidence because all we have done is ignore their evidence.

Quote: The average rate of human mutation per generation has been calculated to be 2.5 x 10^-8, though, as a creationist, you'll no doubt take issue with this, as it did use comparative analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA.

Yeah that’s quite an inflated rate. The actual observed mutation rate is far lower. Evolutionists are in a huge quandary on this one because the rate is not nearly fast enough to achieve the differences between humans and chimps, however if the rate were any higher it would result in error catastrophe and extinction due to the fact that 90 percent of all mutations are harmful to the organism. Keeping this in mind, in 10 million years (keep in mind Evolutionists believe human history is around 5 million years) the human genome could not amass more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations. This of course is only 7.0X10^-4 percent of the total genome; which is nowhere near the 4 percent needed. Evolutionists love to build little computer models to try and demonstrate this is not impossible, but these programs are always an over-simplification of reality and ignore crucial aspects of genetics such as pleiotropy or polygeny. These models also use grossly inflated numbers for beneficial mutations and will also use very short generational time values. They also ignore the biggest problem of all, we have never observed a single mutation that actually increases information and affects morphology. Until this is observed, and observed to happen quite frequently, Evolution will always be a fairy tale and based on blind faith.

Quote:
This estimate is based on the molecular clock, which in term is based on the fossil record and known rates of molecular change. Scientists didn't just pull the number out of their ass.

I know how they got the number silly, the point is that the number is wrong.

Quote: If you think scientists have a complete and utter trust and "faith" in their colleagues' work, you're deeply mistaken. They get off on proving one another wrong. Scientific theories and principles aren't based in faith, they're based in evidence.

Well then Evolution is not a Scientific Theory or Principle, because it is certainly not based on the “evidence”. It asserts that things which have never been observed not only happen but happen millions of times (mutations increasing information).

Quote:Except modern day amoeba have been evolving as well. Our common ancestor with amoeba would be near the roots, sure, but amoeba aren't exempt from evolution. You mentioned bacteria in a later post, and if you'll note, bacteria are highly adaptive.

You’ve built quite the house of cards here. The amoebas in the fossil record are almost identical morphologically to present day amoebas, so it is safe to say (since DNA affects morphology) that their DNA was also almost identical to present day amoebas. So to say that amoebas back then were actually simple but ones today are complex is again just blind faith since it is not based on any empirical evidence.

Quote:Since the phrase "beliefs and practices" is present in the two latter definitions, I'm afraid it doesn't. As accepting evolution doesn't entail any rites or rituals. As to the first definition, even lobbing off the inapplicable "esp." addendum, evolution doesn't concern the universe, that's the realm of cosmology. But even if the word were changed to the phrase "life on Earth", evolution doesn't concern the cause (that's abiogenesis), or the purpose outside of functionality. What it does is explain the nature of life, which isn't enough to warrant a religion by any definition.

Being an Evolutionist actually does require rites and practices. You must adhere to certain presuppositions (methodological naturalism) in order to be considered part of the Darwin Religion. I think it falls under the first definition very nicely actually (more so than Buddhism and everyone agrees that is a religion). Evolution actually does include abiogenists; it is a common misconception that it does not but it was dealt with by Darwin in the Origin of Species and is an important part of the General Theory of Evolution. The Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut writes in his book “Implications of Evolution”, “general theory of evolution’ (GTE) is defined as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” Explaining the cause of a portion of a part of the universe (life on Earth) still falls under explaining the universe. So you are really trying to play semantic games and not coming to grips with the fact that you are a religious parson.

Quote:Yeah, a philosopher and tone troll. Not impressed. I suspect he may have been S.E. Cupp's inspiration...

Ruse was a professor of philosophy and ZOOLOGY. It’s kind of funny how you try and demine him just because he is more intellectually honest about the facts. I am sure you would have been his biggest fan when he was trying to get prayer out of schools in the Southern US.

Quote: Using your same dictionary source...

Atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’

-Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (The most widely used Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Except atheism isn't a stance on a philosophical concept, but a theological concept.

Well as I demonstrated with the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, atheism is positive belief not just “disbelief”. Atheists love to try and act like agnostics when it suits them, yet the two are mutually exclusive. You’d never see an Agnostic-Theist, just like you will never see an Agnostic-atheist

I am sure you are also aware that Theology IS a form of philosophy. It falls under the metaphysical branch of philosophy. So the source I used was more than appropriate.

So I will just say it again, since you affirm the non-existence of God and I affirm the existence of God, the burden of proof is neutral in this instance.

(December 1, 2010 at 2:54 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: Atheism is a rejection of the affirmative claim that theists make about reality and, as such, is not an affirmative claim.
If nothing else, you can at least avoid the strawman of telling atheists what they do believe when an 'atheist' is merely a statement about what they do not believe.

As such, my claim about who has the burden of proof is not incorrect.

Well since you never cited any sources, I am assuming this is all just your opinion. Well contrary to how you want to define atheism, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is used more than any other source in these matters, defines atheism as a positive believe system that affirms the non-existence of God. I think I will take their word on the matter over your personal opinion. So the burden of proof is still neutral. Besides, you asserting that the burden of proof lies on my position is in itself a positive assertion that would require proof haha. Something you have not done.



You mean "fourth" not "forth"?
You probably think I am “evading” your argument because your argument is very incoherent and not really a true argument at all. I will just say it again; operational science is not origins science! You are trying to mix the two. Operational science deals with direct observation in the present. Origins science deals with past un-observed events. So to say that technologies that were derived by operational science somehow affirm the Earth is old is ridiculous. Like I pointed out earlier, the MRI machine was created by a YEC, the head of the Apollo space program was a Creationist. When man walked on the moon did it affirm the Earth was young? Stop mixing your sciences.

Science itself is a direct result of monotheistic religion (Whitehead's Hypothesis). This is a well known fact that even Richard Dawkins agrees with. The YEC guys I mentioned did their science because of their Biblical views. They believed (and rightly so) the universe was created by a rational being and therefore could be rationally understood. If our thoughts were just a result of chemical reactiions that are all a result of one cosmic accident, there would be no reason to believe that the chemicals in your brain could better understand their surroundings than someone else's chemicals. There would also be no reason to even trust your senses. So science itself is based upon purely religious and creationistic axioms whether you like to admit it or not.

Quote: More unsubstantiated positive claims based on a concept that doesn't even exist.
You do realize that in many creation myths that humans are made from things like dirt and clay right? And you're claiming that christianism views human life in high regard? Pfft.

Actually in Creation, only one human was made from non-living matter, Adam. Since non-living to living matter is impossible by naturalistic means the Bible at least gets it right by ascribing a supernatural cause to this event. Unlike many atheists, who believe humans are direct descendents of a common ancestor which arose from non-living matter, but instead this happened by naturalistic means haha. So it’s quite humorous you are bashing Christians for believing something you also believe in.

As for the sanctity of human life, Christians have the highest respect for it because they believe man was created in the image of God and is separate from the animals. Most atheists believe man is just glorified pond scum and just one of the animals. So you are the one who cheapens human life.

Quote: and I and others have given you excellent reasons for that, which you promtly ignored and retorted with this useless strawman claim.
It's not that I don't like the 'sources' you've claimed, it's just that they're not nearly as relevant as you've made them out to be. Of course, I can understand why you think this - because your view of what science is and how it works is just outright wrong.

Who determines whether a source is relevant or not? You?

You just make more baseless assertions without any sources. Not surprising. Small time.

(December 1, 2010 at 11:55 am)Thor Wrote: From a human perspective, what the Nazis did was indeed "wrong"!

Oh really? Why? It was just humans out competing other humans. Remember when you answer this; don’t borrow anything from my worldview.

