Matthew and Land look like Nobel Prize winners compared to Bill O'Reilly. He had Kirk Cameron on to discuss the vexing questtion of whether God exists. The video is available here. The interview opened with O'Reilly boasting of having defeated Richard Dawkins in their recent debate. Dawkins couldn't tell him where the universe came from, you see.
To set this up, O'Reilly asked Cameron to prove, in a minute, that God exists. Cameron answered with his stadard child's version of the argument from design. Then the following remarkable exchange occurred:
CAMERON: Plus, Darwin said in order to prove evolution, which is the number one alternative to God, you've got to be able to prove transitional forms -- one animal transitioning into another. And all throught the fossil record and life we don't find one of these--[Cameron hold's up an artist's rendition of an animal that is half crocodile and half duck]
--a crocoduck! There's just nothing like it. There is no one animal transitioning into another.
O'REILLY: All right, so you can poke holes in the evolutionary process and you can poke holes, as I did, in the uh, Big Bang theory or whatever crazy thing they're trotting out here, um, but then they're gonna come back and they're going to say, look, over the, um, course of civilization, um, there really has never been a demonstrable proof of a deity and you say...
Cameron looked on in stunned silence here. After all, he thought he had already answered that question.
And you really must watch the video to see that crocoduck. We're not talking about a cartoon sketch or some simple stick figure here. We're talking about an elaborate portrait that some artist obviously spent a fair amount of time on, probably thinking he was doing the Lord's work all the while.
As for the rest of it, I'd say any comment from me would be superfluous.
- Log in to post comments
Hint: They're both lying.
Actually, everybody believes in evolution. Here's a kind of proof.
The family dog disappears for a few weeks and returns pregnant. Now, what do the people think the offspring will be? They might believe half-dog and half-wolf (or half-fox), but they wouldn't believe half-elk, half-trout, half-tulip, or half-carrot. Obviously, they know that many species have close relatives, and the only way they could be related is through descent. Ergo, they evolved diverging from earlier species.
For thousands of years, farmers and herders have have deliberately tried to cross different species based on their belief in evolution, and everybody knows this for a fact. They also know of successful hybrids (usually sterile).
Furthermore, many common foods are polyploids which arose in a single generation.
So, when people pretend they don't believe in evolution, you should realize they are deliberately lying. That's why logic never works on them. It isn't ignorance, it's belligerence.
Geez, how come they NEVER get it right?! It's almost comical. "I refute Evolution with my complete lack of understanding Evolution." It's like saying "There's no such thing as Climate Change because it's cold in Antarctica right now!"
The family dog disappears for a few weeks and returns pregnant. Now, what do the people think the offspring will be? They might believe half-dog and half-wolf (or half-fox), but they wouldn't believe half-elk, half-trout, half-tulip, or half-carrot. Obviously, they know that many species have close relatives, and the only way they could be related is through descent. Ergo, they evolved diverging from earlier species.
That's not a very good proof. Creationists will just point to the Bible where it is said that God created all living things so that they would reproduce after their kind. Half-dog, half-elk is as much incorrect according to the Bible as it is according to evolution.
What's the number two alternative to God?
No brainer indeed.
Sanity?
The religious are proof that wishful thinking is the first preference.
Whatever happened to the good old fashioned ethos where you made sure you understood a topic before pontificating on it?
Is it gone...forever? NOOOOOOOO!!!
Cameron and his banana-loving partner Comfort were easy picks for idiots of the week. But of course O'Reilly has to get competitive:
Big Bang theory or whatever crazy thing they're trotting out here
That's right Bill, the Big Bang Theory is just some goofy thought some scientists had when they were drunk one night (hat tip Asimov). It'll be replaced with The Big Falafal Theory any day now, and of course its something any media blowhard can poke holes in after minutes of study.
Let's not forget that O'Reilly did with Dawkins what he did with Colbert: surrender to the superior intellect before the fight began to avoid getting his keister kicked on his own show. O'Reilly is like the kid that cries and begs you not to fight him only to later tell everyone that he kicked your ass.
I think if Cameron or O'Reilly were somewhat involved in science they would of at least pointed out the predictive flaws of the materialistic philosophy. Such as;
1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants, for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man, Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
The Other PC,
Please explain your understanding of materialism and why you think it "did not predict" the things you list. Until you do so, you're talking out of the wrong orifice.
The Other PC: Excuse me? According to "Bill Gates"? Who do you think Bill Gates is? You have a flaw even in your logical fallacy of appeal to authority since you obviously don't know any authorities in computer science.
No, it's not Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison or Michael Dell, either.
Koray, I get the impression that expect The Other PC to actually understand the concepts he invokes is a bit like expecting a toad to solve the Dirac equation. That's why I just threw it back in his lap, give the theotrolls just enough rope to hang themselves.
troll alert copy troll
Posted by: The Other PC
set fingers on ignore.
