Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > All About Antievolution > Intelligent Design > How Evolutionists do things

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:41    Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest. In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry. Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively. However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible. As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists. Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would. In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously. Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything? Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

HPLC_Sean Posts: 12 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:16    Regarding your first paragraph: No one is immune to bias. You are living proof of that; your religious beliefs, a factor that is irrelevant to the data presented, clearly color your arguments against evolution. Of course, you are free to draw the conclusions you wish from the papers you've read (understood?), and I'm free to disagree with you. One need not be a Christian or a follower of any other religion to come to different conclusions. -- Just don't teach your Christian-biased conclusions on science to my children in science class; they want to learn science, not Christianity.-- You've specifically accused peer-reviewed authors of bias by assuming "evolution over Christianity". Can you demonstrate to us where that bias is represented in the data? Regarding your second paragraph: ID is not a theory as it does not explain any phenomenon to any testable extent. At very best, it is a critique of the Theory of Evolution hopelessly doped with Christian bias (see above). Contrary to the first sentence, ID does not provide an empiric basis for anything. In order for something to be empirical it must be based on experience, trial and error, or experiment; it must be derived from the senses and not by logical deduction. ID proponents don't do experiments and have no empirically derived data. Regarding transfer of genes from one organism to another by eating them: First of all, parsimonious means scanty or meager (adj.: too careful with money or assets). You might want to revise your wording before submitting your data to Science or Nature. Secondly, your hypothesis is laughable. You've grossly misunderstood and oversimplified the biochemical mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in the most infantile way. By your hypothesis, I should have corn genes, celery genes, carrot genes, rice genes, wheat genes, yeast genes, and genetic material from MANY other organisms incorporated into my own which is not the case. You did know that grains, yeast and vegetables have DNA didn't you? BTW: If you're an ID parody character, bravo. You've succeeded in entertaining me. I'll keep reading your posts for their entertainment value.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:19    Quote Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their preconceived amoral ontology and reject the rest. What data are rejected? ID has done no research, produced no data. There is always lively debate within the scientific community about the quality and relevance of individual research results; new findings have to fight for acceptance. Repeatability is the key. Quote In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread Try posting on PT. You'll find unsupported contention cuts little ice with real scientists. Quote I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry. The ones you linked to here did not do that in fact or in purpose. Quote As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists. Conclusions unsupported by those data, perhaps. Especially if you are emulating Uri Bill Dembski. Quote Intelligent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would. All that IDists have done is to make assertions. They have done no research, produced no evidence, tested no theories. ID is not science. Quote In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Symbiogenesis and horizontal gene transfer is an uncontroversial theory for single-celled organisms. What you seem to be proposing, that genetic information can be incorporated in the genotype of a multi-cellular organism by ingestion is laughable. Quote Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism. Ah, the Satanic trinity. Evolutionary biology continues to build on the ideas of Darwin. Origin of Species is not the evolutionists' Bible; rather a useful reference of past work on which to build and continue to develop our understanding of how life evolves.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:23    HPLC_Sean You beat me to it. I promise I hadn't read your post before posting mine and didn't crib "laughable".