Quote:"Right" and "wrong" are human concepts. These concepts can be influenced by our culture, upbringing, religion, etc. Slave holders of the 18th and 19th century (most of whom were devoutly religious) saw nothing "wrong" in owning slaves.

So you say that morals are relative but then proceed to make a morally absolute statement about 18th and 19th century slave trade, nice. If morals are relative to one’s culture then you can’t say that the slave trade was wrong, since people then thought it was right. I am sure you are aware that slavery in America was abolished by a movement led by “devoutly” religious people. It’s a good thing that they didn’t view blacks as separate species like Darwin did. It’s just one more case where the Bible was right and the science of the day was wrong.

Quote: I am NOT a "Darwinist" (and I'd be willing to bet that no one in this forum is a "Darwinist"). Our position is quite simply that Evolutionary Theory is sound. This is NOT the same as "Darwinism".

Oh really? Let’s look up the definition of Darwinism shall we?

Darwinism-noun
the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

Either you don’t believe in this theory, or you are most certainly a Darwinist. So stop trying to play the semantics game.

Quote: Looks to me as though Darwin is saying the Caucasian race is superior. A view that probably 95% of all Caucasians held at that time. He also writes about what he thinks will happen in the future. Nowhere does he propose or condone the wholsale slaughter of people because they are of a different race. Darwin had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by the Nazis. They would have done what they did if Darwin had never lived. You think Jews weren't persecuted before Darwin came along?

Keep trying to link Darwin to Nazis. It's amusing and it makes you look foolish.

Well surely you don’t think racism is morally acceptable just because the majority of people in Darwin’s time were racists? Oh wait, yes you do, you said that morals were relative to one’s culture. So if the culture of the time believed whites were superior there was nothing morally wrong with this viewpoint.
If you actually read what he is saying, he is saying that blacks are evolutionarily closer to gorillas than whites are. This viewpoint of course could directly lead to (and did) the view that there was a superior Aryan race that needed to be restored. It’s no wonder that many of Darwin’s own close relatives were deeply involved in the early 20th century eugenics movement.
As to the “you think Jews weren’t persecuted before Darwin came along” argument. This is a complete non-sequitur. It would be like saying, “there were atheists before the theory of Evolution, so therefore the theory of Evolution has never led to someone’s atheism.” Of course Richard Dawkins said that evolution was directly responsible for his atheism. So just because Jews were persecuted in the past means in no way that Darwinism didn’t help fuel their persecution in the 20th century.
I can understand why you would get so defensive when someone criticizes Darwin, nobody likes their religious figures being criticized. Try criticizing Joseph Smith in front of a Mormon sometime and you will see what I mean.

Quote:Oh, yes! Because nowhere in history before Darwin came along did strong nations try to invade and conquer what they perceived to be weaker ones. Obviously, without Darwin the Nazis would have been just been a friendly social group.

This is the exact same non-sequitur argument you used above, and it is just as insufficient this time. Who knows what would have happened if Darwin had never come along. The Nazis may have still wanted to conquer smaller nations but they would not have had nearly as powerful of a tool for unifying the masses as they did with Darwinism. It’s very easy to get people on your side when you tell them, “we need to do ‘a and b’ because it’s for the good of science and the preservation of our species!” (Just look at some of the ridiculous things people will suggest doing or even do to 'save our planet' nowadays). Many of the evil experiments that were done on the socially “weak” would probably have never happened either, considering they were driven by an atheistic and evolutionary mindset. I hope we get to talk about some of the atrocities that occurred in the Atheistic Soviet Union too! That will be fun.

Keep trying to stand up for Darwin, it makes you look foolish.

(December 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm)Sam Wrote: That is not necessarily correct Statler. In this case, the re-working of the tree of life was done due to increased understanding.

That is, it was made more accurate without vastly affecting Evolutionary theory as a whole. In short Genome Research never destroyed the ‘model’ of evolution – it simply re-categorised the ‘products’.

