(December 8, 2010 at 1:27 am)ziggystardust Wrote:

(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.

Not correct. Modern Science arose directly from the monotheistic religions and in particular the Christian Reformation. Polytheism destroys scientific inquiry because there are multiple and often competing Gods so there is no rational basis for asking "why?". Rather, with Christianity, Christians are encouraged to seek the "why" and to give reasons for the hope within them. This and the belief that a rational Creator was responsible for the Universe and upheld it with predictible and measurable laws directly led to modern science and everything we know today. So can play these little "what if" games, but the facts speak for themselves. No monotheism = no modern science

---

(December 8, 2010 at 1:57 am)Chuck Wrote: 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.

How do you know the inventor of the first sea going ship believed the World was flat? How do you know this belief is the reason why he built the ship? Besides, you are mixing apples and oranges again. We can demonstrate the Earth is not flat through operational Science, we cannot demonstrate the age of anything through operational science, so bad analogy. I will say it again, without a rational creator; there is no rational basis for doing anything, or learning anything, much less conducting science. This fact is just as true today as it was when modern science was birthed out of the reformation.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Actually, it's just obselete because, ever since we mapped out the entire human genome and developed faster, less cumbersome, and more accurate methods of analyzing DNA, there are few uses that still necessitates RFLP analysis. One of them notably isn't involved in something like the kind of DNA sequencing used to determine how far back humans go and the rate of mutation of humans and other animals over time.
Note that the kind of gene sequencing done to trace ancestry and evolution is done commercially and reliably using methods from places like these:
http://www.dnaancestryproject.com
http://www.appliedbiosystems.com
http://www.genecodes.com/
... are all done through (as cited in those websites) Y-DNA 20, 44, 67 or 91 Marker Test for paternal ancestry and mtDNA HVR-1 and HVR-2 Test for maternal ancestry. This test is so easy and reliable that the above links are for commercial tests that you can have sent to your home and you can do the genetic testing yourself with the help of the results done once you return the sample to their laboratory where you can analyze the data yourself online.

Also, note that each of these places states a common ancestor from Africa at around 200,000 years ago, not 6500 years ago. So... yeah. Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Really? All geneticists are wrong except for those from Baby Jesus University, eh? Or perhaps the "scientist" with a Ph.D in truthology from Christiantech, hmm?
As wikipedia always notes in written articles like these, [citation needed].

According to an actual scientific article (you know, as opposed to what you tell us):

We Are All Mutants: Measurement Of Mutation Rate In Humans By Direct Sequencing Wrote:Remarkably, the new research, recently published in Current Biology, shows that these early estimates were spot on - in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA. This is equivalent to one mutation in each 15 to 30 million nucleotides. Fortunately, most of these are harmless and have no apparent effect on our health or appearance.

This study is also repeated in other scientific journals.

Those articles state that there are roughly four mutations every thirteen generations, which are usually benign.

I should note that I can't help but notice that you haven't given a rate of mutation at all - just a date that happens to be 6500 years ago for the 'mitochondrial eve'.

Speaking of which...

Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA Wrote:In 1987, three scientists announced in the journal Nature that they had found a common ancestor to us all, a woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. She was given the name "Eve," which was great for capturing attention, though somewhat misleading, as the name at once brought to mind the biblical Eve, and with it the mistaken notion that the ancestor was the first of our species—the woman from whom all humankind descended.

The "Eve" in question was actually the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today. That is, all people alive today can trace some of their genetic heritage through their mothers back to this one woman. The scientists hypothesized this ancient woman's existence by looking within the cells of living people and analyzing short loops of genetic code known as mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA for short. In recent years, scientists have used mtDNA to trace the evolution and migration of human species, including when the common ancestor to modern humans and Neanderthals lived—though there has been considerable debate over the validity and value of the findings.

So... yeah. Your unsupported statement was only off by about 193,500 years.
There is also this article, this article, and this article that all support this stance. That stance that the mitochondrial eve is, where she lived, and who she was.
You'd never guess that the scientist named her Eve to grab attention, not to rally support for your wacky theories that otherwise have no scientific basis at all for anything.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I know how they got the number silly, the point is that the number is wrong.

[citation needed]

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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).

[citation needed], as the evidence (fossils, the genetic rate of mutation I noted and supported above, plus more I'm probably forgetting) unanimously and definatively proves beyond any kind of reasonable doubt so much that anyone with $120 to $200 dollars can trace his or her own ancestry back as far as he or she wants.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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

You've certainly proven that you haven't read jack.
"Jack" in this case being the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which you weakly attributed to being able to cover theology... somehow.