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:27    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,11:41) Quote Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest. You are committing a fallacy here: you equate evolutionary biologists (and scientists and laypersons in other fields who accept the theory of evolution) with people who amoral - presumarly because you are under the mistaken impression that one must be an atheist to accept the theory. You are wrong.  Just thought you should know.  The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith. Quote In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry. You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words. Quote Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively. Again, you are factually incorrect - your quote-mining was demonstrated to be nonsense, and more valid citations were provided.   Quote However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible. Factually incorrect.  I know a large number of devout Christians who accept evolution.  According to you, they can't exist.  Will you now admit that you are wrong? Quote As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists. You draw different conclusions not on the basis of your faith but on your lack of understanding of basic biological science.  You shouldn't confuse the two. Quote Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. No, actually it doesn't.  Cite the actual research that demonstrates this. Quote IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would. Since there is no IDT, I'm afraid this statement is factually incorrect.  ID has no theory - it has, at best, a blatantly true hypothesis: somethings in the universe are the result of intent.  That's not a theory, I'm afraid. Quote In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously. Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry. Quote Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything? Because we don't.  We use the Modern Synthesis as the best explanation to fit the facts.  You need to read some more modern science. Quote Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism. Oh, dear.  Lack of knowledge of history does not make a refutation. But an excellent simulation of a creationist.  Bravo!  Well done! Quote Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest. You are committing a fallacy here: you equate evolutionary biologists (and scientists and laypersons in other fields who accept the theory of evolution) with people who amoral - presumarly because you are under the mistaken impression that one must be an atheist to accept the theory. You are wrong.  Just thought you should know.  The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith. Quote In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry. You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words. Quote Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively. Again, you are factually incorrect - your quote-mining was demonstrated to be nonsense, and more valid citations were provided.   Quote However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible. Factually incorrect.  I know a large number of devout Christians who accept evolution.  According to you, they can't exist.  Will you now admit that you are wrong? Quote As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists. You draw different conclusions not on the basis of your faith but on your lack of understanding of basic biological science.  You shouldn't confuse the two. Quote Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. No, actually it doesn't.  Cite the actual research that demonstrates this. Quote IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would. Since there is no IDT, I'm afraid this statement is factually incorrect.  ID has no theory - it has, at best, a blatantly true hypothesis: somethings in the universe are the result of intent.  That's not a theory, I'm afraid. Quote In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously. Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry. Quote Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything? Because we don't.  We use the Modern Synthesis as the best explanation to fit the facts.  You need to read some more modern science. Quote Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism. Oh, dear.  Lack of knowledge of history does not make a refutation. But an excellent simulation of a creationist.  Bravo!  Well done!

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,16:16    Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.) Henry

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,13:20    Quote Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry.  Turning your fangs on Margulis, eh? Quote You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words.   Darwinists caught with their pants around their ankles= quote-mining. Besides, we "creos" are only interested in the data behind the quotes rather than the inept spin-doctoring that clutters the discussion section. But we thought you would figure this out by now. Apparently not. Quote The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.  So say the evilutionists when the cameras are on. Some spokesmen (Dr. Kenneth Miller) claim otherwise. He's a useful sort, I guess. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:06    Quote Secondly, your hypothesis is laughable. You've grossly misunderstood and oversimplified the biochemical mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in the most infantile way. My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan. (I am aware they got divorced; it's amazing how often that happens with evolutionists! In my version, complex specified information does not increase. In Mrs. Sagan's, it does. She claimed mitochondria and chloroplasts were eaten by other one-celled organisms to become animal and plant cells without any mechanism at all. This is a gargantuan increase in complex specified information utterly impossible without the aid of intellegent design. In my version there is no increase in CSI, and a plasuible mechanism by wihch this occurs. A paper was published that describessoma-to-germline inheiritence. Since this requires a great deal more CSI increase than digestive system-to-germline inheiritence, my hypothesis is quite plausible in the light of current knowledge. Quote By your hypothesis, I should have corn genes, celery genes, carrot genes, rice genes, wheat genes, yeast genes, and genetic material from MANY other organisms incorporated into my own which is not the case. According to some papers, you do. This is how evolutionists construct their godless "Tree of Life" How do you think they come up with "evidence" that humans are related to plants and animals from junk DNA? This is the main point I've been trying to get you evolutionists to understand! Quote You did know that grains, yeast and vegetables have DNA didn't you? Yes I do. Do not take me for being stupid. Stupidity does with the Darwinian faith, not the Christian one. How stupid do you have to be to put your faith and trust in a man everybody recognizes is dead? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:21    Quote No one is immune to bias. You are living proof of that; your religious beliefs, a factor that is irrelevant to the data presented, clearly color your arguments against evolution. Of course, you are free to draw the conclusions you wish from the papers you've read (understood?), and I'm free to disagree with you. One need not be a Christian or a follower of any other religion to come to different conclusions. This perspective leads your evolutionary hiney down the road to nihilistic scepticism. What you said is correct, all evidence is interpreted in the light of presuppositions. However, if you can not choose between presuppositions, you have no means of knowledge. Your evolutioary worldview closes you to the possibility of making any authentic knowledge claims. All knowledge claims actually presuppose the Christian worldview. This has been proved by the late Dutch theologian Cornelius van Til. Read the essays at this site and be enlightened. Quote -- Just don't teach your Christian-biased conclusions on science to my children in science class; they want to learn science, not Christianity.-- Why should Darwinian-based conclusions be preferred over Christian-based ones. When, by your own admission, no one is immune from bias? Indeed, science can not exist independently of Christianity, since it involves knowledge claims (see above). -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:49    I said [quote=]The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.[/quote] The Ghost apparently didn't bother to read what I wrote and answered with a charming non-sequitur: Quote So say the evilutionists when the cameras are on. Some spokesmen (Dr. Kenneth Miller) claim otherwise. He's a useful sort, I guess. We weren't talking about what the people think - we're talking about the theory. Use some simple text, like Futuyma, and find me the precise part of the theory which makes theological claims. Hint: you'll be unable to. Why be wrong in public?  Don't discuss things you are not well-versed in, and avoid straw-men. But again, superb paradoy of a creationist.  Spot on.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:52    Quote Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.) Because the Holy Bible says otherwise. The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity. Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish. This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:13    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52) Quote Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.) Because the Holy Bible says otherwise. The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity. Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish. This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act. OMG, this is hilarious   We will having a Darwinian Conspiracy thread next   Glad to see some people have a sense of humor though. -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