Oh man! The Crocoduck was teh awesome. That beastie'd make for a bitchin' crocoduck hunt. Looks like I need a bigger Labrador.
O'Reilly is a cynical clod. Cameron is an idiot.
'Nuff said.
All right, so you can poke holes in the evolutionary process and you can poke holes, as I did, in the uh, Big Bang theory or whatever crazy thing they're trotting out here, um, but then they're gonna come back and they're going to say, look, over the, um, course of civilization, um, there really has never been a demonstrable proof of a deity and you say...
Yeah, after those two guys poke holes in the big bang and evolution, what other recourse would scientists have but to play the "proof of a deity" card? The scientists can't trot out any other "crazy things they're trotting out" because they know full well that Cameron and O'Reilly will call them on it every time.
That crocoduck looks a bit like the Platypus, doesn't it?
you know what would be great? if someone slipped a definition of a Echidna into Cameron's bag of 1/2 and 1/2 animals, most ignorant people would never guess that something like the Echidna actually exists
I love Echidnas! Especially Knuckles.
I don't know about "materialism." I've never met anybody who claimed to be a "materialist," so I'm not sure what the tenets of materialist doctrine might be. Does a "materialist" believe in matter but not energy?
I do know a lot of scientists, who have a variety of religious beliefs, ranging from atheism, to buddhism, to Isam, to various flavors of Christianity. And the Big Bang was proposed by scientists as an explanation for observed astronomical redshifts. The Big Bang is a theory, not a prediction, but it does make predictions of its own, such as the prediction of cosmic microwave background radiation. So far, those predictions have been holding up pretty well.
It is worth noting that "prediction" has a special meaning in science. I could say, "I predict, based on my faith in Zeus, that there is liquid water on Titan." That may be a prediction of a sort, but it is not a scientific prediction, and the discovery of liquid water on Titan would not constitute any kind of confirmation of the existence Zeus. Why not? Because a scientific prediction has to be proved--in a rigorous logical/mathematical sense--to be a consequence of a theory, to the point that if the prediction is wrong, then the theory must be wrong.
So to predict (in a scientific sense) the Big Bang from Theism, you would need to be able to make (and substantiate) the following claim: "I can prove that if there was no Big Bang then THERE IS NO GOD!" Can you find any theist who made such a prediction?
you know what would be great? if someone slipped a definition of a Echidna into Cameron's bag of 1/2 and 1/2 animals, most ignorant people would never guess that something like the Echidna actually exists
Wouldn't a platypus be better? I'm guessing most people would simply classify echidnas as a sort of hedgehog or porcupine and move on.
"--a crocoduck!"
Somebody needs to make a YTMND page of this right now.
Bill O'Reilly poked holes in the Big Bang theory. No, really. He honestly believes he did. I mean... wow. What level of misplaced self regard does that take? He doesn't even have the "excuse" of being religious nut (he's a nut and religious, but that's not how he makes his money).
WTF is wrong with our society when people this willfully ignorant are given TV shows and national podiums?
Since nobody else did...
WTF is wrong with our society when people this willfully ignorant are given TV shows and national podiums?
What is wrong is that a lot of ignorant people would rather have someone repeat their flawed views back to them, and tell dissenters to shut up, than to actually learn something. O'Reilly's audience is that 28% of the population that thinks Bush has done a good job in Iraq.
What a crock o' . . . duck.
I love echidnas too. There are two at the Philly zoo here who on rare occasions will come waddling out of the dimness, generally when they're being fed. Awesome.
Indeed - a crocoduck is just boring next to mammals that lay eggs.
And of course, another amusing bit here is that the guy who first (more or less) put forward the Big Bang theory wasn't just Catholic, but a Catholic priest.
Ah, glory be to the internets, someone has run away with my beautiful creation.
After having read most of the comments it is obvious that everyone is comming from a point of view that is already been determined by the poster's comments. The end is simply this. God engineered it, created it and is involved in it, he paid the price for it with his Son, so accept it as the gift that it is; because in the end, and evryone has an end, "Every knee will bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" Do the real science and discover what God has done. Start with Dr. Chuck Missler's help, he will disprove all your theories of clasical evolution and help set you on the path to God's truth.
He's an actor. He plays a character on television. "Honestly" doesn't enter into it. He admitted as much when Colbert interviewed him, just like Chopra admitted he was a quack.
I always find the no-half-dog-half-cat freaks argument especially hilarious, because not only does it mischaracterise what evolutionary theory predicts, it has to ignore the many extant "transitional" freaks that we in the West have marvelled at since their discovery. It's like an episode of Fawlty Towers. Don't mention the platypuses!
Don't forget that O'Reilly has a profound understanding of science and the scientific method, as evidenced when he explained "....there's 24 hours in a day--that's science!" a few months back.
As for "Materialism did not predict...", these things were all discovered and described by theologians using applied creation science, right?