Our understanding of the genome and DNA actually destroyed your theory. It showed that we were really dealing with information. In order to move from the less complex to the more complex we would need a mechanism that actually could increase information. Natural Selection (Darwin’s mechanism) has NEVER been observed to increase information so it cannot be a valid explanation anymore. To believe it is, is just a belief contrary to the evidence and is based on blind faith and wishful thinking.

Quote: Evolutionary theory deals specifically with the development of life on Earth i.e. the development and progression of species from common ancestry. As such, this definition is inapplicable.

As I pointed out above, Darwinism tries to explain a portion of the universe (life on Earth) by a mechanism that has never been observed to do what it is claimed to do. So it is absolutely a faith based system and just as much of a religious system as all the others.

Quote:“Have you ever seen a Manchester United Fan talk about them? They go giddy! Even more so than televangelists talking about Jesus! – Therefore football is a religion”

It makes no sense whatsoever.

That was not my only reason for believing Darwinism is a religion, Dawkins’ praise and worship for Darwin is just one line of evidence this is more than just science nowadays. Darwin actually has a cult following who will defend him and his beliefs vigorously (some of these followers appear to even post on this site haha).

Religions do not have to involve the worship of the supernatural as you seem to assert. Jainism is classified as a religion and involves the worship of life itself, unless of course you believe that life is not evidence based or natural haha. A more accurate way to define religions is whether the worldview meets the “Seven Dimensions of Religion”, which is used by archeologists among others to classify worldviews as religions. Keep in mind that not all seven dimensions have to be met. The dimensions are, narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Now that I think about it, a strong case could be made that Atheism meets many of these as well; some people on here might even be dually religious 

Quote: Is that because only Religious people can defend their viewpoint? Or did you just throw the whole “Valid logic is important to me” bit out of the window?

No I just think it’s funny that people who claim to be so rational and open minded would stand up for a 19th century racist who stole his ideas from those who came before him. Not really someone worthy of praise in my humble opinion.

Quote: You miss my point. Even if it were true that it had been proven the Nazis were “Deeply Influenced” by the ideas of Darwin, it wouldn’t make Evolutionary Theory culpable for their actions.

Well it would make Evolutionary Theory just as responsible for the actions of the Nazi Scientists as Islamic Fundamentalism was responsible for the actions of the culprits on 9/11. So I guess it just depends on how much you believe the terrorists Islamic beliefs fuel their actions, but the two events are very parallel.





Someone has a bit of a temper 

So you don’t believe the quotes that came from Hitler’s secretary but you believe quotes that came from Nazis who were around him? Special pleading, nice.

At best you can say that Hitler was a Christian when he wrote his book long before the Holocaust began. However, while he was actually killing millions of Jews and trying to take over the world he hated Christians. Still doesn’t seem like the argument favors your position. Besides, I am sure you are aware that someone calling themselves, “A Christian” does nothing to make themselves a Christian. They have to also genuinely believe the key tenants of the Christian faith, one of which is love your enemy and forgive your trespassers. Obviously Hitler believed none of this, so it is beyond clear he was never a Christian. Just like if someone said, “I am an Atheist but I believe God exists”, I would hope you would not believe this person’s claim that they are a true atheist.

[

Quote: Genome Research was a direct result of Evolutionary Theory and the investigation of life on Earth, as such its existence is in part an effect of Evolutionary Theory.

Please show how Newton “Used Creationism” to derive the Laws of Gravity and we’ll talk. The fact is that not one part of what Newton did was related to his views on religion or the motivations you claim he had. Instead they were entirely to do with a scientific mind analysing the world.

Genome research has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. Creationists believe genes exist and they do gene therapy just as well as the Evolutionists do. So again, this is a non-sequitur. Actually none of Darwin’s original predictions have been verified, so it’s obvious his theory was not a good one from the get go.