HPLC_Sean Posts: 12 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:50    G-o-Paley said: Quote My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan. Lynn Margulis' (Mrs. Sagan) work isn't being debated here. Her work was rigorously researched, it proposed biochemical mechanisms, and was peer-reviewed. Her work was fecund and led to multiple new branches of research. Comparing your hypothesis to hers by invoking a nonsensical and tangential notion like CSI as your main propellant is reputation suicide. You do know that C.S.I. is B.U.N.K. don't you? Have you ever heard of DNAse? RNAse? Proteases? These enzymes are found in many cell types in many organisms and serve specifically to digest and destroy foreign genetic material. Many eukaryotic cells have a nucleus that protects the native genetic material from foreign genetic material and nuclear pore receptors are VERY selective about what goes in and out of the precious karyon. Prokaryotes don't have nuclei so their genetic material is easily altered by compatible foreign genetic material. That's why cloning is easy with bacteria and very difficult with eukaryotes. All you have is CSI to back up your hypothesis? Gee... All biochemists have is 50 years of studying DNA recombination. If I could buy your hypothesis for $50 or Lynn Margulis' for $50,000, I'd save my money for hers. Oh, this one is great... Quote How stupid do you have to be to put your faith and trust in a man everybody recognizes is dead? Do you have faith in Jesus? Didn't he die (for your sins)? Repent G-o-Paley... The only person being nihilistically skeptical here is you and your creationist fundamentalists. I mean, how much data do you need before you're convinced? On the flip side, what if I needed the same kind of proof to believe in God? Wouldn't you be up a creek? Quote Why should Darwinian-based conclusions be preferred over Christian-based ones. Becuase one is SCIENCE and the other is FAITH. The former required independently and repeatedly verified data, the latter requires a nice story and a good story-teller. The former has led to medical advances that allow you to live twice as long as your ancestors did a mere 100 years ago and the latter has caused more than a few wars and misery for 2000 years. I can go on... Ah! Theologians! A pillar of unbiased research! It takes a Christian theologian to determine that knowledge is dependant on Christianity. Isn't pride a deadly sin? 'Cause that's as proud as it gets...

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,11:34    Whoops, I said "amoral" in my previous post when I meant to say "immoral", but Ghost appears to have used what I meant rather than what I said. Henry

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,15:22    Quote Lynn Margulis' (Mrs. Sagan) work isn't being debated here. Her work was rigorously researched, it proposed biochemical mechanisms, and was peer-reviewed. Her work was fecund and led to multiple new branches of research.  I.D. is peer-reviewed, over the squeals of many wee piggies I might add. Quote All you have is CSI to back up your hypothesis? Elaborated and elucidated in a delectable series of monographs. Read them first to revel in their sheer beauty, then gently glide into the cold, crystalline bath of the mathematics proper. It's not often that one can discern the traces, the whispers, of a mind greater than one's own. Don't be an ungrateful little prig. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