B. Casiday said:
"so accept it as the gift that it is; because in the end, and evryone has an end, 'Every knee will bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord' Do the real science and discover what God has done. "
Right. Stop thinking and save your ass. Good advice.
And you don't think everyone has an end. You think everyone exists forever and ever.
I'm sure were Cameron here he'd suggest that for evolution to be true, we have to find someone who lived exactly at the average of "forever" and "forever and ever". /sarcasm
How about the platypus as proof of evolution. Half duck/half beaver and a mammal that lays eggs!? Hello!! How about all the dog breeds from chihuahua to great dane to dachsund to chow chow. All of which were "created" by man through selective breeding?! You don't have to look for indications of evolution, they are all around us!!
Why is it that Smug thinkers that think they know all the answers get angry, bitter, and mean when their belief system is challenged? The idea of Evolution is being taught in the class room to my children as fact really is sickening. If you giant brains have all the answers why is it that you so afraid of creationism? my personnel Experiences with the creator of the universe is real and others who have had the same connection with God know what I'm talking about. This can't be explained to Atheists or agnostics.
"my personnel Experiences with the creator of the universe is real and others who have had the same connection with God know what I'm talking about. "
Yes I know exactly what you are talking about. I was employed for almost 3 years by the FSM and he fired me without severance and just before I vested in my 401k. I am so pissed. These gods sure seem to have a lot of personnel issues.
The problem Kevin is that you think that if a person say's they are a Christian they won't rip you off take advantage of you. Well I hate to break this to you but saying your a Christian does not make you a Christian. There is people that use that as a way to take advantage. But there is also people that are true beleivers in Christ and you can tell by the way they live their life. Sister Teresa was a true beleiver, Billy Gramm and many others. They would never take advantage of someone. Its sounds like the person that ripped you off Loves money and power more then God. We live in a fallen world that has been seperated from God and if your looking for true honesty and fairness your living in the wrong country or the wrong time period. We kicked God out of our country and now we are living with all kinds of issues like dishonesty, greed, Perversion, Drugs, Suicide, corruption. Right now our Country looks alot like the Roman empire in the first Century.
Don, my employer was not a christian. I worked for the Flying Spaghetti Monster repairing ships. Now HE is who he says he is but he STILL gave me the shaft, so to speak. Shows you should never trust a pirate lover.
What was your experience when you worked for your god? Did you work in public relations? I hear that position is better than sales or membership services.
Did you expect a reward and all you got was an IOU for when you were dead and buried in the ground being eaten by worms? How can you be sure that IOU is good? Oh well, at least you were able to skim some cash off the top.
Don Eagon said: Why is it that Smug thinkers that think they know all the answers get angry, bitter, and mean when their belief system is challenged?
You mean why do scientists who have invested a lot of time and effort to understand something like evolution get annoyed when a bunch of ignoramuses like O'Reilly and Cameron spout long debunked nonsense? It's not the scientists who are being smug here, it's the O'Reilly's and Camerons.
The idea of Evolution is being taught in the class room to my children as fact really is sickening.
Riiiight, better to teach 2,000 year old fairy tales.
If you giant brains have all the answers why is it that you so afraid of creationism?
We don't have all the answers, but we do have a lot of them, and one is that the earth is far far older than 6,000 years. It's not creationism, but ignorance, and having it foisted on unsuspecting children, that we fear. An ignorant populace is nothing to desire.
my personnel Experiences with the creator of the universe is real and others who have had the same connection with God know what I'm talking about. This can't be explained to Atheists or agnostics.
Your experiences are real enough - its your hackneyed explanations for them that are suspect. We atheists understand that just fine. We also understand that your personal experiences don't change the facts of evolution one whit.
Science Avenger said "Your experiences are real enough - its your hackneyed explanations for them that are suspect. We atheists understand that just fine. We also understand that your personal experiences don't change the facts of evolution one whit."
What hackneyed, I never made any explanation or made comment. Why don't you stick to the facts dude. You atheists understand very little, were you around when it was created. The big bang did you see it happen. Being a atheist is so arrogant because your saying there is no God and you have all the answers. If your going to say there is no God you must know all the information in the universe!! Maybe you should be more Intellectually honest and call your self a agnostic at lease you would be admitting that you don't really know if there is or isn't a God.
Don said: What hackneyed, I never made any explanation or made comment. Why don't you stick to the facts dude.
The facts, dude, is that you claimed your experience was with the creator of the universe. There's your hackneyed explanation.
You atheists understand very little, were you around when it was created. The big bang did you see it happen.
I know a great deal about France, despite having never been there. Try not getting your arguments from the junior high bathroom wall.
Being a atheist is so arrogant because your saying there is no God and you have all the answers.
All we're saying is there are no gods, but there are a lot of questions we don't have answers to. Compare that to you, who claim to have all the answers by being privy to private communications with the creator of the universe. So who's arrogant?