Yet... then I come across things like this:
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states:

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Wrote:The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

on the very first line of the long article that describes the claims (counterclaims, actually) by atheists against religious stances on a purely philisophical standpoint (it is a philosophy article, after all) but I can't help but notice that there are no positive claims that don't exist simply to refute positive religious claims.
Then there's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopohy: Atheism and Agnosticism Wrote:‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

... that's not how things work. Theism made the claim. Atheism denied that claim. That's what atheism is. The burdon of proof, as it has always been, is on those making the claim which, in theism's case, has always been unsupported by any evidence. Much to the contrary of, say, evolution, which has been a major testable and provable science for more than a century.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Ahh. Another instance of pot calling the kettle black. How interesting. I've provided evidence and support for my claims since I participated on the balcony thread. All of which you promptly ignored and made fun of while providing nothing of your own. Even in the rare instance where your entire answer wasn't "nope, you're wrong", the best you've provided on the balcony was quote mining and articles from whatever creationist you could find whose 'science' is also blatantly and easily refuted by evidence.

You have nothing and have shown nothing. I, on the other hand, have given reputable scientific articles that have their own good standing and reputation, easy to understand and very basic science that was explained point-by-point by youtube articles, and whatever else I can pull up on the internet from people who actually know what they're doing and from multiple, unrelated sources.

You have given nothing and ignored everything counterargued to you and have only responded with red herrings and tired, repeated, and easily refuted arguements.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

I'm not the one picking and choosing which sciences are real and which ones can only be done by christians or creationists with a very specific point to prove - despite the evidence.
You can say what you want all you want, but that doesn't make your statements true or supported by anything substantial.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Science itself is a direct result of monotheistic religion (Whitehead's Hypothesis).

[Citation Needed]

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is a well known fact that even Richard Dawkins agrees with.

[Citation Needed]

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The YEC guys I mentioned did their science because of their Biblical views.

[Citation Needed]

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: They believed (and rightly so) the universe was created by a rational being and therefore could be rationally understood.

[Citation needed]

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Holy conclusion isn't supported by previous statmenets, Batman! (Or anything, for that matter).
I suppose I'll once again have to take your word for it that what you're saying is true, but after saying this I don't know how many times, neither this time nor the next time won't be the magic number for making me believe anything, short of, perhaps, some actual evidence or some equivelent support that you have yet to show.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

... unless you're gay, worship another god, don't worship any god, are pro-choice, don't follow the right religion in service to god, or don't do what the bible says juuuuust right.
Then again, to know this all you have to do is study history or pay attention to politics.

Case and point.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Who determines whether a source is relevant or not? You?

I allow my sources to stand on their own reputation, as I allow your... what I'll vaguely call 'sources.' That is, when you do bother to provide any.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You just make more baseless assertions without any sources. Not surprising. Small time.

Hah! More pot/kettle antics!

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh really? Why? It was just humans out competing other humans. Remember when you answer this; don’t borrow anything from my worldview.

Ahh... Godwin's law.
Humans tend to view that the lives of other humans are important because people empathize with the plight of others. Religion is just an unnecessary component in human morality because it assumes humans can't be moral without the threat of eternal punishment.
Of course, the only other option is eternal servitude in heaven, so my perspective dictates that that's a 100% chance of suck, but that's just me.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Look at all the strawman arguements. It's a veritable cornocopia of misdirection here.
1) "Darwinism" as you have been using it isn't a thing. If you had bothered to read the dictionary definition or actually know anything about the history of Evolutionary theory, you would know that 'darwinism' is what evolutionary theory was when it was believed that evolution was wholly driven by natural selection.
2) [citation needed] on all counts of just about every 'fact' you profess above.
3) darwinism is not a moral stance

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Not half as foolish as someone who makes claim after claim after claim with absolutely zero support on this views. You may as well be predicting the storyline of the next major sitcom on NBC. I would have taken on later statements in other posts, but frankly I've already addressed many of your repeated points and the rest are once again are ... just things you say.

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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).

Indirect observation isn't invalid, in fact it's used every day. And yes, mutations have been observed and can indeed contribute new information.

Quote:The amoebas in the fossil record are almost identical morphologically to present day amoebas.

Haven't you already stated that morphological catagorization is flawed?

Quote: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.

There is no Darwin religion.

Quote: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.”

Yes, that is the implication, but evolution does not attempt to explain the fineries of first cell formations. Abiogenesis does.