Guys like Newton and Kepler will admit that their religion directly drove their scientific discoveries. Kepler was famous for saying he was just thinking God’s thoughts after Him. When you think about it, this is a profound statement that drives at the heart of what science is. Without a rational creator there would be no reason to expect the world around us to be comprehendible or to operate predictably. These men believed that nature was part of God’s special revelation and should be examined and discovered. So on the contrary, their creationists views were directly responsible for their discoveries. Bacon’s scientific method was just a tool for this type of discovery. Kind of funny but not surprising how you don’t like to give Creationism credit for it’s huge contributions to Science, but you will pass out credit to Darwinism when it is completely undeserved.

Quote: You can logically prove God exists? . . . I’m waiting.

The fact is you cannot prove anything by logic alone. In order for any logical argument to have any merit it must be both sound logically and in terms of the premises you state.

Also, if you understood anything about Atheism you would know that Agnosticism is completely compatible with it and in fact, with theism as well.

Are you really trying to logically prove that you cannot logically prove anything? Haha. Nice! I have not seen that one on here. I cannot scientifically prove that God exists, but I also cannot scientifically prove that Julius Caesar, or other people’s minds exist(ed) either. I can however logically deduce or infer their existence based on historical and scientific evidence.

1. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.
2. All living organisms have complex specified information (DNA).
3. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender (God).

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause (law of cause and effect)
2. The Universe has a beginning (scientifically established)
3. The Universe has a cause (God) (Proofs from J. Sarfati, “Refuting Evolution”)

Actually according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive because you cannot affirm that you know something to be certain (the non-existence of God) and at the same point in time affirm that you do not know for sure. I think I will accept this source's authority on the subject over your own, no offense.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Science itself is a direct result of monotheistic religion (Whitehead's Hypothesis). This is a well known fact that even Richard Dawkins agrees with. The YEC guys I mentioned did their science because of their Biblical views. They believed (and rightly so) the universe was created by a rational being and therefore could be rationally understood. If our thoughts were just a result of chemical reactiions that are all a result of one cosmic accident, there would be no reason to believe that the chemicals in your brain could better understand their surroundings than someone else's chemicals. There would also be no reason to even trust your senses. So science itself is based upon purely religious and creationistic axioms whether you like to admit it or not.

You would not be saying that if the science developed by the Greeks stopped developing as soon as it emerged and instead develop into a sort of science we know today. The only reason science emerged as I can see it, is because in the west it was decided that if reason and revelation conflicted, reason overrode faith. It could have easily gone the other way and science would have never emerged.

In the case of Newton's religious beliefs, the analogue of the Statler's logic, let's call it static, would be because inventor of the first sea going ship believed the world to be flat, therefore the world must be flat and subsequent claims of circumnavigation impossible.

I think static is best turned off.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 1. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.
2. All living organisms have complex specified information (DNA).
3. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender (God).

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause (law of cause and effect)
2. The Universe has a beginning (scientifically established)
3. The Universe has a cause (God) (Proofs from J. Sarfati, “Refuting Evolution”)

1. False. Bacteria "send" information between each other and are devoid of intelligence.
2. Weak. While all known Earth organism use DNA, the possibility of stabilized RNA sequences in the early evolution of life is quite real (RNA World Hypothesis). In addition, your statement presupposes that all life uses DNA, an absolute statement that is not proven correct since we have not seen all life.
3. False. Previous generations could have passed on an increasingly complex sequence derived from basic environmental interactions and natural selection. Ergo, complexity can arise out of simplicity. (A bit like physics.)

1. True.
2. False. The prevailing theory is that the universe we know of was at one point what we now call the Big Bang. While one may call it the "beginning" of the Universe, there is no way to verify such currently or in the foreseeable future.
3. Only if you define "God" as the cause of the Big bang. Yet that reeks of "God of the gaps" as one certainly can see that you make an argument from ignorance - that because we do not know what preceded the Big Bang, it must be X.

Pathetic.

Why don't you man up and simply accept that we don't know a great many things - it'd serve you better than shrieking "GOD!!11!" at everything.