If your going to say there is no God you must know all the information in the universe!!
Riiiight, and to say there are no mermaids, do I have to scour every sea?
Maybe you should be more Intellectually honest and call your self a agnostic at lease you would be admitting that you don't really know if there is or isn't a God.
Funny having my intellectual honesty questioned by someone using arguments that most of us first heard in the 4th grade, and which have been debunked repeatedly. My confidence in the nonexistence of the Christian gods is no less than my confidence in the nonexistence of unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, the tooth fairy, and pre-Columbian immigration to America from the middle east. No one would ask me to claim agnosticism on those issues, and the issue of god is no different.
Don, how exactly does your relationship with God trump thousands upon thousands of documented fossils or hundreds of thousands of hours of field observations?
Or, are you actually saying that your relationship with God is so flimsy and tenuous that you feel threatened by the fish and shrimp-shaped carbon films on some rocks and a big telescope?
Like I said none of you were there when it all began and your arrogance is just as pronounced as you say I am. When you want to make a point it's fact and when I try to explain my belief system you call it flimsy and tenuous or "The facts, dude, is that you claimed your experience was with the creator of the universe. There's your hackneyed explanation." or "I know a great deal about France, despite having never been there. Try not getting your arguments from the junior high bathroom wall." or "Riiiight, and to say there are no mermaids, do I have to scour every sea?" Look guys its just fine that you believe strongly in evolution and I'm not going to push my believe system down your throat. I'm really enjoying reading your comments and they come from very articulate and intelligent people. But what I'm trying to gather in my thoughts is how you can say there is no GOD? Honestly you don't really know if there is a GOD or not do you. We both have a position that can not be proven right! So we each have a belief system that holds true for us. Some day we will know for sure right! When we step through that membrane into the unknown we will know. I really hope you all have a great life and find what youre looking for.
Hey Stanton thanks for the comments back, Many people like me used to believe the theory of evolution, but now reject it based on scientific evidence. It is for religious and philosophical reasons, not scientific reasons that this theory continues to be popular. After 150 years of research, evolutionists still can't explain the origin of life from non-life, vertebrates from invertebrates, fish from amphibians, or mammals and birds from reptiles. There are many examples where the creation explanation is more scientific than evolution.
The theory does not explain the origin of the remarkable enzyme-catalyzed reactions that occur in living cells with 100% efficiency, yielding no by-products. The recursive nature of cellular reactions is a mystery apart from creation by God, with the exact amounts synthesized by the cell regulated by the concentration of the end product.
The MSU museum displayed the aardvark as "the only surviving example of an obscure mammalian genus." Translation: they can't find any animal, living or in the fossil record, that looks like him or could serve as a transitional form. The same is true for the duckbill platypus, the panda, Venus flytrap, and woodpecker. How did the dolphin's nose move to the back of his head, learn to drink sea water, lose his legs and develop flippers and fins and survive the transition? Like making a submarine out of a bus, nothing works until everything works. We can agree to disagree but my position is based on 50 years of seeking out truth and I'm not saying that your position does not Stanton it's not me attacking your belief system.
"But what I'm trying to gather in my thoughts is how you can say there is no GOD? "
I have already stipulated that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a GOD. just not a very nice one what with the insults he yelled at me when I went to the personnel office.
"evolutionists still can't explain the origin of life from non-life, vertebrates from invertebrates, fish from amphibians, or mammals and birds from reptiles."
ha ahhahahhha
well, a) non-life to life isn't convered by evolution, and b) invertebrates to vertebrates is well covered by the Cambrain fossils, and c) fish did not come from amphibians and d) mammals didn't come from reptiles.
Maybe if you actually knew something you would stop blathering on about creationism. its not science and does not explain what happened. Its just a myth with no evidence.
also, what was your job with the creator? what were you personnel experiences?
Kevin said
"Maybe if you actually knew something you would stop blathering on about creationism. Its not science and does not explain what happened. Its just a myth with no evidence."
Is that it Kevin! Not really giving any kind of concrete explanation beside rude comments. It's not science, really,
Well you must be right after all if you wave your arms enough and make rude enough comments you must be right. Unless you can communicate with our rude comments and acually make some kind of concrete answer to specific information maybe you should go bother someone else.
The issue that first sparked my interest in the Creation-Evolution controversy had to do with the origin of life from non-life. A naturalistic explanation of the origin of life must deal with this issue; otherwise the entire theory collapses. The chemistry that makes up life is a complex information system that produces building materials, energy, locomotion and reproduction. The structure resembles a complex computer program that automates the production of chemicals and building blocks needed for life. An explanation of the origin of these complex systems is crucial to the credibility of the theory of evolution. But, attempts at producing a reasonable model for the origin of life fall short of the mark.