FishyFred Posts: 43 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,16:06    Quote I.D. is peer-reviewed, over the squeals of many wee piggies I might add. This was covered on either Pharyngula or the Questionable Authority (or both). There was a Proquest or LexisNexis or other scholarly paper search for "intelligent design." Essentially, there were maybe 10-20 papers in which "intelligent design" was in the proper context. Out of those, none of them supported ID.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,08:52    Quote This was covered on either Pharyngula or the Questionable Authority (or both). There was a Proquest or LexisNexis or other scholarly paper search for "intelligent design." Essentially, there were maybe 10-20 papers in which "intelligent design" was in the proper context. Out of those, none of them supported ID.  Not any more. In fact, the squeals were created precisely because an ID-oriented paper found its way into a scientific journal. See this site  I admit, this source might not be the most reliable. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,02:07    ONE ID-oriented paper? Did I hear you right there? Only one? Just ONE as opposed to God knows how many in support of evolution over 150 years? My God, the case for ID is truly compelling. -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,02:18    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52) Quote Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.) Because the Holy Bible says otherwise. Sources please. Quote The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity. Again, sources please. Quote Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish. Sadly, even God's words in the Bible doesn't make Christians act in a Christian way. They were forbidden to shed blood, so instead they got round it by putting people on the rack and finding similar loopholes. Or how about the bishop who said "Kill them all. God will know his own." when asked what to do about the population of a town that had been captured and had quite a few Christians living there. Quote This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act. And here GoP finally leaves all semblance of reality behind and bravely wanders off into a twilight world of X-files like fantasy. -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,10:44    Quote ONE ID-oriented paper? Did I hear you right there? Only one? Just ONE as opposed to God knows how many in support of evolution over 150 years? My God, the case for ID is truly compelling.  Yes, and the evos are doing their best to make sure that little indiscretion never happens again. See the journal's statement.  Besides, I think the Behe-Snoke paper also qualifies as an I.D. paper. C'mon, Wonderpants, keep up with the discussion. Quote Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52) Quote   Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.) Because the Holy Bible says otherwise.   Sources please.  What are our schools producing nowadays? Hint: look near the front. Quote Quote   The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity.   Again, sources please.  Well, there's My Struggle by some German fellow. What was his name? Don't worry if you don't know: ask the nearest homeschooled kid and he'll tell you. Quote Sadly, even God's words in the Bible doesn't make Christians act in a Christian way. They were forbidden to shed blood, so instead they got round it by putting people on the rack and finding similar loopholes. Or how about the bishop who said "Kill them all. God will know his own." when asked what to do about the population of a town that had been captured and had quite a few Christians living there.   This must explain the utter bliss and peace that reigned during the secular 20th century. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,12:08    [quote=The Ghost of Paley,Oct. 23 2005,15:44][/quote] Quote  Yes, and the evos are doing their best to make sure that little indiscretion never happens again. See the journal's statement. Did you actually read the article?   "Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure." And you might look at the AAAS article it links to as well. Quote  Besides, I think the Behe-Snoke paper also qualifies as an I.D. paper. So the number of peer reviewed papers has suddenly doubled. I still don't think they'll bring the scientific theory of evolution crashing down, somehow. Quote  What are our schools producing nowadays? Hint: look near the front. I don't know what American schools are producing these days, but I'm not optimistic if they're still fighting over the validity of evolution. Please enlighten me. Quote  Well, there's My Struggle by some German fellow. What was his name? By Christ, I really hope that you're not suggesting that a terrible perversion of the theory of evolution by an evil lunatic to justify the extermination of an entire people is what the theory of evolution is actually about. You think that the scientific establishment would like to be connected to the Nazis? Also, does Godwin's Law come into play at this point? Quote This must explain the utter bliss and peace that reigned during the secular 20th century. The 20th century wasn't exactly 'secular'. It's only in the last 30 years that religion has declined, at least here in Europe. And can I point out that we're now in a new religious war, with Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda thinking that God wants them to destroy Western civilisation, and George Bush thinking that God wants him to invade Iraq. -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

