Answers in Genesis indeed…

Posted by Shaye on Friday, October 01, 2004 at 04:30 PM. Read 8196 times. Tags: ,
{name} pic

A few days ago, I received one of those little books. You know the ones I mean. It said, “What REALLY happened to the Dinosaurs?” on it. I was intrigued, “Hey, I want to know!” and I proceeded to read it. I had the best laugh that I’d had in a long while, it was so funny.

It is written by a man named Ken Ham (it’s a very apt name) and he tries to explain the ‘mystery of dinosaurs’ and how their bones just prove creation science even more. I was going to scan the entire 40 page booklet, but I’ll just type out some of the more amusing passages, but I will be scanning the terrible and cartoony images of the dinosaurs, they are just awful.

Mr. Ham begins with, “Dinosaurs are used more than anything else to indoctrinate children and young adults in the idea of millions of years of Earth history. However the Bible gives us a framework for explaining dinosaurs in terms of thousands of years, and solving the mystery of what happened to them.” Well, I could say this booklet is indoctrinating children and young adults into believing your nonsense, but let’s just read on.

He continues by explaining what those dirty evolutionists think, dinosaurs ‘ruled’ the earth (his exact quote) and somehow for some unbeknownst reason to any scientist they just disappeared 65 million years ago. But wait, no he says, some silly scientists think birds evolved from dinosaurs, why that’s even more absurd than a flying dragon! Or is it?

He says that obviously dinosaurs were created 6,000 years ago, as were all life forms, and that Adam lived in the same time as these (all 600… he actually believes there were 600 ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs) gentle creatures who all ate plants. But wasn’t Tyrannosaurus Rex a carnivore? Well not to worry paleontologists, because Ken Ham says that you really can’t tell what a dinosaur’s teeth say about the eating habits because you can’t even tell what skin color was by bones! He says, “Scientists generally do not dig up a dinosaur with all its flesh intact”, which is true, does this man know anything about real science? So, T-Rex ate plants like all the good animals, until someone sinned and, uh-oh! Here comes that flood.

He also says that of course scientists are wrong about explaining the origins of dinosaurs, simply because they make mistakes all the time. Look at brontosaurus, it was really an Apatosaurus skeleton with an incorrect head and labeled mistakingly. Okay, so he got us there, but science is self-correcting, once new evidence shows up it replaces the old, outdated stuff. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it was wrong, but it was human error in the case of brontosaurus.

So Noah comes, and there’s the flood, but aren’t dinosaurs too big to fit on the ark? No! says Ken Ham, there’s plenty of room on the boat. Remember, out of the 600 ‘kinds’ of dinosaur, only like four or five were actually really big. So the smaller ones got to live, and they went on the art with Noah.

Now he gets really funny. He tries to give examples in the bible where it mentions dinosaurs, he finds ones about sea monsters, and flying monsters and ties those to Mosasaurus and pterodactyls. He references a movie entitled The Great Dinosaur Mystery and explains that in all ancient cultures, they had legends about ‘dinosaur-like’ animals which the called “dragons”. From Gilgamesh (ironic he chooses an epic that a lot of Near East texts are based off of) to a book published in the 1500s, there is evidence that dinosaurs were actually dragons, now gone due to hunting by humans.

He comes back the bones and teeth thing again. “Movies like Jurassic Park and The Lost World portray most dinosaurs as aggressive meat eaters. But the mere presence of sharp teeth does not tell you how an animal behaved, or necessarily what food it ate--only what kind of teeth it had (for ripping food etc.).” He just obliterated his own statement. Why would a plant eater need sharp teeth for ripping plants? He sites bears as a good example, “bears have teeth similar to a carnivore’s but are mostly vegetarian”. Bears are omnivores, eating whatever they can to survive. A lot of times, plants are more easily accessible than fish, or other meat. He claims that claws and fangs came about because sin was introduced and they are wicked. This guy is nuts.