Quote:Explaining the cause of a portion of a part of the universe (life on Earth) still falls under explaining the universe.

So is explaining how to operate a toaster.

Quote:So you are really trying to play semantic games and not coming to grips with the fact that you are a religious parson.

Now I'm a priest?

Quote:Well as I demonstrated with the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, atheism is positive belief not just “disbelief”.

And I demonstrated just the opposite.

Quote: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'm tired of addressing your flat out wrong-ness.

Quote: 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.

Au contraire, it’s obvious that you don’t know a great deal of things by this post, but speak for yourself, not the both of us.

You didn’t know what I meant by “message sender”, yes bacteria “move” information around but this does not make them “message senders”, just like a post man is not the creator of the information he moves from point A to point B. Furthermore, the bacteria only “move” this information around because their DNA tells them too. So the information created by a message sender tells them to move their own information around.

Actually the possibility of RNA sequences in early Earth’s history is not real, and in fact it is a statistical impossibility. RNA is even more instable than DNA and both would break down immediately if Oxygen were present. The only problem is, there would need to be oxygen (in the form of water and/or ozone) present in order for anything to be sequenced. There is also the huge problem of homochirality of biochemicals, which is something that has never been duplicated in the lab. The first cell would also have had to have been self-replicating from the get-go, which is something we humans cannot even build (no self-replicating machine has ever been built). Abiogenists is unobservable and un-testable under even the most controlled circumstances so therefore it is un-scientific. It is just a blind-faith system, why would I want your faith when I already have my own?

As to your third point, complexity is not equivalent to information. A snowflake is complex, but holds no information. An un-intelligent natural mechanism that increases actual information has never been observed. So to believe in one is just a matter of blind-faith, why would I want your faith when I already have my own? By the way, natural selection cannot act on a non-replicating object, so it cannot get you the first self-replicating cell, it can only act upon it once it is already present.

As to your “Big Bang” point, now you are the one arguing from ignorance. The reason we don’t know for sure if the big bang is the beginning is because the big bang never actually happened. It is an un-scientific (not observable or repeatable) theory that violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. So to say it happened by naturalistic means is just a matter of blind-faith, why would I need your faith when I already have my own? However, we can absolutely deduct that the universe did in fact have a beginning due to the laws of thermodynamics. Even Richard Dawkins agrees that the universe had a beginning (see his God Delusion Debate with John Lennox), so to argue otherwise seems contradictory to your own side’s beliefs.

Actually it is not a “God of the Gaps” argument; it’s a very logically valid form of argumentation called disjunctive argumentation (something even Darwin liked to use). It uses the Law of Excluded Middle where two contradictory premises rule out the possibility of anything else between them. So the evidence either having a supernatural cause or a natural cause are the two premises. Using disjunctive argumentation means that evidence against one premise (a natural cause) is evidence for the opposite (a supernatural cause). The fact that all of your naturalistic theories violate the very laws of nature is strong evidence for a supernatural creator (God). So your “well we just don’t know what we don’t know” argument is logically invalid due to the Law of Excluded Middle. Furthermore, every time I provide evidence against Naturalistic Evolution, I am providing evidence for supernatural creation. Thanks.

Here, I will even use your guys’ favorite not-so scholarly source Wikipedia haha.

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

(December 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

What utter crap. Please reference anything from a legitimate scientific source that indicates the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Good luck with that.

Quote: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.

The "fairy tale" is the idea that an all powerful, invisible being created the universe and everything in it by willing it into existence.

Quote:Well then Evolution is not a Scientific Theory or Principle, because it is certainly not based on the “evidence”.

Then you've obviously never bothered to do any research. The evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming. You might as well be arguing that the Earth is flat.

Quote:It asserts that things which have never been observed not only happen but happen millions of times (mutations increasing information).

Speciation HAS been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Quote: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.

What garbage. There are no "requirements" to be an evolutionist. We don't have a club with written rules and secret handshakes.

Quote:Atheists love to try and act like agnostics when it suits them, yet the two are mutually exclusive.

More bullshit here than in a cow pasture. "Atheist" and "agnostic" are NOT mutually exclusive. "Atheist" means one doesn't believe there is a god, and "agnostic" means you admit that you don't know for sure. One can certainly NOT believe and, at the same time, say "I don't know for sure". I can certainly say "I don't believe there is a deity, but I don't know for sure", just like I can say that I don't believe the government has alien spacecraft hidden at Area 51, but I don't know for sure.