The problem is much like throwing paint at a canvas and expecting it to produce a beautiful landscape of Yosemite Valley. The closest they have come to producing life in a test tube from off the shelf chemicals is to make some of the building blocks of life under carefully controlled laboratory conditions where the amino acids were removed from the reaction with a trap as soon as they were formed. But, that is much like forming a few letters by carefully dropping ink on a page in comparison to producing words, sentences, books, encyclopedias, and libraries.
The challenge of the origin of life is so formidable that many who are experts in the field like Dr. Dean Kenyon of San Francisco State University have become creationists. Dr. Kenyon was the author of Biochemical Predestination, and one of the world's foremost authorities on chemical evolution. One of his students challenged him to examine Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith's book, The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. As a result, much to the consternation of his department head, Dr. Kenyon declared that the evolutionary conclusions of his former work were nonsense. He now embraces the creationist point of view and recently published an excellent textbook titled Of Pandas and People, which is now being used by schools all over the country as an alternative to evolution.
The reasons evolution is not considered fact are many and they following a consistant pattern.Since Louis Pasteur first discredited the idea of spontaneous generation back in the 1800's, researchers still can't uncover any new evidence to support it. Additional experiments create new problems, and leave the old problems unsolved. Here are some examples of the quandaries that puzzle evolutionists:
The chemical reactions needed to produce amino acids and nucleotides, the building blocks of life, require the absence of oxygen. Yet, there is no evidence in the rocks that the earth ever had an environment without oxygen.
The chemical reagents needed to produce life would have to be present in the early earth, then quickly change to an environment with oxygen to sustain life. There is no geologic evidence for this either.
The chemicals needed to produce amino acids, which are the building block of proteins; conflict with the chemicals needed to produce nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA and RNA. Reactions between the two sets of reagents would destroy all possibility of producing either, yet they would have to quickly come together shortly after they were produced to form life.
Experiments that produce amino acids in a laboratory environment produce equal mixtures of right handed and left handed amino acids. These are three-dimensional configurations that are mirror images of each other that react the same way. Yet life only uses the left-handed variety. An evolutionary explanation must demonstrate a way that only the left handed variety is selected in the production of proteins, or a synthesis that produces only left handed amino acids. Life also only uses right-handed sugars instead of left handed, and cis-configured lipids rather than trans. The fact that certain chemicals are picked specifically for their use in life where others could have reacted just as well or easier, points to a Creator.
From an outsider - scanning over the posts here, I see that somethings indeed, never change.
The exchange between "Don", "Kevin", and "Science Avenger" (cute name) once again shows how angry, frustrated, and wrought with anxiety all evolutionists are. There is but one explanation for this and it absolutely does not take any PhD in mathematics to arrive at... evolutionists will only debate creationists for very brief periods due to the fact that the deeper a creationist probes the shorter the debate becomes. The end of the debate is reached rapidly and marked by the evolutionist hurling insults from a posturing of frustration fueled anger.
Deep inside, evolutionists know the cornerstone of all their beliefs and theories has been built on nothing but quicksand. They know there is far too much they cannot even come close to explaining, yet they stab at it with their "rock solid" theories.
They see the world crumbling (instead of evolving) all around them and the inner dialogue inside them grows stronger each day. A dialogue that poses "Just what am I doing? Who am I indeed? Perhaps God truly does Exist, everything around me is happening exactly the way He Said it would in His Book of Revelations."
Deny it all they want, and, under the ever present guidance of satan, they certainly do!
They'll know the Truth soon enough, and they can absolutely count on that. Just hope it isn't too late... Ever been burned??? It is extremely painful... Eternity sure seems like a long, long time...Get the hint???
Craig and Don,
You guys talk about evolutionary theory like it was something scientists conjured up when they were drunk (hat tip Asimov). It's as sound a science as there is, having been experimentally verified so many times. As Penn Gillete so aptly put it "everyone who matters accepts evolution", and indeed they do. There is no controversy among scientists and educators in the relevant fields (archaeology, paleantology, biology, geology, etc.), and those from outside the relevant fields who doubt evolutionn are outnumbered 1000:1. Project Steve has more signatories than any list of scientists opposing evolution.
So when you come on here parroting your favorite arguments from creationist sites, and claiming people's dismissals of that means you have some merit, you are, frankly, completely out of touch with reality. They are dismissed and mocked because they are either irrelevant to the topic (abiogenisis), or childishly silly ("were you there"?). You simply demonstrate that you haven't a clue what you are talking about with every utterance. It is not a sign of a weakness in one's position to treat someone like an ignorant fool who IS an ignorant fool.
Imagine someone challenging your theology by saying "well, if Jesus was the lamb of god, there where is his wool?" Would you take this person seriously? Doesn't that sound like the person doesn't know the first thing about Christianity? That's exactly how your objections sound to those of us who have educated ourselves about evolutionary theory.