Ken Ham tries to explain just why it is that dinosaurs can’t be seen anymore even though they were on the ark with Noah, and why people are still so fascinated with these creatures. He blames evolutionists (surprise) as spreading evil evolutionary propaganda to poor, little hapless Christians, who are so gullible they tend to think of dinosaurs as being ‘somewhat mysterious’. He goes on to say, “If you were to ask at the zoo why they have endangered species programs, you would probably get an answer something like this: ‘We’ve lost lots of animals from this Earth. Animals are becoming extinct all the time. Look at all the animals that are gone forever. We need to act to save the animals.’ If you then asked, ‘Why are animals becoming extinct?’ you might get an answer like this, ‘It’s obvious! People are killing them; lack of food; man destroying the environment; diseases; genetic problems; catastrophes like floods (HMM CONSPICUOUS!)-- there are lots of reasons.’ Ken Ham has some good examples of why animals start to fall into an extinction vortex, and ultimately end up not existing anymore, perfectly good reasons as to why the dinosaurs might have died off, except the flood one. Now Ken explains quite enthusiastically the real reason that dinos aren’t here anymore. ‘Maybe one of the reasons dinosaurs went extinct is that we didn’t start our endangered species programs early enough!’ What a moron!

Birdosaurs? Ken Ham tries his best to debunk the theory that some dinosaurs may have evolved into birds. This man, like many others, has such a poor knowledge of how evolution works its appalling. He says dinosaurs and birds aren’t the same, birds are warm-blooded not cold-blooded like a dinosaur would be according to science. “Sadly, the secular media have become so blatant in their anti-Christian stand and pro-evolutionary propaganda that they are bold enough to make such ridiculous statements as, ‘Parrots and hummingbirds are also dinosaurs.’ I’ve never heard that. I personally do see evidence currently that some species of dinosaurs evolved into birds, what Ken Ham fails to remember is that the Jurassic age was just one of three periods in the Mesozoic era, Cretaceous, Jurassic and Triassic. Each one of those periods is marked by significant extinction, and spanned some 500 millions years, much, much longer than humans have been around.

Ken Ham is a creation science moron, and I find his drivel funny. It’s not funny when people are stupid enough to believe it. Someone from the Answers in Genesis website wrote in about the booklet, “I wanted to thank you for sending me the package of booklets for my office. I put them out yesterday and I saw at least one patient with the ‘Dinosaur’ one in her hand. At the end of the day, the young woman who ‘floats’ on our wing was reading the ‘Does God Exist?’ booklet. She commented, ‘This is really interesting!’ Her name is Laura. I already use the Focus on the Family pamphlets in my office but had never thought of using yours. I plan to keep them in stock. People really like having literature like this in the office and I get lots of comments on them and it opens up lots of avenues for conversation. Thank you again for your ministry and thoughtfulness. — Debbie E., Oregon” How nice… looking around I think more and more that Ken Ham and people like him are retarded, and deserve to go live on the moon.

Comments:

Page 13 of 15 pages « First  <  11 12 13 14 15 >

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 11:45 PM

Kerry Green pic

If enough people do this, fundie comments will eventually be tagged as spam all over the blogosphere

Brilliant idea, and just your style.  Make outrageous and obviously false criticisms, whilst silencing the Christians from debate and discussion.

Surely that way you could win the argument?

timmeh United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 11:58 PM

timmeh pic

I still have yet to see proof the there was a jesus.

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 12:03 AM

elwedriddsche pic

Just had a quick look at the Akismet module. Its control panel (for manual overrides) searches the database for closed comments and gives you a choice to mark comments as ham and publish them or to mark them as spam and delete them. It’s straightforward to search for open and closed comments both and change the spam handler to not delete a currently open comment.

Intriguing.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Julian India Posted on 05/30/2007 at 12:32 AM

Julian pic

whilst silencing the Christians from debate and discussion.

What debate and discussion? All you have done here is thump the bible and make ridiculous statements like “nothing went bang”. Show me a physics text book or a real science site that states “nothing went bang”. Go on I dare you.

 Signature 

“I know you, Kingslayer, I have been here all the time, waiting for you to come to me. “

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/30/2007 at 01:29 AM

Kerry Green pic

Show me a physics text book or a real science site that states “nothing went bang”.

I see.  My mistake.  I didn’t realise I have to get my arguments re the veracity of Holy Scriptures from a physics text book.  I thought you were the people putting forward that view.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.  What did go bang?

And if it was something (since I am apparently wrong in thinking that it was nothing), where did that something come from?  A “Small Bang”, perhaps?

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/30/2007 at 01:32 AM

Kerry Green pic

What debate and discussion? All you have done here is thump the bible

In fact, the debate has been about alleged inconsistencies in the Bible, and as I have been the party arguing that those alleged inconsistencies are not inconsistencies at all, I would have thought referring to and explaining the texts in question would have been quite in order, and in fact necessary to the discussion.

Certain statements have been made by those opposing me, and I have directly answered those statements with logical explanations and appropriate references to the text.