Quote:You’d never see an Agnostic-Theist, just like you will never see an Agnostic-atheist

I am an agnostic atheist. I would even say that MOST atheists would also classify themselves as agnostics. I am 99.99999999% sure there is no god. But I'm not 100% sure. And I have met agnostic theists.

Quote: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.

How do you know that living matter coming from non-living matter is an impossibility? Source?

Quote: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.

There's a big difference between believing that non-living matter could have become living matter in chemical reactions that took place on an early Earth, and believing that life sprang from the fingertip of supernatural deity.

Quote:Most atheists believe man is just glorified pond scum and just one of the animals. So you are the one who cheapens human life.

Actually, since we believe this is the only life we get, I would say we cherish life much more than any believer.

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

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

The Nazis were not "out competing other humans". They were murdering the citizens of conquered nations. They even murdered their own citizens! This has nothing to do with "competition". It was simple hatred.

Quote:So you say that morals are relative but then proceed to make a morally absolute statement about 18th and 19th century slave trade, nice.

Yup, morals are relative. And in my view (along with nearly everyone else in the world) keeping your fellow human beings in chains is wrong. But if I grew up on a 18th century Virginia plantation my views may have been different. I'd like to think otherwise, but I can't know for sure.

Quote: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.

Well, since my morals tell me salvery is an abomination, I sure as hell CAN say it was wrong. Just like I can say that it is wrong to perform human sacrifice even though there were societies that thought it was the right thing to do.

Quote:I am sure you are aware that slavery in America was abolished by a movement led by “devoutly” religious people.

And the Southerners who supported slavery were also devoutly religious. So, at best, this is a wash.

Quote:It’s a good thing that they didn’t view blacks as separate species like Darwin did.

First off, Darwin did not believe that blacks were a "separate species". And even among Abolitionists you would have been hard pressed to find people who would have said that blacks were equal to whites. And the Southerners (again, devoutly religious) certainly DID view the African slaves as a lesser race. Nice try, but you can't take the high road here.

Quote: It’s just one more case where the Bible was right and the science of the day was wrong.

Yes, the same Bible that Southerners used to justify owning slaves. And science trumps the Bible every time. Who was in error when Galileo observed that the Earth revolved around the sun and the church opposed it?

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".

Quote: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.

Gee, thanks for the dictionary definition. I say I'm not a "Darwinist" because there are aspects of his original theory that have shown to be in error. Therefore, I do NOT subscribe to "Darwinism", I subscribe to Evolutionary Theory. Understand now?

Quote:Well surely you don’t think racism is morally acceptable just because the majority of people in Darwin’s time were racists?

Can you show me where I said this?

Quote: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.

Oh, good grief!

This is not what I said!

I said that morals are influenced by your experiences, culture, schooling, etc. This was not a judgement that slavery or racism were "okay" because that is how the society viewed things.

Quote: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.

So what? Where did Darwin propose the genocide of an entire race of people?

Quote:As to the “you think Jews weren’t persecuted before Darwin came along” argument. This is a complete non-sequitur.

No, it's not. Because the Nazis would have persecuted the Jews with or without Darwin.

Quote:I can understand why you would get so defensive when someone criticizes Darwin, nobody likes their religious figures being criticized.

Criticize Darwin all you want. Like I said, I'm not a Darwinist. I just get bothered when people try to discredit Evolutionary Theory by linking Darwin to the Nazis. Because it's bullshit.

And as for Darwin being a "religious figure".... you just want to keep beating the tired old drum that Evolutionary Theory is somehow a "religion", don't you?

Quote: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.

And your evidence for this statement is......?

Quote:I hope we get to talk about some of the atrocities that occurred in the Atheistic Soviet Union too! That will be fun.

The atrocities committed by Stalin had nothing to do with atheism. He was a power hungry bastard who killed to maintain his grip on the country. On the other hand, I can find LOTS of atrocities committed by theistic governments!

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

I'm not standing up for Darwin. I'm standing up against the dissemination of unsubstantiated crap.

(December 8, 2010 at 4:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not correct. Modern Science arose directly from the monotheistic religions and in particular the Christian Reformation.

The only thing the Protestant Reformation did to contribute to the development of science, was to severely limit the power of the church. Because lots of different national churches did not have the sort of power a 'universal' church had to suppress the work of scientists. The case of Galileo is an example what an 'universal' church could do to any scientist who challenged dogma (wither religious or otherwise).

Ok, I am not replying to every point in every poster's response. There are way too many, and not enough hours in the day. Does anyone have any one particular point they want addressed? If not, then I will just pick one or two from each post and I will address them. Seems fair to me.