"They'll know the Truth soon enough, and they can absolutely count on that. Just hope it isn't too late... Ever been burned??? It is extremely painful... Eternity sure seems like a long, long time...Get the hint???"
I think this about says it all. You don't even so much as attempt to hide your sado-masochistic tendencies. Anyone contemplating discussion with this wretched simp should take into consideration the probability that they are debating a psychopath.
Then tell me how Creationism can explain the life histories of placoderms better than paleontologists can.
How does all of this theological flimflam tie into explaining the life histories of prehistoric animals such as Arsinoitherium, or Protitanops, or do Creationists have so flimsy a relationship with God that carbon films on rocks and orchid lineages threaten to destroy them that easily?
Look Stanton and Science Avenger,
I gave you specific information on the problems of The chemical reactions needed to produce amino acids and nucleotides. And many other issues that evolution can not explain. Waving your arms and saying most anyone with a brain believes in evolution who matters is not an argument.
You need to provide specific information to dispute the issues that were provided. I'm not going to make negative comments to anyone to bolster my position maybe you should consider doing the same.
Don, you are lying through your hypocritical teeth.
You haven't answered my question of how Creationism explains the life histories of placoderms better than paleontology or Evolution.
Don whined: I gave you specific information on the problems of The chemical reactions needed to produce amino acids and nucleotides. And many other issues that evolution can not explain. Waving your arms and saying most anyone with a brain believes in evolution who matters is not an argument.
Well, let's deal with what I actually said rather than your dishonest characterization. There is no controversy among scientists and educators in the relevant fields (archaeology, paleantology, biology, geology, etc.), and those from outside the relevant fields who doubt evolutionn are outnumbered 1000:1. And sorry, yes, when practically everyone in the world who has studied in ANY of the relevant fields related to a subject says you are full of crap, whether they be Christian or atheist or jew, yes, that is an argument, and a strong one, until you guys actually, you know, get off your asses and do some science. Rhetorical games and ignorant questions don't count.
You are talking out of your hat about subjects you don't understand and which aren't relevant to evolution anyway. You don't know what evolution can or cannot explain. If you want to argue abiogenesis, or evolution, you go do it in the peer-reviewed literature with scientists who know what they are talking about, not on blog comments with latmen. The reason you guys don't is obvious...you'd lose, and you have lost.
You need to provide specific information to dispute the issues that were provided.
No, I don't. Truth is not determined via debate. There is a reason scientists publish in the peer-reviewed literature rather than have debates. What matters is falsifiable replicable evidence, not rhetoric. Rhetoric is the medium of politics and religion, which is another evidence that evolution denial is a political and religious movement, not a scientific one.
And then there's the problem of how Creationists have shown that they have no motivation to learn about science, in stark contrast with the way they continuously beat their drums about how they are mentally superior than all of the evil atheistic scientists who oppose them.
Honestly, how on God's blue Earth does saying that "the omnipresent boogeyman, Satan, is gonna getcha if you don't think like me" explain anything on God's blue Earth?
Why is worrying about which afterlife you're planning on going to so far more important than trying to understand how this world tics? If God wanted the Next Life to be so important as you claim He does, then why put all of us here to suffer in this life first, rather than just put all of us in the Next Life to begin with?
And no one has ever explained to me exactly what burning for all Eternity, like Craig claims, has anything at all to do with deciphering placoderm life histories.
Morning Stanton,
I understand what your saying and your objections are logical for sure. I'm one of those creationists that enjoy learning and trying to understand the science behind both belief systems. We can agree to disagree on the origin of life on our planet and universe. You have been able to communicate your position with out name calling and making reference to ones lack of intelligence and that is greatly appreciated.
Stanton,
I posed the question about the The chemistry that makes up life is a complex information system that produces building materials, energy, locomotion and reproduction. The structure resembles a complex computer program that automates the production of chemicals and building blocks needed for life. And after that specified the problems about The chemicals needed to produce amino acids, which are the building block of proteins; conflict with the chemicals needed to produce nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA and RNA. Reactions between the two sets of reagents would destroy all possibility of producing either, yet they would have to quickly come together shortly after they were produced to form life. This was before your posed the question of the extinct armored fish know as the Placodermi. Stanton said " Don, you are lying through your hypocritical teeth.
You haven't answered my question of how Creationism explains the life histories of placoderms better than paleontology or Evolution." In asked the question before you did and you not responding, how does that make me a hypocrite?
Perhaps if you actually read the reports done by the scientists who actually performed these abiogenesis experiments, rather than lying charlatans, you'd realize that, among other things, scientists have already been successful in creating self-replicating strands of RNA that similarly to the plant-pathogens known as viroids, save that viroids only replicate themselves inside of their host plant cells, and these artificial RNA strands only replicate themselves inside of test tubes.
If you had actually read about this, rather than pounding on your drum to your song of "Golly, I don't know how it happens, Ergo, it never happened!" you would have realized that the excuse of "I don't know" is the lousiest excuse for a scientist to stop research over.
