(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.