Swoosh Posts: 42 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,14:57    I can't think of a time in human "civilized" history that was ever dominated by "bliss and peace".  Douglas Adams was talking about me when he commented that some people think that it was a mistake to come down out of the trees in the first place.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2005,14:57    Quote Did you actually read the article?   "Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure." And you might look at the AAAS article it links to as well.  From the statement: Quote We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings.[my emphasis]   It's the global nature of the ban that bothers me. How in the world can the Society possibly know that no future I.D. paper will be relevant? Even if you accept their side of the story. Which I don't; for one reason why, see here.  How can you guys possibly defend them? Quote I can't think of a time in human "civilized" history that was ever dominated by "bliss and peace".  Perhaps not. But even accounting for technology, the 20th century saw a lot of bloodshed. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Swoosh Posts: 42 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2005,21:13    Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,05:06    Quote Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.  So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war? Personally, I think that religion can be a great source of friction, but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior. I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,06:44    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2005,10:06) Quote Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.  So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war? Personally, I think that religion can be a great source of friction, but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior. I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case. There is a huge amount in the teachings of Christ against war.  The problem is not with the teachings of Christ, it what some of those #### Christians have done with the teachings.   I once watched a fascinating discussion where a pastor tried to reinterpret the "eye of the needle" story to mean that rich people could go to heaven.  Can you belive it? -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,09:17    Quote I once watched a fascinating discussion where a pastor tried to reinterpret the "eye of the needle" story to mean that rich people could go to heaven.  Can you belive it?  I've never understood how so many of my fellow Christians can ignore such obvious teachings, either. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Swoosh Posts: 42 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,07:55    Midnightvoice pretty much said what I wanted to say, and in fewer words. But I'd like to respond briefly to a few points. Quote So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war? I can't agree with that.  Believe me, I'd like to.  I think Jesus had a wonderful core message, and if Christianity's holy book was only that message I'd be inclined to agree with you.  The Old Testament, in my opinion, is what confuses people.  Its full of wiggle room and justifications and just plain ick.  So I'm forced to look at the results.  I'd like to agree with you, but I don't see how I can. Quote ...but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior. It seems like you are implying that sociopaths are a result of atheism?  Its an interesting observation, but I'm not sure if that follows.  And if it does, I'm not sure that the occasional sociopath is any worse than the dark, national pathologies that arise from some religions.  I would even suggest that sociopaths are preferrable.  They have a harder time motivating an army to attack another. Quote I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case. I agree religion comes out ahead, way ahead.  That might be because historically there have been a lot more governments with religious inclinations than atheistic ones.  It would be easier to compare if there was something resembling parity. I don't know.  I'm not trying to blame all the world's woes on religion.  Maybe if the situation were reversed, and atheist governments were the rule rather than the exception, we'd see just as much war and persecution and blood as we have under the banner of religion.  But maybe not.  We'll probably never know.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,09:45    Quote I agree religion comes out ahead, way ahead.  That might be because historically there have been a lot more governments with religious inclinations than atheistic ones.  It would be easier to compare if there was something resembling parity.  I think you misunderstood me. I'm arguing that religious leaders, on average, are less violent than secular ones. I think if you look at tyrants such as Ivan the Terrible, you'll see that their religious convictions helped mute their atrocities somewhat. Whereas Stalin, who was an atheist despite his early training in the Tiflis seminary, had nothing to brake his increasing paranoia. I really do believe that if Hitler had been the Catholic he pretended to be (regarding his beliefs, that is: I think he was actually a neopagan), he would not have ordered the Holocaust. For every Cortes, there's a Bartolome de Las Casas whose religion tries to reign him in. You have to wonder why active, deliberate genocide became more prevalent during the 20th century. But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,10:04    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,14:45) You have to wonder why active, deliberate genocide became more prevalent during the 20th century. But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure. Largely because we now report it in full, and because we have the means and weapons available to attempt to commit it more easily. -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,06:36    Quote Largely because we now report it in full, and because we have the means and weapons available to attempt to commit it more easily. That, and the aus-rotten of Las Casas in favor of Marx, Darwin, and Tupac. But they're hip, so I guess it's all good. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Swoosh Posts: 42 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,16:12    Quote I think you misunderstood me. I'm arguing that religious leaders, on average, are less violent than secular ones.... But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure. At this point, I'm not overly motivated to research statistical world history.  My intention is not to denigrate ethical religion or engage in a tit-for-tat on the myriad examples of horrific institutional behaviors derived from either religious or atheist leaderships.  And in each individual case the issues involved are complex, interactive, subjective, and manifold.  There are enough cases to make even an overview of the history into, say, a 15 credit university course sequence.  Maybe over the course of time it can be explored in greater detail.  But for now I'd like to present my opinion of the topic in very broad terms. For now, I'm going with a hunch that religion at least equally violent, but more dangerous.  You would seem to say otherwise.  Okay.  How can we begin to approach this? Maybe a better place to start would be some general questions.  Is an aggressive war ever justified?  What about a defensive war?  What are the differences between the two?  How are the motivations for either kind of war influenced by religious or athestic leadership?  Is it justified to persecute, torture or kill your own citizens?  Do religious or atheistic motivations give governments the right to torture its citizens? Aggressive war.  Governments undertaking this option send their armies from their native country to assault another.  Why?  I think both types of government tend to do so on the basis of material and political gain.  Power plays.   Honestly athestic governments would leave it at that, and not try to justify their war on other grounds, although ideology can easily take the place of religion in this case.  The population might or might not agree with the aims of the government, and that's too bad for them if they don't.   A religiously influenced government would downplay the material and political angle, and instead invigorate the population to support the war by citing religious differences.  The Nazis.  The Crusades.  The Iraq War, more of the same.  Manifest Destiny and the Native Americans.  The other guys are heathens, the other guys are our enemies, god hates them and loves us, god is on our side, etc.  The population might or not agree with the aims of the government, and its too bad for them if they don't.  Probably, more of them will agree.   I submit that in both cases the war is disgusting and unethical, and that in the end material and political power is central to both.  I will further submit that using religion to motivate the population is usually hypocritical and self contradictory.  The invaded country probably also believes/claims that god is on their side, loves them and hates the invaders, etc.  The whole thing is a barrel full of bs.  But religious motivations are more effective at gathering support for the war, thus that style of government is more dangerous.  So if you're the kind who believes that the end justifies the means, go ahead and lie to your population.  The world is yours by god given right.  Just go take it. More later.  For now, midterms are coming up!  Study, I must.  Pox on creationists for taking up so much of my free time!