Once again, nonsense arguments, personal attacks, unreasonable allegations, and nothing of substance at all from your side.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 01:51 AM

Sadie Jane pic

JulianP: What debate and discussion? All you have done here is thump the bible and make ridiculous statements like “nothing went bang”. Show me a physics text book or a real science site that states “nothing went bang”. Go on I dare you.

Don’t expect an answer, Julian. Kerry has proven that he’s not up to the task of answering our questions. Instead he tries to deflect our attention away to a topic he feels he has some measure of control over. It was fun baiting this narcissist for a while, but now I think it’s best we take Elwed’s advice and drive this troll back to the woods whence he came.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/30/2007 at 02:29 AM

Kerry Green pic

I don’t have a physics text book that says nothing went bang.  I wouldn’t try to find a supporting text, anyway, as I do not believe nothing went bang.  That is not my argument.

I thought it was your view that nothing went bang.  If I am incorrect, I apologise. Again, I ask, please enlighten me ... what did go bang?

I think that everything finite came as a result of a creative act by an infinite and eternal God.

Where do you think everything came from?

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/30/2007 at 02:33 AM

Kerry Green pic

It was fun baiting this narcissist for a while, but now I think it’s best we take Elwed’s advice and drive this troll back to the woods whence he came.

Interpretation:  Abandon this argument, he gives as good as he gets.

Julian India Posted on 05/30/2007 at 03:29 AM

Julian pic

I don’t have a physics text book that says nothing went bang.  I wouldn’t try to find a supporting text, anyway, as I do not believe nothing went bang.  That is not my argument.

I never said it was you moron. You said it was my argument. So I challanged you to name even one physicist who claims what you claim they claim. Are you that dense or is it an act?

I thought it was your view that nothing went bang.  If I am incorrect, I apologise. Again, I ask, please enlighten me ... what did go bang?

That is not my view, that is nobody’s view. My point was that Science does not claim what you claim it claims.
No scientist claims that “something/nothing went bang” as you put it. That isnt what the Big Bang theory claims. You criticise evolution, cosmology and physics when you dont even know what they conclude, let alone what they claim. I take back what I said earlier, you certainly are not pretending. Nobody could possibly pretend to be that stupid.

Let me put it so simply that even you will understand:
1> No scientist claims that “nothing went bang”
2> No biologist claims that “humans came from goo by chance”

If you want to have a debate or discussion at least make sure you know what the other side is claiming. Bible thumping and attacking strawmen is neither a debate nor a discussion.

But then you are a moron who has obviously sold his mind to the forces of darkness.

Sadie: Don’t expect an answer, Julian. Kerry has proven that he’s not up to the task of answering our questions. Instead he tries to deflect our attention away to a topic he feels he has some measure of control over. It was fun baiting this narcissist for a while, but now I think it’s best we take Elwed’s advice and drive this troll back to the woods whence he came.

Yes I think you and Elwed are right. Im done with this subpontibian dweller.

 Signature 

“I know you, Kingslayer, I have been here all the time, waiting for you to come to me. “

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/30/2007 at 04:50 AM

Kerry Green pic

Kerry: Again, I ask, please enlighten me ... what did go bang?

JulianP: That is not my view, that is nobody’s view.

So then, you don’t believe in the Big Bang? No-one believes in the Big Bang?  Gees, pardon me for being confused.

In fairness, I’m sure you’ll concede that its an easy mistake to make, as what I am driving at is “Where did everything come from?” If the Big Bang wasn’t the cause of everything, what was?  You know my answer, I want to know yours.

“The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. ... In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. - http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Ah, so it wasn’t “nothing” that went bang, it was one atom.  I was going to say it was one little atom, but it must have been pretty big to have resulted in all the atoms now existing.  Um ... can you explain to me where that first atom came from?  Thanks muchly smile

(And do atoms explode often?  Maybe it was a gelignite atom?)

JulianP: You criticise evolution, cosmology and physics when you dont even know what they conclude, let alone what they claim

You may have a point.  But you say everything didn’t come from God, so what did it come from?  I don’t care whether it went bang, pop, or whistle, where did it come from?

JulianP: Let me put it so simply that even you will understand:
1> No scientist claims that “nothing went bang”

Great.  I think I’ve got it.  Something went bang.  The first atom went bang.  And you are about to tell me where the first atom came from, and how it was so big as to produce all the atoms now existing.

JulianP: 2> No biologist claims that “humans came from goo by chance”

Thank you for your patience.  You do believe that humans came from goo, I believe?  The great primordial soup?  But you think it happened through the application of intelligence?  I mean, it either happened as planned, as designed, on purpose, or it happened by chance, surely?