(December 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, I am not replying to every point in every poster's response. There are way too many, and not enough hours in the day. Does anyone have any one particular point they want addressed? If not, then I will just pick one or two from each post and I will address them. Seems fair to me.

Yes. Why are you still here?

(December 8, 2010 at 6:03 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(December 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, I am not replying to every point in every poster's response. There are way too many, and not enough hours in the day. Does anyone have any one particular point they want addressed? If not, then I will just pick one or two from each post and I will address them. Seems fair to me.

Yes. Why are you still here?

Because debating you guys makes me learn and look things up. So it's a way for me to keep current and sharpen my sword. It's also pretty easy on here. Not going anywhere buddy. That was easy. Anything else?

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

I would like to begin by asking an obvious but necessary question of you Statler; How do you define ‘information’? Is it increases in genetic material? Or the presence of new genetic material?

In either case, increases in genetic material and thus information have been observed numerous times.

In terms of increased genetic material, see the following;

• Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira. (2001). Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111.
• Ohta, T. (2003). Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118.
• Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman. (2003). Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13.

Also, in terms of new or novel genetic material;

• Park, I.S., C.H. Lin and C.T. Walsh. (1996). Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35.

In light of this, it is clear that increases in genetic information have been observed and as such your assertion the Evolutionary Theory via Natural Selection is held in spite of the evidence is severely lacking.
I would further point out, that no ‘faith’ is required here.

We have evidence showing the mechanism and until this proved faulty, it stands in support of the theory.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Please see above, in fact the mechanisms for increasing genetic information have been observed by several studies and thus remain well within the realm of science. Even if this were not the case the fact that it is a scientific theory and thus falsifiable negates any need for faith.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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).

Are you going to provide any evidence for this? Or is it just your opinion that there is some kind of cult based around Darwin as a man?

Once again, you confuse a passion for science with ‘worship’. Dawkins often speaks as to the beauty of the theory laid down by Darwin and thus Darwin himself however this is nothing but a deep respect for the achievements of the man.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

If only it were true that we were all valiantly defending Darwin as a man. Alas, we are defending evolutionary theory which unfortunately has meant having to refute your arguments about Darwin.
It’s actually quite sad that you have yet to grasp the simple concept that Evolutionary Theory has moved on since Darwin’s work.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Well, there is clearly no link too impossible for you Statler.

Why don’t you explain the parallels between these two events, actually, never mind. I anticipate that all I would get is;

“Evolutionary Theory is a kind of religion just like Islamic Fundamentalism”

Of course this is an ignorant attitude, which blatantly mis-represents the nature of Evolutionary Theory with a ridiculous comparison.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Someone has a bit of a temper 

Indeed, my inability to deal with arrogant, disingenuous people is one of the flaws in my character.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Actually, I was showing how the quotes you posted were questionable based on the original source and the text from which you took them. I didn’t say I dis-believed them, just that I was aware of their limitations.
In the same manner, I didn’t say I believed the quotes from other Nazis, just that they were conciliatory with the personal works of Hitler. In essence I was remarking on the quality of these sources with reference to our discourse.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Oh, so now the best I can say is that while he was formulating his ideas and writing the book that stated his intentions towards the Jews he was a Christian?

Also, there is yet to be any conclusive report on Hitlers religious views during his reign so you cannot claim summarily that he ‘Hated’ Christians at this time – the matter is open for interpretation but it is clear that his ideology was influenced by his religious views.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

No True Scotsman . . .

So when you fail to prove he was in fact an Atheist as you asserted you resort to a fallacy rather than admitting your error. It’s sad you can’t just accept it, after all whatever Hitler orientation, it would not make him the ‘poster child’ for that group.

(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Are you really trying to logically prove that you cannot logically prove anything? Haha. Nice! I have not seen that one on here.

No, I was simply stating the nature of logical proofs to you Statler. Namely, that for any logical argument to provide ‘ proof’ it must be both logically valid and the premises used must be sound. If this is not the case the argument, valid logically or not does not represent [i]proof[/].

As for your ‘proofs’ – They have already been refuted on the grounds of unsound premises by other posters.

Cheers

Sam

---

(December 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, I am not replying to every point in every poster's response. There are way too many, and not enough hours in the day. Does anyone have any one particular point they want addressed? If not, then I will just pick one or two from each post and I will address them. Seems fair to me.

It doesn't seem fair to me. If you want to come here, spouting bullshit with no supporting evidence that's fine but don't just try and dodge the arguments you struggle with.

Cheers

Sam