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2005,13:47    Swooosh wrote: Quote A religiously influenced government would downplay the material and political angle, and instead invigorate the population to support the war by citing religious differences.  The Nazis.  The Crusades.  The Iraq War, more of the same.  For a different perspective on the crusades, try Thomas Madden. This page argues that Hitler was not Christian.  As for the Iraq War, there's another side to the story: Quote According to Rubin, sanctions were the sole available choice that did not imply allowing Saddam Hussein to do what he pleased in the region....These observations do not answer the question of whether any policy, no matter how strategically sound, is worth the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children -- a figure that originated in a Unicef report on infant mortality in sanctions-era Iraq and became the rallying cry of anti-sanctions campaigners. And the argument against sanctions on Iraq went beyond even this single, horrifying statistic.  I guess the Clinton years weren't so great for the Iraqi people, either. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Swoosh Posts: 42 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2005,06:59    Quote For a different perspective on the crusades, try Thomas Madden. Sure, I'll check this out over the weekend. Quote This page argues that Hitler was not Christian. It doesn't matter whether he was Christian or neo-pagan or Raelian or whatever.  This is beside the point that its tremendously easier to energize armies to aggressive wars when you use religion as a vehicle. Quote As for the Iraq War, there's another side to the story: ...  I guess the Clinton years weren't so great for the Iraqi people, either. I agree.  Our treatment of Iraq has never been particularly avuncular.  We've had a tendency to treat Iraq like a drunken redneck stepfather treats his wife's children.  Sometimes we beat the holy #### out of 'em (Bush), sometimes we toss just 'em in the basement (Clinton).  Sometimes we give him a baseball bat and a wink, then send the other kids down into the basement with him (Reagan).  Then we go down there ourselves and beat him up for smacking the other kids with it (Bush especially, but a little bit of Clinton, too).   Oh, and then we take his oil. (All) Which really just makes my point for me.  Aggressive wars are fought for political and/or material gain.  Our modern efforts in the middle east have been all about the oil.  Its just got a decidedly religious spin which makes it worse. And yeah, I'll get to the "defensive war" thing this weekend.  Sorry, midterms were keeping me busy.