I know that Natural Selection played a part in getting rid of all the evolutionary mistakes, but all the life forms still came into being without intelligent design, so obviously they were all by chance.  I mean, if they weren’t by chance, then they must have been by purpose.  Who’s purpose, please?

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/30/2007 at 05:07 AM

Kerry Green pic

You see, bottom line, if there is no God, then science has to tell us where everything came from - the first cause.  Why do you ridicule my theory, but refuse to divulge your own?  Obviously, yours has been proven by science, has it not?

Similarly, you propose that the human body, and every other life form, can from some mud with a few bolts of lightning thrown in, and without the application of any intelligence, no?

The human brain came together from a mud puddle ... The human eye came together from a mud puddle.  What luck!!

Science tries to veneer these theories with respectability by building up layer on layer of complexity, all of it assumptions and theories. Nothing verified, nothing verifiable.

But stripped of the complexity, your theories are pathetic.  You are the greatest believers in blind luck ever.  (Everything came from nothing.) Amazingly intricate and complex living systems came together from non-living materials without design or intelligent direction.

Yeah, we had a storm earlier today, and would you believe, a human just appeared from the puddle down the back yard.  And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Julian India Posted on 05/30/2007 at 05:17 AM

Julian pic

So then, you don’t believe in the Big Bang? No-one believes in the Big Bang?

Stop putting words in my mouth troll. Its a bad habit with you.

1> The Big Bang doesnt say that “nothing exploded”. You have yet to show me a single scientific source that claims that the Big Bang was “nothing exploding”.
2> A primordial atom is not the same as a single atom. If you had more than a single braincell you’d know that. The word “atom” is used because of it’s volume, not its mass.
3> The primordial atom did not have to “come from anywhere”.

You want an explanation but you would first need to understand SR,GR and QM not to mention higher mathematematics including vector calculus to even begin to understand. You need to get it through your head that the universe behaves differently on both quantum and relativistic scales than it does in our everyday experience. But that’s a concept you definately will not be able to wrap your head around. (BTW I’m waiting for him to claim that SR, GR and QM are wrong).

But you say everything didn’t come from God, so what did it come from?  I don’t care whether it went bang, pop, or whistle, where did it come from?

It didnt “come from anywhere”. Learn something about quantum fluctuations, the Heisenburg principle, vacuum energy and virtual particles before you ask stupid questions.

And also please tell me where your sky-fairy came from and who designed it.

I know that Natural Selection played a part in getting rid of all the evolutionary mistakes, but all the life forms still came into being without intelligent design, so obviously they were all by chance.  I mean, if they weren’t by chance, then they must have been by purpose.  Who’s purpose, please?

Intelligent design and chance and not exhaustive options. Lack of chance does not imply design or purpose. And your design theory has not explanatory power anyway as it raises a bigger question of who designed the designer. Your theory leads to an infinte regression of increasing complexity. You obviously have no idea what natural selection is if you keep saying that evolution is “chance”. About par for the course with you though.

 Signature 

“I know you, Kingslayer, I have been here all the time, waiting for you to come to me. “

timmeh United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 06:26 AM

timmeh pic

Well it is possible that something went bang. One possible answer is for that is found in string theory. If you think of the universe as a sheet of plastic. Then think of several layers of the this plastic being placed 1mm apart. Now look at black holes as if they were a dip in space formed by gravity. This dip would be like pressing your finger into one .5mm in. I will assume we have all used plastic wrap, and know that it has static electricity. Now think of the energy in the universe as similar to the static energy in the plastic wrap. When the two sheets get close enough they transfer energy. From the energy transfered matter can be made. Now this is a gross oversimplification but the you get the idea. For more information look string theory, and the tests done with particle accelerators.

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

zilch Austria Posted on 05/30/2007 at 06:27 AM

zilch pic

JulianP- what you said.

Kerry Green: what JulianP said.  You demand that science explain the existence of the Universe.  But where’s your explanation for the existence of God?  So far, you’ve only presented the usual apologist “machina ex deo” position: the machine requires an explanation, but the god does not, because He’s

eternal, or
beyond time and logic, or
the “uncaused cause”, etc.

In other words, you have simply substituted a made-up mystery with no scientifically or socially redeeming features for what science knows and what it admits not knowing.  You demand logical explanations from us but place your God out of reach of logic.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

timmeh United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 06:38 AM

timmeh pic

Similarly, you propose that the human body, and every other life form, can from some mud with a few bolts of lightning thrown in, and without the application of any intelligence, no?

Yes, over millions of years. There I said it. All life came from basic single cell life forms. You know know the basic Proteins that have been found in meteors.

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

timmeh United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 06:44 AM

timmeh pic

Sorry proteins and rna..

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Les United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 07:33 AM

Les pic

Mr. Hermit Green suffers from the same problem most Bible thumpers who assert science is wrong about the origins of the universe and life have, he assumes that unless science has a complete theory about something and can prove it correct beyond any doubt that it must be wrong and therefore the only other choice is Goddidit. I can only assume then that he believes gravity doesn’t exist and it’s just God using his sheer force of will to keep everything from flying out into space seeing as we don’t have a complete theory about how that works either.

He’s ignorant of the simple fact that science never claims to have completely proven anything, just to be pretty sure about some things, but always willing to change a theory should new evidence come along. The simple fact is science is still puzzling out how abiogenesis happened and they have a couple of promising theories — theories that are more than “some goo with a couple of lightening bolts thrown in” — and they’re working on it. Meanwhile the theory of evolution they tend to be pretty sure about as they have lots of evidence backing it up, but, and again this is a common mistake among his kind, Mr. Hermit Green mistakenly thinks that abiogenesis and the theory of evolution and even the Big Bang theory are all one and the same, which they are not. Evolution doesn’t require any particular theory about the start of life or the universe to be true in order to be true itself. Mr. Hermit Green’s sarcastic simile that he saw a lightening bolt hid a water puddle and a man walked out of it the other night shows just how ignorant he is about both the theory of abiogenesis and evolution.

With regards to both abiogenesis and the start of the universe the current answer offered by science is “we’re not sure, but we have a couple of ideas we’re working on.” The fact that we’re not sure doesn’t in any way mean that the only other answer is Goddidit which is what Mr. Hermit Green keeps trying to assert.

I don’t have time at the moment to directly respond to the dribblings Mr. Hermit Green left on this thread during the night, but I’ll see if I can’t make some time once I return home from work this evening.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 09:30 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Hermit-Green, the strength of science can be seen in the fact that science books are not “Holy Writ”.  You disprove something in a science book, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, other scientists test your disproof and get the same results, they publish, it’s reported at conferences, and five years down the road the textbooks change to reflect the new information.  The non-sacredness of the theories is why they (ahem) “evolve” to stay as close to observable fact as possible.  Darwin, for example, was ignorant of genetics and evolutionary biology has advanced by the discovery.  His work held up pretty well for the most part but nobody defends the parts that turned out not quite right.

Compare this to “sacred” theories.  The bible says the heavens are supported on pillars - NOT.  That the Earth is 6,000 years old - sorry, Chinese civilization is about that old, and I’ve seen Native American artifacts older than that to say nothing of assorted fossils I’ve collected over the years.  Bible misidentifies bats as birds - bats are mammals.  That whole global flood story collides rather catastrophically with current species distribution and diversity to say nothing of genetic studies.  And so on to hundreds of examples.  But the bible is still touted as “accurate in all things” and you wonder why it looks to us as if fundies have a finger in each ear, singing “La la la la la!”

And then - this is a deep mystery to me, perhaps you can explain it - the one big scientific theory that sort of looks like “God did it” you want no part of.  Why is that?  All the matter in the universe created from a pinpoint in the time it takes you to make a cheese sandwich?  Pretty impressive. You’d think God-shouters would embrace a theory like that.  But no, you don’t, you confuse it with abiogenesis and evolution and probably with the cheese sandwich. 

Science adapts to newly discovered facts.  Religion can adapt too - I know many religious people whose faith does not rest on denying facts that can be verified with repeatable experiments.  But you’re stuck in a backwater of religion.  Every time something in the Bible turns out to be wrong and you stamp your foot and say “Nuh-UH!” you look more ridiculous.  Can’t you see that?

nowiser United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 10:23 AM

nowiser pic

Science = layer on layer of complexity . . . Nothing verified, nothing verifiable.

Ohnoes!  Me eyes are bleedin’!

Shit. With humor like this, who needs coffee?

 Signature 

It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment—Galileo

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 11:30 AM

elwedriddsche pic

Skimming over this H-induced trainwreck, here’s a recap on H’s performance.

On science, H isn’t just wrong, he’s appallingly wrong.

On abiogenesis, he argues—using the term advisedly—most fallaciously. The (current) absence of a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis is not evidence of the absence of one. H has to show two things: First, that there cannot be a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis. Second, he has to show the truth of the explanation he favors using our evidentiary standards.

Did he briefly touch on evolution? Whatever, I’m not going to skim his screed again.

On Biblical contradictions: I personally couldn’t care less about the content of the Bible until such time as its premise (the Christian god exists) is shown to be true to my satisfaction.

So far, he’s done a lot of grandstanding and posturing, but I still don’t know what argument he’s trying to make or what arguments he even claims to have refuted. He also refuses to stick to one topic and his diversionary tactics actually seems to work. A word of advice: If you care to pursue this further, pick one topic and nail him down on it. Do not engage him on any other point until you’re done with first one.

So about that tosser, what’s his name again, whose talents escape me…

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Michael Peacock United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 11:43 AM

Michael Peacock pic

Les:

I can only assume then that he believes gravity doesn’t exist and it’s just God using his sheer force of will to keep everything from flying out into space seeing as we don’t have a complete theory about how that works either.

That reminde me ... wink

Hermit:

You see, bottom line, if there is no God, then science has to tell us where everything came from - the first cause.

What information do you have that would make you believe that?  Moreover, what makes you believe that science hasn’t already proposed plausible alternatives to the fanciful notion of an invisible man in the sky whipping up our universe on a whim? 

Hermit:

Why do you ridicule my theory, but refuse to divulge your own?  Obviously, yours has been proven by science, has it not?

This is the part that support Les’s claim above about your ignorance of science and religion. 

Your first mistake is that you assert your claims (along with any claims based on biblical authority) are equivalent to theory.  They aren’t.
Your claims are most assuredly equivalent to those made by devout and sincere members of other faiths - including the cargoists, whose religion appeared after WWII.  They are, however, not scientific.

Les, DOF, Sadie, Zilch, timmeh and many others have done a much better job than I could pointing out why the rest of your position is flawed, but I’ll spend a little bit on this error, although JulianP already started:

Hermit:

I know that Natural Selection played a part in getting rid of all the evolutionary mistakes, but all the life forms still came into being without intelligent design, so obviously they were all by chance.  I mean, if they weren’t by chance, then they must have been by purpose.

Here, your thinking is flawed by the false dichotomy you create between your misunderstanding of evolution and what you believe to be its only logical alternative.  Since your premise is in error, you conclusion is as well.  Rather than explain this (because I’m lazy and I know you’ll not be convinced by any number of facts), I’ll simply cite the talkorigins.org FAQ on this specific point (my emphasis added):

Talkorigins FAQ:

“The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.”

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn’t understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
...(remainder omitted)

By all means, keep the faith.  When you argue science with scientists, however, don’t expect faith-based claims to get much traction.

 Signature 

“When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.”
-- Thomas Payne

My Name is Michael - Brother Neutron Bomb of Uncanny Honesty - Peacock, and I write at The Smug Baldy Speaks

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 12:05 PM

elwedriddsche pic

(MP) Since your premise is in error, you conclusion is as well.

Technically, that’s the argumentum ad logicam, the fallacy fallacy.

Of course, H is appallingly wrong on evolution, too.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 12:39 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Technically, that’s the argumentum ad logicam

I think Hermit is caught in an argumentum ad Logitech where he has learned how to use a keyboard and mouse, but has nothing interesting to input to them.  raspberry

Michael Peacock United States Posted on 05/30/2007 at 01:43 PM

Michael Peacock pic

elwed:

(MP) Since your premise is in error, you conclusion is as well.

Technically, that’s the argumentum ad logicam, the fallacy fallacy.

I keep forgetting - tough crowd, this.

You’re right of course, although that’s a bit beside the point. To be more precise, I should have claimed that H is mistaken in both his premise (that his understanding of evolution is correct) as well as his conclusion (that the only logical alternative is goddidit).  These are clearly independent errors - and my claim that one leads to the other is clearly untenable.  Still, as you point out, he’s appallingly wrong on evolution. I would add that the fact that my statement falls prey an argument from fallacy certainly doesn’t prove the truth of his claims.

DOF:

I think Hermit is caught in an argumentum ad Logitech where he has learned how to use a keyboard and mouse, but has nothing interesting to input to them.

Touché

 Signature 

“When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.”
-- Thomas Payne

My Name is Michael - Brother Neutron Bomb of Uncanny Honesty - Peacock, and I write at The Smug Baldy Speaks

Page 13 of 15 pages « First  <  11 12 13 14 15 >

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main