Then why do you, Craig, and every single other creationist I have come in contact with seem so immensely more interested in proselytizing than engaging in the disseminating of the facts of the Universe, placoderm life-histories, dinosaur secrets and continent-building included, allegedly found in the Bible?
That, and the hypocrite reference probably comes from my frustration over being promised answers to the questions I want answered, only to be answered with various permutations of "Truth be told, neither I, nor the Bible have the answers you, in particular, want to know, because I was told that the search for knowledge is an evil, sinful, terrible, terrible path straight into the Devil's lap," or "It's much better to worry about the unearthly delights that await us after death rather than learn about the evil, disgusting world we live in," or "I don't know, but what my preacher told me about the Bible trumps whatever you learned in those fancy schmancy college courses you wasted your money on."
I mean, I can't help but to get frustrated and bent out of shape as a result of this.
Hey Stanton,
Well, I can sure relate to that kind of garbage that the supposed to be Christian, wants to scare the hell out of you just because youre searching for truth. These hard liners that swing far to the right get really harsh and they forget the number one issue, and that is they are sinners just like everyone else. I've experienced that harsh judgmental attitude from "supposed to be great Christians, they have a huge plank sticking out of their eye and they are more concerned over the speck of dust in your eye. You should just keep searching for the truth no matter where it leads you and dont let anyone turn you from that path. My experiences with God have been quite different, he accepts me the way I am and continues to connect with me even when I'm a bone head. I hate to admit it but Im a bone more often that I liked to be.
Stanton said "Perhaps if you actually read the reports done by the scientists who actually performed these a biogenesis experiments, rather than lying charlatans, you'd realize that, among other things, scientists have already been successful in creating self-replicating strands of RNA that similarly to the plant-pathogens known as viroids, save that viroids only replicate themselves inside of their host plant cells, and these artificial RNA strands only replicate themselves inside of test tubes.
If you had actually read about this, rather than pounding on your drum to your song of "Golly, I don't know how it happens, Ergo, it never happened!" you would have realized that the excuse of "I don't know" is the lousiest excuse for a scientist to stop research over."
Thats kind of harsh Stanton, there is no pounding on a drum or beating you over the head with my questions. I have read a lot about the creation of proteins and RNA strands that were created in the lab. I've just come to a different conclusion then you have. It's not unheard of to see the same information and draw different conclusions. Id like to continue these minor debates, but it would serve both of us to keep the harsh overtones out of these writings.
"The exchange between "Don", "Kevin", and "Science Avenger" (cute name) once again shows how angry, frustrated, and wrought with anxiety all evolutionists are"
NO SO!
I had lots of HAHAs in my posts. That shows me to be a happy guy! I am not fustrated that Don is so Dense. and I have no anxieties. The world is a wonderfull place.
"Id like to continue these minor debates, but it would serve both of us to keep the harsh overtones out of these writings. "
Well, Don, why are you so mean? You be-little and insult all scientists and intelligent people with your "My experiences with God have been quite different, he accepts me the way I am and continues to connect with me even when I'm a bone head" pointless ramblings of a lunatic.
why not provide some description of you god? Height, sex, weight. tell us if he touched you and where.
I understand what your saying about RDA, but really RDA is only good for storage of information. Proteins are the work horse that regulate chemical reactions. Having the ability to store information doesn't explain or begin to explain how life came about.
Hey Kevin,
At lease get the conversation correct, I've made no comments about "once again shows how angry, frustrated, and wrought with anxiety all evolutionists are" NO SO!
Name calling and bitter exchanges seems to be your only calling card Kevin.
Don revealed: I have read a lot about the creation of proteins and RNA strands that were created in the lab. I've just come to a different conclusion then you have. It's not unheard of to see the same information and draw different conclusions.
This is the problem. Science is not about looking at what others do and interpreting it. Science is about subjecting hypotheses to falsifiable experimentation. It is too easy to leave one's biases unchallenged otherwise, which is why scientists are so much more effective at ferreting out the truth than people like the DI, who do nothing but sit back and interpret other people's work.
You can always find a gap to hide your god in Don. If that's what you want to do, more power to you. Just don't expect scientists and those who appreciate what they do to take you too seriously.
Science Avenger said "This is the problem. Science is not about looking at what others do and interpreting it. Science is about subjecting hypotheses to falsifiable experimentation. It is too easy to leave one's biases unchallenged otherwise, which is why scientists are so much more effective at ferreting out the truth than people like the DI, who do nothing but sit back and interpret other people's work."
So what do you do for a living? Do you work as a scientist in the lab? I'm not in the position to do field work; I'm a computer programmer and IT manager. Have you subjected all your belief in evolution to experimentation? Doesn't seem possible, you must have taken what others have done and subject it to critical thinking and then applied that to your belief system. As that true?
