err...The pink unicorn is visible.  And I’ve seen plenty of underwear trolls...as for the teletubbies you’ve got me on that one.

There’s no evidence that energy has existed forever...it’s possible, but there’s no evidence.

The pink unicorn may be visible, but the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not.  We can’t see Her, so we know logically She must be Invisible; Her Pinkness we have to take on Faith.

I’m not up on what cosmologists are saying about “forever”, so I’m not qualified to comment on the evidence or lack of such.  However, if something has to have been around forever, energy is a lot more plausible, because it’s simpler, than a Supreme Being.

You sure about that unicorn?  I see one right now and she’s eating marshmallows out of my hand.  What if you’re impaired in some way?

How do you know that energy must be simpler than God?  Where’s the evidence of that? 

In our lifetimes, there will always be an “evidentiary ceiling”.  Atheist or Zealot, at some point we each make a guess...in this we are similar.  It’s hypocritical of both sides to point the finger of ridicule.  I’ve been guilty of this many times.

In our lifetimes, there will always be an “evidentiary ceiling�?.  Atheist or Zealot, at some point we each make a guess...in this we are similar.  It’s hypocritical of both sides to point the finger of ridicule.  I’ve been guilty of this many times.

The main difference between Atheist and True Believers (TM) is that an True Believer, after taking that guess, STOPS asking further questions (and reacts angrily if anyone questions the guess he made). An atheist (or true scientist for that matter) would always be open to have his guess disproven by serious evidence.

The main difference between Atheist and True Believers (TM) is that an True Believer, after taking that guess, STOPS asking further questions (and reacts angrily if anyone questions the guess he made).

A well documented and valid criticism.  I aggree that most Believers are guilty as charged.  However, I disagree that as stated, it’s the “main” difference.  The main difference being God vs. No God.  ...we each make our best guess.  Hypocricy swirls on both sides.

You sure about that unicorn?  I see one right now and she’s eating marshmallows out of my hand.  What if you’re impaired in some way?

Beware, jwil! “Watch out for false unicorns. They come to you in horse’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious centaurs. By their marshmallows you will recognise them...”

Of course I’m impaired, in more ways than one.  Who isn’t?  But I hold on to my faith in the only true Unicorn, the One I can’t see…

How do you know that energy must be simpler than God?  Where’s the evidence of that?

Elementary logic.  If God is presumed to be omniscient, he would have to be more complex than the whole Universe, if he plays by the rules of logic.  If he doesn’t play by the rules, anything you say about him is nonsense.

Of course, if he is conceived to be simply a “first principle” that nudged everything into motion, he could be a lot simpler.  But that wouldn’t leave him much to do…

like i said, i wasnt sure where the woodpecker is origanlly from. but i guess you just werent reading. ah well.

i will tell you that in about the next four days i will have accurate names and imformation about this woodpecker. just especially for you.

oh, um, that other guy said he doesnt want to talk until i find proof that God exists? well i want proof that your energy exists, the energy that “blew up”.

so since we both dont have proof to where my God and your energy comes from. it boils down to…

i believe in the beggining, someone way smarter and more powerfull (now hold on kids, this is where it gets confusing) the person i am talking about is God! created everything. he made the rules, he tells us what to do.(in a nutshell, i dont really feel like typing the whole beggining of the Bible out)

you say we came from energy, it blew up, we became rock, it rained on us, we became soup, and then eveolved into a person after a REALLY super duper long time. there are no rules. do what you wish because you are an accident.(in a nutshell, i dont realy feel like typing your theory out)

now, just honestly what is more logical?

its like this. there are two computers. smartest computers EVER made by man. one says that it has evolved from micro-chips and megabytes and the like. the other argues back and says it was created by man… what computer would you believe?

by the way, i only joined this outrageously stupid site to defend my hero a little bit. you guys have so much against Dr.Kent Hovind. can i ask why? why do you make fun of him constantly and say he is a moron?
did you know he has debated the top evolution scientists around? plus many others.

did you know that nobody will debate him now?
i wounder why that is? is it because he is right and everyone is scared of him, because they know eveything he says is right and it gets them mad.

like i dont blame half those scientists for still believing evolution after debating that guy.

if i spent $1000+(i dont know how much all that college stuff costs yet) on college education and studied and worked on it for a good part of my life, i wouldnt give up arguing it either!

im guilty myself of arguing something that is wrong, when i thought it to be true, and then still arguing it after i was proven wrong many times. its just cause you feel stupid for thinking a stupid thing. but after i have been proven wrong countless and countless times. i of course will change my mind and blieve the true thing because it is true.

everything that i ahve heard of, that has been found by evolutionists has been proven wrong so far.

the geological column doesnt even exists, show me somewhere, where it does.
the whole horse graph was proven wrong 80 years ago.
evolutionists found skulls that had the brow of a monkey, and was longer than that of a normal human being. did you know that the people in the bible way at the beggining of creation lived to like 800-900 years old? did you know that bones in your face never stop growing? so if somebody lived to be 900 years old and the bonmes in thier face never stopped growing, thier whole life...what would they look like? thier forehead would be huge! like a monkeys! did you know all your muscles are connected to the back of your skull? what would happen after 900 years of your muscles tugging at your skull?? that would make it pretty wierdly shaped compared to that of someone who is 30 years old right?

anyways, school tommorow, im off to bed, have a good night and God bless all you guys.

like i said, i wasnt sure where the woodpecker is origanlly from. but i guess you just werent reading. ah well.

True, you said you were “pretty sure” it was from Australia.  My point was that if you had taken the trouble to google it, you would have found out in five seconds that that wasn’t true.  Same goes for the rest of your “disproofs” of evolution.  They are so misinformed, they are not even logical enough to be wrong.

you say we came from energy, it blew up, we became rock, it rained on us, we became soup, and then eveolved into a person after a REALLY super duper long time. there are no rules. do what you wish because you are an accident.(in a nutshell, i dont realy feel like typing your theory out)

There are no rules?  I am an accident?  Do some homework before you tell us what evolutionary theory says.

Zilch,

http://www.evolutionpages.com/

Double-dipping

My favorite quotes from http://www.evolutionpages.com/Intelligent Design.htm

ID proponents spend all their time and effort creating hypothetical (and empirically and logically unsupported) criticisms of biological science. They do no research of their own. They add nothing to the sum of human knowledge. They are, fundamentally, intellectual parasites.

Furthermore, this is bad theology, because it limits God’s actions to those areas of the Universe in which there are gaps in our scientific knowledge. The problem for such an approach is that our scientific knowledge continues to expand, and expand rapidly. The gaps are getting narrower and narrower. This approach condemns the concept of God to a process of constant diminishment as the areas for God’s action, defined by ID as those things that we cannot explain scientifically for the moment, become smaller and smaller.

The god of the shrinking gaps…

JesusFreak is back I see. I should really go back to bed as I’m running on only two and a half hours sleep, but what the hell…

like i said, i wasnt sure where the woodpecker is origanlly from. but i guess you just werent reading. ah well.

We read it just fine. The point remains, however, that you’re trying to argue against Evolution using an example you’re not even completely familiar with. If you can’t even get the basic facts of your example correct then why should we do anything other than laugh at it? Do you go into all arguments as ill-prepared?

i will tell you that in about the next four days i will have accurate names and imformation about this woodpecker. just especially for you.

We won’t be holding our breath in anticipation.

oh, um, that other guy said he doesnt want to talk until i find proof that God exists? well i want proof that your energy exists, the energy that “blew up�?.

I’ll use one of the Godiot’s favorite proofs against themselves: YOU are proof of that energy’s existence because matter is just energy in a different form. Therefore the fact that you exist at all is proof that the energy which “blew up” exists. You can turn energy into matter and matter into energy, but you can’t destroy said energy.

so since we both dont have proof to where my God and your energy comes from. it boils down to…

This should be a stunning revelation…

i believe in the beggining, someone way smarter and more powerfull (now hold on kids, this is where it gets confusing) the person i am talking about is God! created everything. he made the rules, he tells us what to do.(in a nutshell, i dont really feel like typing the whole beggining of the Bible out)

Good because most of us here are already plenty familiar with the beginning of the Bible, but I can see how it might be confusing for someone of your intellectual depth.

you say we came from energy, it blew up, we became rock, it rained on us, we became soup, and then eveolved into a person after a REALLY super duper long time. there are no rules. do what you wish because you are an accident.(in a nutshell, i dont realy feel like typing your theory out)

Considering that it’s clear from this example you don’t have a firm grasp of what our theory is it’s probably best that you don’t try to type it out and make yourself look like more of a fool for having done so…

now, just honestly what is more logical?

That’s a funny statement to make considering that Gods, by most definitions, are inherently illogical concepts to begin with.

You’re basically asking the following question: Which is more logical? That there exists a being of such immense power and complexity that he can cause all of creation to exist simply because he wants it to? Or that there are a set of natural laws and phenomena that, while not completely understood, make the existence of the Universe and everything in it possible?

The truth is that logic, by itself, doesn’t demand that either answer be the right answer as it’s just a tool for making determinations about a concept and if you start with false assumptions you can reach a logically sound false conclusion. I can come up with a logically sound argument on the existence of Diminutive Underwear Trolls, but that doesn’t mean they exist.

its like this. there are two computers. smartest computers EVER made by man. one says that it has evolved from micro-chips and megabytes and the like. the other argues back and says it was created by man… what computer would you believe?

Wow, is that ever a pathetic argument. You do realize that computers, no matter how smart they may happen to be, aren’t organic organisms like humans are, right? Big flaw in your example, but I wonder if you can figure out why…

by the way, i only joined this outrageously stupid site to defend my hero a little bit. you guys have so much against Dr.Kent Hovind. can i ask why? why do you make fun of him constantly and say he is a moron?
did you know he has debated the top evolution scientists around? plus many others.

If “Dr.” Kent Hovind is your hero then that explains a helluva lot about you. We’re against him because he’s a total fucking moron who makes patently absurd claims and misrepresents science to push his religious agenda. He has engaged in some debates with some Evolutionists and it made for some great entertainment until we realized there were poor deluded fools such as yourself lapping up every ridiculous concept he tossed out there.

did you know that nobody will debate him now?
i wounder why that is? is it because he is right and everyone is scared of him, because they know eveything he says is right and it gets them mad.

No, it’s because he’s a total fucking moron who makes outrageous claims without anything to back them up. When given the choice of getting more science done or arguing with fools most scientists will choose not to waste their time on the idiot as it just leaves less time for serious work to be accomplished.

like i dont blame half those scientists for still believing evolution after debating that guy.

if i spent $1000+(i dont know how much all that college stuff costs yet) on college education and studied and worked on it for a good part of my life, i wouldnt give up arguing it either!

What are you, 12 years old? So your basically saying that folks don’t give up on the Theory of Evolution because they spent a lot of money on their education? Give me a break.

Incidentally, the average costs for a 4 year degree in a public university in 2005 is $21,964 and for a private university it’s $84,940.

im guilty myself of arguing something that is wrong, when i thought it to be true, and then still arguing it after i was proven wrong many times.

I’d say this is yet another occasion where you’re guilty once again…

its just cause you feel stupid for thinking a stupid thing. but after i have been proven wrong countless and countless times. i of course will change my mind and blieve the true thing because it is true.

Then perhaps there’s hope for you yet, but I still won’t be holding my breath waiting for you to come to your senses.

everything that i ahve heard of, that has been found by evolutionists has been proven wrong so far.

Then either you’ve not heard as much as you think you have or you’re only listening to the likes of “Dr.” Kent Hovind. Either way, the fact that you believe the above statement is just a sad indictment of your education on the subject.

the geological column doesnt even exists, show me somewhere, where it does.

OK, here you go. Though I doubt you’ll actually take the time to read it.

the whole horse graph was proven wrong 80 years ago.

Even if it was that’s not proof that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, just that the horse graph is incorrect. I notice you don’t bother to provide any references for your claims, though.

evolutionists found skulls that had the brow of a monkey, and was longer than that of a normal human being. did you know that the people in the bible way at the beggining of creation lived to like 800-900 years old? did you know that bones in your face never stop growing? so if somebody lived to be 900 years old and the bonmes in thier face never stopped growing, thier whole life...what would they look like? thier forehead would be huge! like a monkeys! did you know all your muscles are connected to the back of your skull? what would happen after 900 years of your muscles tugging at your skull?? that would make it pretty wierdly shaped compared to that of someone who is 30 years old right?

LOL! Oh man, I can’t believe you’re seriously proposing the above as a valid explanation for an apparent transitional fossil! I’m also stunned that you’re seriously suggesting that people once lived to be 900 years old! Oh my sides hurt! Stop, you’re killing me here!

anyways, school tommorow, im off to bed, have a good night and God bless all you guys.

Wish your God would bless you with a few more brain cells. That’s some funny shit up there. Oh man, I don’t know if I’ll be able to get back to sleep after this much fun.

Thanks for the link, elwed.  Looks like a pretty well thought out intro to evolution.

You there, jesusfreak?  Check out the evolutionpages, and while you’re at it, talkorigins has a lot of good stuff too.

I see that Les has posted while I was writing this.  I can’t improve upon his dissection of your post, but here’s another angle:  you obviously think life is so wonderfully orderly that it needs explaining.  I agree- life is wonderfully orderly, and there must be some explanation for all that order.  You seem to think, as William Paley wrote in Natural Theology (1809), that while rocks might conceivably have been here forever, anything as complex as a computer (Paley used the example of a watch) implies a Designer.

There are two problems with this argument.  One, which Paley couldn’t have known about, but which we are learning more about every day, is that matter, under the right circumstances, can and does organize itself, at the expense of energy from the environment.  That’s evolution (and crystal formation), and the evidence for it, while it still has gaps (unsurprisingly, given the time periods involved), is overwhelming.

The other problem, which was well known in Paley’s time as well, is this:  if order, in the form of life, needs an explanation, then presuming a God is no answer- a God who created all that order would have to be even more orderly than his creation.  Who created him- SuperGod?  And SuperDuperGod created SuperGod?  If you just say that God was here forever, or that it’s a mystery, then you might as well say that energy was here forever, or that it’s a mystery- God has no explanatory power, so invoking him is unmotivated, unless there’s other evidence for his existence.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2128755/

*ROTFL*

ROTFL+WP indeed, elwed.

About the “god of the shrinking gaps”:

What surprises me about the promoters of ID is that they seem oblivious to the trend: the gaps left over for their Designer to hide in keep getting smaller. If I were an IDer, I’d be a mite disconcerted about the squeezing involved. Used to be room behind every raincloud, and now He (or She, or It) has to duck out of sight under some missing molecular scaffolding. Assuming preservation of mass, the pressure must be getting tremendous. No wonder the Designer is breaking out all over…

This was posted by a usually reliable source (myself) at Pharyngula back in May.

ok, let me get this straight. i have studied the theory of evolution alot, i have been taught it in school and in university. i have read countless things in books and on the net. i have seen so many things about it on TV it makes my brain hurt. if you say i am so wrong with what your theory is, please, explain it to me. i will gladly listen.

i will tell you that in about the next four days i will have accurate names and imformation about this woodpecker. just especially for you.

You running on a 300 baud modem?

Computers are not smart.  Merely dumb, complex, machines which must be TOLD what to do. 

(i dont know how much all that college stuff costs yet)
...
i have been taught it in school and in university.

So have you or have you not taken college courses? 

Hopefully you’ve followed some of the links provided.

ok, let me get this straight. i have studied the theory of evolution alot, i have been taught it in school and in university. i have read countless things in books and on the net. i have seen so many things about it on TV it makes my brain hurt. if you say i am so wrong with what your theory is, please, explain it to me. i will gladly listen.

I’m stunned to think you may be a university student especially when you claim to be clueless about what it costs to go to university. Are you attending Uncle Billy Bob’s School of Higher Learnin’ and Tackle Shop or something?

Have you checked out any of the links you’ve been so helpfully provided yet? Have you discerned that the Big Bang Theory is separate from the Theory of Evolution yet? That Evolution itself doesn’t deal with how life started—that would be the Abiogensis Theory—just how it got to it’s present state? Can you give me a concise definition of what the Theory of Evolution proposes without worrying about trying to denigrate it first? Can you snatch this pebble from my hand?

If not then you’re still not ready.

It’s one thing to reject evolution because of religious reasons. Failing to understand the simple, yet so elegant principles behind it is something else…

i will tell you that in about the next four days i will have accurate names and imformation about this woodpecker. just especially for you.

We await eagerly. Be advised, however, that there is an article at Talk Origins discussing creationists’ misconceptions about the anatomy of a woodpecker.

It’s one thing to reject evolution because of religious reasons. Failing to understand the simple, yet so elegant principles behind it is something else…

While the principles behind evolution may be simple and elegant, elwed, the results (frogs, ducks, people) are anything but simple.  Therefore, I must sympathise with those who find it easier to invent a God to do the heavy design work, rather than try to figure it out themselves.

Sure, it’s fairly easy to grasp the basic idea…
1) inheritance of traits
2) random mutations generating new traits
3) differential survival of useful traits, repeated ad longem

...but it’s rather difficult to imagine the details that led to, say, T.Rex.  One of the stumbling blocks is the idea of random mutations being equated with random change of traits:  how is it, one asks, given that living things are comprised (depending on how one looks at it) of billions of “traits”, that there are any useful mutations at all?

The answer is that, while mutations are random at the molecular level, their effects are not as unorderly as might be expected, because of the hierarchical developmental effects of genes.  The best analogy I know of for understanding this is PZ Myers’ comparison of development with a Fourier transform.  This helps show how evolution itself is hierarchical: not only have living things evolved to be fit, but their evolvability has also evolved.  In other words, life has evolved to make random mutation more likely to come up with useful material for natural selection to work upon.

Zilch, have I mentioned this link recently?

Adrian Thompson’s Hardware Evolution Page

Please note Analysis of Unconventional Evolved Electronics (the direct link to the paper is blacklisted by EE, perhaps because of sussex in the URL?!)

The basic message here is that evolution results in rather incomprehensible inner workings, even to the human creators of lab experiments.

I’m not going to reread the woodpecker rant, but there’s nothing difficult about physical adaptions in the response to the chance exploitation of uncontested food sources. Or something like that.

Since I’m tossing links about already, here’s another one for a simulation package that can be used to model what amounts to the evolutionary origin of morality:

Altruist: Computer simulation of biological evolution in structured populations

Oh, and not to forget Avida.

It seems a lot of people have put a lot of thought into this topic.

This is my first (and maybe last) time posting here. I wanted to point out some observations that I made.

First, it is much more persuasive an argument when insults are not flung around and you don’t try to make a joke out of the person you are addressing. People can see through that sort of thing and realise that you are not really listening to them.

This is a fight between religion and science that has been going for a very long time. It seems that this board is mostly dominated by the scientists and when a christian comes along to say something, they are shouted at and ridiculed until they leave, dismissing the others as fools.

That is probably because you are being very foolish.

Think of how many people throughout history have been laughed at for believing in something, which was later proved to be accurate - even revolutionary.

Most people on this board are so closed-minded that they can’t see the truth. I’m not talking about “the truth” that God is all powerful, because I’m one of the scientists. I do not believe in God. I am talking about the fact that these are people who you are sending your messages to. You all seem to be very smart and I’m sure you did well at school, but you have to admit - you don’t know everything. One of the things that you don’t know is how to convince people of your beliefs. How would you behave if, on a Christian board, you posted up your opinions about creationism and evolution, then got flamed about being a heathen?

Here is something I thought of while reading some of the other posts - the idea that in fact the scientists and god-fearers may actually believe in the same thing. In other words, God is Energy. Probably there are many reasons why this is wrong, but it is interesting anyway.

And please don’t point out the fact that I might have insulted just about every reader of this post while hippocritically saying that arguments with insults are less effective. You may in fact be proving my point while you write that… I’m not sure I didn’t think that far ahead.

Please read my post constructively and objectively.

Anonymous

You know it’s very hard to read your post as being constructive when you’re too chicken shit to use your real email address. Seeing as this is your first and last post to this site there’s really not much point in addressing anything you’ve said, especially considering that you’ve taken steps to ensure you won’t be notified about responses anyway.

First, it is much more persuasive an argument when insults are not flung around and you don’t try to make a joke out of the person you are addressing. People can see through that sort of thing and realise that you are not really listening to them.

This is a fight between religion and science that has been going for a very long time. It seems that this board is mostly dominated by the scientists and when a christian comes along to say something, they are shouted at and ridiculed until they leave, dismissing the others as fools.

Short answer: talk shit, get bit.

People get chewed out b/c they post the same refuted arguments in a semi-literate tirad.  The regulars on this board have patiently pointed out counterarguments.  However, when the person you’re arguing with refuses to look at your supporting data and just switches to another tried and tired argument, it gets REALLY tiring after the umpteenth time. 

I don’t blame Les or anyone else on this thread for blowing up.  Having read this from it’s start WAY back at the start of the original Hovind thread, I’ve seen posters show up and repeat the same pro-god arguments that where already debated. They refuse to read about the theory of evolution, instead insisting we sum it up in one line that they can call bullshit on.  Some can’t be bothered with providing evidence to support their arguments.  So, yeah, the patience wears thin.  Jesusfreak’s arguements are not new, and I would say he should read the original Hovind thread, but the “Most Commented” section isn’t up, so I couldn’t expect for him to necessarily know about it. 

You all seem to be very smart and I’m sure you did well at school, but you have to admit - you don’t know everything.

I don’t think anyone here claims to know everything.  Of the regulars, anyway. 

One of the things that you don’t know is how to convince people of your beliefs.

True.  How the hell DO you change the mind of someone who only wants to rant/proselytize?  Kinda hard to do when they have no interest in reading your arguements and evidence.  Now, given the apparant minimal literacy level of some posters, reading is a stretch for them…

Of course, the proselytizers that show up here don’t know how to convince people either.

How would you behave if, on a Christian board, you posted up your opinions about creationism and evolution, then got flamed about being a heathen?

Most of us would fully expect that.  I think we’d also be prepared to post/link our supporting arguments. 
Generally, we don’t post there.  Proselytizing is not one of our mandates. 

Les posted while I was writing.  You need to stop and look at what’s happening in Les’s life right now.  How patient would you be if you were in his situation?

I’m sorry you feel that way.

I planned to check back on my post to see what people would say about it. The reason I didn’t include my email address is because I have a somewhat high profile and don’t give out my name or address on the internet. I try not to mix my business and personal life.

Sometimes people say some brilliant things Les, but sometimes quite the opposite. I don’t exclude myself from this behaviour either.

Self-reflection brings us a step closer to the truth.

Anonymous