Ryu-Oh Posts: 1 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2005,07:14    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,14:45) I really do believe that if Hitler had been the Catholic he pretended to be (regarding his beliefs, that is: I think he was actually a neopagan), he would not have ordered the Holocaust. I'm sorry.  I just can't let this pass. How very convinient and comforting a belief this must be for you.  "Phew," you say, "Hitler wasn't really a Christian.  All Christians must be good, just as I've been taught." You have your link.  Here is mine Its pretty long, so I'll quote a nicely relevant portion (any emphasis is mine): Quote Beliefs Revealed Hitler's beliefs are expressed quite clearly in Mein Kampf, and they are as follows: He believed in Heaven, ####, a supreme being who created the universe, Jesus Christ, life after death, special creation, original sin, expulsion from paradise, and divine judgement. He drew his inspiration from the Viennese Christian Social movement, and he expressed nothing but admiration for its founder. He believed that Jesus Christ was an Aryan, not a Jew. In fact, he claimed that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity". He used the term "human" to describe only Aryans. He described blacks, Jews, and (presumably) other non-Aryan races as a disease, or as lower animals (notice that he described Jews as an "adversary of all humanity", thus clearly describing them as something other than humans). He thought that interracial marriage would produce "monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and should be fought with religious fervour. This makes his beliefs on evolution and creation very clear; he thought that Aryans were created in God's own image, while all other races evolved from apes. This should come as no surprise; not only was this an overwhelmingly common belief during the age of European imperialism which lasted right up to the end of the 19th century, but it persists to this day (a lot of white supremacists still refer to blacks as "monkeys"). In his view, it was therefore an unnatural and unholy dilution of God's image for Aryans and non-Aryans to mate. He believed that Germany lost World War I because it turned its back on God, much as Israel was repeatedly humiliated and defeated whenever it turned away from God in the Old Testament. What more is required to show that he was Christian? Not for nothing do Christian apologists make the absurd claim that hearsay accounts of supposedly private conversations with people outside his inner circle should be considered penultimate forms of evidence while Hitler's seminal writings should be considered irrelevant; they fear the truth, and they want you to disregard his most personal work. And make no mistake: Mein Kampf is his most personal work. Far from being the carefully crafted political statement that some would make it out to be, it was Hitler pouring out his soul and revealing all of his life's plans to his closest confidante. He dictated and Hess transcribed the text of Mein Kampf while he was in prison in 1923-1924, finishing it after his release and publishing it in 1925. In it, he revealed everything: his plan to expand Aryan "living space" at the expense of the Slavs (ie- the foolish attack on Russia that so few saw coming), his plan to avenge the German defeat of World War I by conquering France, his belief that all of the world's races should be subjugated under the Aryan race, and his plan to exterminate the Jews. By reading this single document, one can predict every major action Hitler would take over the next two decades including the Holocaust and the "surprise" attack on Russia, yet Christian apologists would have you believe it was nothing but a misleading propaganda piece! So in the book he wrote himself, about his own beliefs, Hitler professed his Christianity.  Lets not dance around this issue.  "But," you say, "that isn't real Christianity!  Christianity is good!"  That is a steaming load of.. circular logic.   You have a few choices right now.   You may state what your particular brand of Christianity is, and refute all other sects of Christianity (and relinquish any need to explain or defend their actions.  Note that you then also relinquish any ability to have Christianity take credit for their "good" actions).   You may accept all forms of Christianity, including Hitler's brand (thus taking the complete opposite tack as above).   You may describe to us what "qualifications" a sect of Christianity has to have to actually be "Christian". I suppose you could also choose to take credit for all good actions of Christians, and refute all bad ones, and thus reveal yourself to be a hypocrite.   Personally, I believe that humans are humans, whether they claim to be from a religion or not.  There will be good Christians and bad ones.  There will be good Atheists and bad ones.  I'd have much more respect for you as a Christian if you said "Hitler was a Christian, but an immoral one," than I do with your current tack of trying to wash Christianity's hands of the truth.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2005,08:34    Quote So in the book he wrote himself, about his own beliefs, Hitler professed his Christianity.  Lets not dance around this issue.  "But," you say, "that isn't real Christianity!  Christianity is good!"  That is a steaming load of.. circular logic.   You have a few choices right now.   You may state what your particular brand of Christianity is, and refute all other sects of Christianity (and relinquish any need to explain or defend their actions.  Note that you then also relinquish any ability to have Christianity take credit for their "good" actions).   You may accept all forms of Christianity, including Hitler's brand (thus taking the complete opposite tack as above).   You may describe to us what "qualifications" a sect of Christianity has to have to actually be "Christian".  Here's a source just for you: Quote Hitler did make anti-Christian remarks, like his October 10, 1941 claim that "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (Adolph Hitler, "Table Talk," London, Weidenfelt & Nicholson, 1953). But much of his hostility was not so much against the ideas of Christianity, whatever their diverse interpretations, but the institution of the churches in Germany, and the opportunities they posed for allowing his Nazi movement to consolidate power. Hitler remarked, "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interest of the State."  So it seems that even if Hitler was a Christian, he wasn't a bible-believing one. Which is the only type that matters. It's a logic thing; you wouldn't understand. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