Thanks for your comments and not going postal on me!
Excellent questions Don. Yes, I take what others have to say and subject it to critical thinking, but, and this is our point of contention, only in those areas where I am either a bona fide expert myself, or have access to actual data. If it's an area of thought I haven't a clue about, aside from looking for basic logic and consistency, you pretty much have to take their word for it. Ignorant armchair theorizing sans data rarely amounts to anything of value.
When dealing with a group like scientists who are very intelligent and very intellectually demanding of each other, I find it most reasonable to give them a lot of latitude, especially when they are in a strong consensus, and in their fields. That doesn't make them perfect, but I'm not qualified to figure out when they aren't, and frankly, neither are you.
If you have actual data or a tight logical argument that they are wrong, fine, pursue it. I would. But the fact that a scientific theory doesn't sit well with your subjective take on the world doesn't mean jack.
Approach it as a chance to learn something about the world rather than a chance to challenge the authorities. Sure, Einstein challenged the authorities and won, but neither you nor me nor anyone alive is Einstein.
"Name calling and bitter exchanges seems to be your only calling card Kevin."
Don, Don, Don....
name calling? you who are so quick with the gibes and insults? so dog-o-matic and preening?
why don't you answer the questions?
Morning Science Avenger,
Thanks for the comments, good points SC. So what area do you consider yourself to be an expert in and what actual data do your have to base your beleif system on?
Kevin said "Well, Don, why are you so mean? You be-little and insult all scientists and intelligent people with your "My experiences with God have been quite different, he accepts me the way I am and continues to connect with me even when I'm a bone head" pointless ramblings of a lunatic.
why not provide some description of you god? Height, sex, weight. tell us if he touched you and where.
I don't see any worthy questions in there Kevin.
There's a old saying, " It's better to remain silent and thought foolish then it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
So "HE" didn't touch you. You admit it.
I said connection not touch. You do know the difference don't you?
Don, among other things,
A) Do realize that when an organic chemical reaction is allowed to progress, the reactions will still continue even when the original reactants are used up. In such a scenario, the products of the first reaction will be used as new reactants of these later reactions. In many cases, such new reactions will occur even if the original reactants are not exhausted, and is the reason why such reactions virtually never produce %100 yields. It was exactly this sort of chain-reaction of chemical reactions that lead to the synthesis of amino acids from ammonia, water, and carbon dioxide in the original Urey-Miller experiments.
B) Do also realize that abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are two different subjects. They are, ultimately related, but, they can and do function independently of each other. In other words, the fact that scientists do not yet know how ancient RNA-based organisms switched to DNA and began their interaction with amino acids to form proteins does not invalidate the fact that descent with modification, that each succeeding generation in a population tends to be different that the parent generation, at all. That descent with modification has been documented hundreds upon thousands of times means that it's very hard, and getting much much much harder for people to legitimately invalidate that particular idea. Furthermore, simply because we do not yet know how or what ancient proto-life was like before the interaction of amino-acids in order to form proteins is not a reason to stop research on this topic.
C) If you don't want people to assume the worst about you, do realize that the majority of us here tend to deal with those Christians who use their relationship with God as an aegis for their own gross ignorance/stupidity A LOT, such as "Ronald Cote" and "Craig." That these same Christians often tend think that critical thinking and learning new information are the Devil's blowjob and wet kiss, respectively, does not do anything at all to help the situation, either.
I mean, whenever we hear "I have a relationship with God" + "Evolution doesn't work for (insert reason here)," warning bells go off.
Interesting comments Stanton, you state your position very well. We all have in common the desire to seek for truth and your well measured articulation of what you think and believe with out caustic remarks goes along way in stating who are as a person. I'll get back to you on your comments when I have the time to digest them.
Is "Don" from June 29 [" ... Interesting comments Stanton, you state your position very well. We all have in common the desire to seek for truth and your well measured articulation of what you think and believe with out caustic remarks goes along way in stating who are as a person. I'll get back to you on your comments when I have the time to digest them. ... ] the same person as the "Don" from June 21 [" ... Well I hate to break this to you but saying your a Christian does not make you a Christian. There is people that use that as a way to take advantage. But there is also people that are true beleivers in Christ and you can tell by the way they live their life. Sister Teresa was a true beleiver, Billy Gramm and many others. ...]?
If so, just being in the company of atheists has vastly improved his spelling and grammar! If not -- please differentiate yourselves somehow.
-- CV
"As Penn Gillete so aptly put it "everyone who matters accepts geocentricism", and indeed they do. There is no controversy among scientists and educators in the relevant fields (archaeology, paleantology, biology, geology, etc.), and those from outside the relevant fields who doubt geocentricism are outnumbered 1000:1. Project Sheep has more signatories than any list of scientists opposing evolution."
No one benefits from bad reasoning. Majority rule doesn't work for truth either way.