celtic_elk Posts: 11 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2005,05:35    Quote So it seems that even if Hitler was a Christian, he wasn't a bible-believing one. Which is the only type that matters. It's a logic thing; you wouldn't understand. So the original disciples, Saul (later Paul) and all of those Mediterranean converts during the first couple of centuries before the text of the Bible was codified don't actually count as Christians.  Good to know.  Thanks for clearing that up. Remind me why this is relevant to an evolution discussion?

Swoosh Posts: 42 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2005,07:53    Having just noticed this, Quote In Mrs. Sagan's, it does. She claimed mitochondria and chloroplasts were eaten by other one-celled organisms to become animal and plant cells without any mechanism at all. This is a gargantuan increase in complex specified information utterly impossible without the aid of intellegent design. I find it fun to point out that KW Jeon has done a LOT of work in this area.  Its fascinating stuff, and a very brief version of it goes something like this. Amoeba eats bacteria.  Amoeba does not digest bacteria. Instead, amoeba carries bacteria around inside itself.  Both amoeba and bacteria die if the bacteria is removed.  Symbiosis grown right in the lab. Paley needs to pull his eyes from the pages of a certain 2000 year old peer reviewed journal and join the modern era.   2000 year old peer reviewed journal is no longer a reliable source for scientific guidance. And yes, yes I know I still have some posts to make.  I'll get around to it.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2005,09:37    Quote So the original disciples, Saul (later Paul) and all of those Mediterranean converts during the first couple of centuries before the text of the Bible was codified don't actually count as Christians.  Good to know.  Thanks for clearing that up.  I guess we need to include "reading for comprehension" as one of those things atheists can't be bothered with. It was clear from the context that I was referring to modern Christians, not Christians throughout history. Yes, Paul didn't have the complete scriptures when he wrote his letters. But he did have direct testimony from apostles, family members, witnesses, etc, that more than made up for this lack. And some scholars think that much of the canonical New Testament was composed during the first century. Quote Remind me why this is relevant to an evolution discussion?  Ahhh, but when I do bring up relevant issues, you guys keep changing the subject. And squeal when I still kick your ass. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

BDb Posts: 2 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,03:31    Quote My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan. (I am aware they got divorced; it's amazing how often that happens with evolutionists! Sorry to make my first post off topic, but I found this to funny to ignore. Check out these links. I find it funny that atheists and agnostics have a LOWER rate of divotce than any religious group. Of course, my wife and I are both atheists, and we’ve been happily married for 23 years now, and ALL our Christian friends have been divorced at least once, including the fundies! http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm http://www.barna.org/FlexPag....eID=170 http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20041128

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,11:18    Quote Sorry to make my first post off topic, but I found this to funny to ignore. Check out these links. I find it funny that atheists and agnostics have a LOWER rate of divotce than any religious group.  More about this later. For now, please see the new topic. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

BDb Posts: 2 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,02:27    What exactly is the new topic?

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,11:07    Quote What exactly is the new topic?  Sorry......fighting on too many fronts right now. I'll try to address this later. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard