Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
35 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Taq (6 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,050 Year: 19,086/19,786 Month: 1,506/1,705 Week: 312/446 Day: 51/59 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5829
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 241 of 298 (341062)
08-18-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by MangyTiger
08-17-2006 10:06 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
According to the timer that video is over two hours long. Care to point us at the times for any particular bits that illustrate your point rather than us having to sit through it (or rather not bother to

I would paraphrase their responses but so much of it was non-sensical that I can't. Hovind was clear and concise, but then again, he memorizes each slide of his and even uses some of the same catch phrases. This is why I'm a little surprised that no one has figured out his debate style. Just watch it, you'll see what I mean. Its a good debate. A little one-sided but, good nonetheless. Lots of laughs from the audience.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by MangyTiger, posted 08-17-2006 10:06 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5829
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 242 of 298 (341094)
08-18-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
08-18-2006 8:51 AM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Evolution is a theory of biology; in fact, it's the central organizing principle in biology. It's like the biological theory of relativity.

Biology was around before Darwin and it will be around after Darwin.

Contrary to their statement on the website, the ICR is not accredited by the California Department of Education. Rather, their accrediation is from an accrediting body for which Henry Morris, the founder of the ICR graduate school, serves on the board of directors.

You are confusing being on the Board of Trustees within ICR for being on the Board of Trustees for the California Dept. of Ed. This is a TalkOrigin distortion.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/

Aside from which, your claim was that most proponents of ID and creationism have bogus, papermill degrees from unaccredited institutions. That's simply an unfounded claim.

That conflict of interest, as well as their little web-site shell game, essentially invalidates the ICR's accredation. Their accrediting body has been suspended several times due to such conflicts of interest, and their accredations cannot be held to be legitimate.

"Web-site shell game?" And please substantiate your claim that they've been suspended many times.

I don't have time to go through these all right now, so could you narrow it down for me? Which of these individuals do you assert holds a Ph.D. in biology? Or biochemistry, perhaps?

Quite alot. Why I should go through the lists when the burden of proof is on you, is beyond me. But to settle the matter quickly, I will oblige... not that the ToE begins and ends with biology, but many interdisciplinary fields, such as biochemistry, as you pointed out).

1. Stephen Meyer
2. Michael Behe
3. David Berlisnki
4. Paul Chien
5. Michael Newton
6. Jonathan Wells
7. Ray Bohlin
8. Walter Bradley
9. Cornelius Hunter
10. Dean Kenyon
11. Forrest Mims
12. Scott Minnich
13. J.P. Moreland
14. Henry Schaefer
15. Charles Thaxton
16. Kenneth Cumming
17. Robert Franks
18. Duane Gish
19. Fazale Rana
20. James Allen
21. Don Batten
22. David Catchpoole
23. Andrew Bosanquet
24. Kinberly Berrine
25. Vladamir Betina
26. Donald Chittick
27. David DeWitt
28. Geoff Downes
29. Andre Eggen
30. Dudley Eirich
31. Carl Fliermans
32. Dwain Ford
33. Maciej Giertych
34. D.B Gower
35. Kelly Hollowell
36. Bob Hosken
37. George Howe
38. Neil Huber
39. George Javor
40. Pierre Jerlstrom
41. Arthur Jones
42. John Kramer
43. Lane Lester
44. Ian Macreadie
45. John Marcus
46. John McEwan
47. Sally McEwan
48. David Menton
49. Angela Meyer
50. Albert Mills
51. Arlton Murray
52. Gary Parker
53. Georgia Purdom
54. Ariel Roth
55. Jonathan Safarti
56. Joachim Scheven
57. Timothy Standish
58. Esther Su
59. Royal Truman
60. Walter Veith
61. A.J. White
62. John Whitmore
63. Kurt Wise
64. Patrick Young
65. Henry Zuill

I did. The scientific method does not arrive at ID starting from the evidence we have. That's why it's impossible. It doesn't go there.

I'm not sure what you mean by this...? Please explain.

He gets tripped up all the time. Most of the time he's lecturing to screened audiences. And he's renouned for being presented with rebuttals to his points and never having a response.

Screened audiences at predominantly secular universitites? Doesn't present rebuttals? I've seen at least four debates where he participates and have heard his radio show. There was only one time when someone asked him a specific question and he could not answer it. Please substantiate your claim. Not that it really matters. I'm not a big fan of Hovind either way. But he is a good debator.

People kick this guy's ass all the time - most recently the US Government for failure to obtain building permits - it's just that you're never allowed to see. Or never bother to find out. If you're trying to hold this guy up as some kind of paragon of creationist intelligence let me prepare you for some significant disappointment.

Why wouldn't we be allowed to see them when the hosts of the debate are university students and faculty that invite him to a debate. There's nothing more they would love than to have him look like an idiot. For instance, the videolink I posted was hosted by Emery-Riddle, hardly the pro-creationist university. Furthermore, I already stated that it would be fairly easy to beat him in a debate. I've just never seen it happen.

quote:
Sorry, but I've been to college and have seen the worlds illuminous people pass through with ease.

You've seen glow-in-the-dark people? Sorry but what you've written here makes no sense.

A luminary is someone that has achieved a high level of social status, particularly in an academic way. So, if someone is illuminous, they lack that genius. That's where the word 'bright' derives from. It doesn't mean they physically glow. It means they are intelligent. Illuminous would be the opposite.

quote:
Therefore, by your argument, no one that doesn't have a law degree must never challenge Coulter because they couldn't possibly know a thing or two about law without having a degree in it.

Right. Which one of us challenged Coulter on the law? Specific thread and post, please.

I'm saying as a future referrence, by your logic, no one without a law degree should ever be able to question her jurisprudence. I'm not saying that you couldn't challenge on her on evolution or even on the law. I'm saying that your logic doesn't make sense. Just because someone doesn't have a degree in biology does not mean that they couldn't possibly know anything about evolution, nor does it mean that if someone doesn't have a law degree that couldn't possibly know a thing or two about the law.

That has nothing to do with Coulter, it has to do with Jerry Coyne. If there was a better theory than evolution, people like Coyne - biologists - would be the first lining up to prove it. Overturning the Darwinian model would be the coup of the century. The kind of thing that they give out Nobel prizes for.

Unless of course Coyne and others have personal reasons for hanging on to it. I guess it can go both ways. Many eminent scholars have abandoned evolution because it lacks the explanatory power to keep it in the forefront. I'm convinced that Gould, knowing very much about the field, had to invent reasons within his own mind in order to continue to believe in the theory he fought so hard for. His writings are littered with such tacit sentiments.

Coyne and the rest of the biological community don't have a vested interest in defending evolution. Quite the opposite - there is considerable fame and money to be had for the person or group that can prove evolution wrong. If evolution were obviously wrong, people like Coyne would be the first to say so.

There are only three options from which to choose from for how life originated: Spontaneous generation, panspermia, or special creation. There are only two options for how we arrive at taxonomy: Macroevolution or special creation. There are no other options. So, if Coyne believes in evolution it very may well have to do with some personal beliefs. I don't know Coyne, so I cannot say. But lets not rule out that possibility, especialy when any other reason is lacking.

The medical community is not the scientific community. They don't employ the same standards of evidence.

Well, lts look at this pragmatically. Neither ID nor evolution can offer any philanthropic principles in the way medicine can. ID and evolution offer the answer to philosophical questions. I can't see any value that either of them have in practical matters.

I doubt it. The fact that you appeared completely ignorant of the basic point I made above is essentially proof of that. Further, your consistent misunderstandings about what the ToE basically is, and the evidence that props it up, are even more evidence that you actually know pretty considerably less about science than most people here.

Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps its your misunderstanding? Anytime science goes undermines evolution, its psuedo-science? Is that your criteria? I haven't come to some flippant decision on evolution. I was once a very pro-evolutionist. That was before I knew much on the debate. And sadly, that's how it goes for most of the world. Its a snowball effect. One professor teaches 100 students. Those students grow up under the assumption that it was correct. Out of those 100 students, 10 grow to become professors of their own. And so and so on. Now, we have a general concensus that macroevolution is an obvious truth and anyone that attempts to cirumvent that must be crazy.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 8:51 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by kuresu, posted 08-18-2006 2:21 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 244 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 4:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 252 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 5:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 290 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2006 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 243 of 298 (341097)
08-18-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 2:06 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
as to biology being the ToE

before darwin's theory, birds were colorful so that we could enjoy God's masterpiece known as creation.

after darwin's theory, birds are coloful so that they can attract mates to have offspring.

now then, which is the crackpot answer?

oh, and ToE does not provide the answer to any philosophical questions, and has practicality. Ever heard of vaccines? What about antibiotics. If we didn't know how evolution worked, we wouldn't be able to predict that if we use one antibiotic long enough the bacteria will be resistant to it. We might notice that, but have no clue why that was so.
and as to vaccines, if we didn't know that viruses change, then we wouldn't be trying to find new vaccines until it was too late (as in making a new one in the middle of a epidemic because, oh no, the first one no longer works).

with ToE, we can predict what might happen to populations. Like, if we put a predator that eats big prey A, A will decrease in size.

can ID do that?
can pre evolution biology do that?

NO!


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 7:16 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 244 of 298 (341107)
08-18-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 2:06 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Juggs, the following is from Coyne's critique of Coulter's book.

Care to address it?

As for biologists' supposed agenda of godlessness -- how ridiculous! Yes, a lot of scientists are atheists, but most have better things to do than deliberately destroy people's faith. This goes doubly for the many scientists -- roughly a third of them -- who are religious. After all, one of the most vocal (and effective) opponents of ID is Ken Miller of Brown University, a devout Catholic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-18-2006 3:05 PM nator has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 245 of 298 (341108)
08-18-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by nator
08-17-2006 4:51 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
He disagrees because she is wrong, ray.

That has been and was my whole entire point, Missy. Disagreement and misunderstanding are not synonyms. The former is invalid since Coyne and Coulter retain opposing worldviews. Quite an exasperating exchange of posts to get you to agree to one simple point - finally.

Of course, you could have misunderstood all along. :)

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 08-17-2006 4:51 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 2:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 246 of 298 (341112)
08-18-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Cold Foreign Object
08-18-2006 2:54 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Do you agree, Junior, that Coyne has not taken on the mantle of being a "teacher" of Biology, since he already is one?

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-18-2006 2:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 247 of 298 (341113)
08-18-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by nator
08-18-2006 2:53 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Coyne writes:

As for biologists' supposed agenda of godlessness -- how ridiculous! Yes, a lot of scientists are atheists, but most have better things to do than deliberately destroy people's faith. This goes doubly for the many scientists -- roughly a third of them -- who are religious. After all, one of the most vocal (and effective) opponents of ID is Ken Miller of Brown University, a devout Catholic.

Atheists not involved full time in opposing and attempting to destroy their worldview enemies ?

Jerry: I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow - email me if you want in ?(pyramidial@yahoo.com).

Ken Miller a devout Catholic ?

So are Mafia bosses, and pedophile priests.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

--Adolf Hitler (1922)

Jerry: Anyone can CLAIM to be a Christian as we can see.

We know Ken Miller is an atheist because he believes apes morphed into men, and rejects what God says in the Bible = what all atheists believe. Straightforward logic.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 2:53 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 3:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 248 of 298 (341122)
08-18-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object
08-18-2006 3:05 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Can you please show evidence that Atheists wish to destroy non-Atheists?

And do you agree that Coulter's claim that all scientists are Atheists is in error, since about one third of all scientists are believers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-18-2006 3:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by NosyNed, posted 08-18-2006 3:57 PM nator has responded
 Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-18-2006 7:16 PM nator has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 249 of 298 (341128)
08-18-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by nator
08-18-2006 3:32 PM


Scientists are atheists
You seem to misunderstand Schraf. According to Ray scientists are atheists by definition. In fact it appears anyone who disagrees with him is an atheist. Add to that anyone who is smarter than he is. Be sure to include those who can read maps. :)

Read Ray's post more carefully. An atheist (to him) is someone who disagrees with his particular interpretation of writings and the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 3:32 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 4:10 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-18-2006 6:51 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 250 of 298 (341135)
08-18-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by NosyNed
08-18-2006 3:57 PM


Re: Scientists are atheists
quote:
Read Ray's post more carefully. An atheist (to him) is someone who disagrees with his particular interpretation of writings and the world.

Oh.

Well, that's just silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by NosyNed, posted 08-18-2006 3:57 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 298 (341147)
08-18-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 2:06 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
You are confusing being on the Board of Trustees within ICR for being on the Board of Trustees for the California Dept. of Ed.

ICR isn't accredited by the CA Dept. of Education, because state educational departments don't accredit institutions. They authorize accrediting bodies.

ICR is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. ICR founder Henry Morris serves on the board of directors of that organization. As I asserted, that organization has had its credentialling suspended by the Department of Education on numerous occasions:

quote:
In 1995, a federal review was conducted and resulted in probation which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors. These improvements were made, including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing chairmen[5].
In 2002, Timothy Sandefur argued that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school." He cites the 1991 incident when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation.[6] Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. He argues that if MSACS had to drop non-educational criteria TRACS should too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_Association_of_Christian_Colleges_and_Schools

But to settle the matter quickly, I will oblige..

Are you sure you didn't just cut and paste the entire list? I mean, your first guy - Stephen Meyer - is a theologian with an undergraduate degree in geology. Kurt Wise is famous for being the paletontologist who openly asserts that all the physical evidence known to science supports evolution - he's just a creationist because that's what the Bible tells him to believe.

But, sure. Plenty of guys on your list with degrees in biology, biochemistry, etc. But none of them are practicing scientists. They don't do any research; they just run the creationist roadshow in courtrooms and sound stages. They have degrees in science but they're not scientists, at least not any more, because none of them do any science.

But he is a good debator.

I'll grant you that. He's just not a very honest one.

Why wouldn't we be allowed to see them when the hosts of the debate are university students and faculty that invite him to a debate

You think Hovind's gonna post that on his website? Or that Answers in Genesis will? You obviously don't do research on Hovind from the evolutionist side, or else you'd already know about such incidents.

So, if someone is illuminous, they lack that genius.

As an English major, I have to tell you that your attempt here at a neologism isn't very successful at communicating your meaning. "Illuminous" is not the opposite of "luminous", no more than "inflammable" is the opposite of "flammable." "Illuminary" sounds too much like "illuminate", which obviously means "to light up; to pass on wisdom."

I'm not trying to argue, just saying. Your word didn't communicate your meaning very well. I knew what you meant anyway but I thought I'd poke a little fun.

Unless of course Coyne and others have personal reasons for hanging on to it.

No, you're mistaken. The personal reasons are the ones that motivate creationists. Goo ahead, prove me wrong. Show me one atheist creationist. No? Show me one creationist who was convinced by the evidence, not by religion.

You can't. Even your creationist biologists are all people who first became Christians, and then moved over to creationism. Not a single one of them ever promoted creationism before they were religious.

I'm saying as a future referrence, by your logic, no one without a law degree should ever be able to question her jurisprudence.

And I'm asking you which one of us has. Specific thread and post, please.

I'm saying that your logic doesn't make sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. Coulter has a law degree. From what basis would I challenge her interpretation of the law and expect to be taken seriously, except from an understanding of the law equal to or better than hers? And how would I obtain that understanding besides a serious, guided study of the subject? Such as one recieves for a law degree?

You seem to think this is nonsensical. Me, I know that I don't put health advice from a mechanic on the same level as health advice from a doctor, because I believe in the idea of "expertise". You, apparently, do not.

ID and evolution offer the answer to philosophical questions. I can't see any value that either of them have in practical matters.

Do you eat food? I'm an assistant researcher with the USDA. Believe me when I tell you that if there is any corn for you to eat in 20 years, it will be a practical benefit of our understanding of evolution.

Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps its your misunderstanding?

Absolutely. Unlike you I'm completely willing to consider the possibility that I'm wrong; that evolution is wrong. In fact I'll even come right out and say that if evidence that completly disproves evolution is presented and verified, I'll be among the first to repudiate the whole idea. As vocally as I can. It wouldn't be a big thing for me; I was a creationist once, because that's what was supported by the evidence that I was aware of.

But when I learned about more evidence, as a result of education, I saw that creationism was quite wrong, and that evolution was the most accurate model. But I'm still learning. Hundreds of times I've asked for compelling evidence against evolution but everything presented so far has failed because it wasn't true, or it didn't support that conclusion, or any number of other faults. But I'm still learning. If you have evidence that I haven't seen, I urge you to present it. But understand that I've been researching this issue for several years, now, and I doubt there's a creationist argument that I haven't already personally refuted. That number over there under my avatar isn't my score in Asteroids.

Now, we have a general concensus that macroevolution is an obvious truth and anyone that attempts to cirumvent that must be crazy.

In fact, what we have is a majority of Americans under the mistaken impression that creationism is just as scientific a theory as evolution, and that there's an equal amount of evidence for both.

That's just not so. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is in favor of evolution, and the proof of this is that scientists working within an evolutionary paradigm are responsible for every biological advancement in the past 100 years, and scientists working in creationism are responsible for no advancements whatsoever. They don't even do science. They just waste time in courtrooms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 298 (341158)
08-18-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 2:06 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
quote:
Either that or someone who has wrapped up their livelihood in the theory of evolution, one could scarcely believe that someone could betray all of their life's work, watching it dismantle before their eyes.

quote:
One professor teaches 100 students. Those students grow up under the assumption that it was correct. Out of those 100 students, 10 grow to become professors of their own. And so and so on. Now, we have a general concensus that macroevolution is an obvious truth and anyone that attempts to cirumvent that must be crazy.

If a scientist actually knocked down the ToE, it would make scientific headlines and he or she would be made a celebrity among their peers.

You do realize that scientists are lauded and made famous by overturning long-held pradigms, don't you?

You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood, or that all of those same scientists are so stupid that they cannot see that even an utterly uninformed layperson like Coulter was able to deduce what they could not?

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 253 of 298 (341178)
08-18-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by NosyNed
08-18-2006 3:57 PM


Re: Scientists are atheists
According to Ray scientists are atheists by definition.

Feel free to back-up this claim anytime.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by NosyNed, posted 08-18-2006 3:57 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5829
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 254 of 298 (341181)
08-18-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by kuresu
08-18-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
before darwin's theory, birds were colorful so that we could enjoy God's masterpiece known as creation.

Everyone understood well before Darwin ever came along that certain attributes were bestowed on any given creature for its survival or for its defense. They just simply gave God the credit and the glory, amen, instead of one happenstance building off of another. And everyone understood the basics of heredity long before Darwin ever came along. To paraphrase Coulter, {not verbatim}, "Everyone knew long before Darwin came along that Timmy looked alot like his father. It never took a geneticist to understand the fact that Elephants birthed elephants and Alligators birthed alligators.

after darwin's theory, birds are coloful so that they can attract mates to have offspring.

There were naturalists, particularly Darwin's own grandfather, that knew of such things before Charlie ever came onto the scene. All their efforts were just swallowed up by his fame.

now then, which is the crackpot answer?

Neither. Both are good answers.

oh, and ToE does not provide the answer to any philosophical questions, and has practicality.

Evolution was the fuel for quite a bit of philospohies that spiralled into some horrific atrocities. Hitler, Marx, Fuerbach, Sanger, Huxley, just to name a few, all their crackpot ideologies are directly linked to Darwin's theory. I don't blame Charlie for all of this. I don't think he could have ever imagined what his proclivities would give rise to.

Ever heard of vaccines? What about antibiotics.

Yes, I have. And they have nothing, whatsoever, to do with the theory of evolution. In fact, the first person to figure out vaccination was Louis Pasteur who, incidentally, was a creationist and ardently opposed to the ToE. Go figure.

If we didn't know how evolution worked, we wouldn't be able to predict that if we use one antibiotic long enough the bacteria will be resistant to it. We might notice that, but have no clue why that was so.

That's absurd because we knew all about that through Gregor Mendel, also not a Darwininiac, but rather a creationist who wrote his thesis years before Origins was being written. Aside from which, the bacteria resistance is not an argument for evolution. I don;t know why anyone would even use this argument anymore. Case in point: If you have a million microbes submitted to extermination by a new drug, suppose that 10 have survived through a resistance. Now, those microbes, continue to proliferate and each successive strain is now resistant. What just happened? Was it evolution? Absolutely not! Was that a prime example of natural selection? Yes, indeed. Natural selection does not encompass evolution, nor do mutations. Both are legitimate aspects of science. The microbes that survived were stronger and passed on this feature that was already present within the organism. No new genetic material produced, there was no evolution that took place, whatsoever. The stronger microbes simply survived and the weaker forms perished. That is not evolution. If you say that it is evolution, then you'd have to believe that the organism 'evolved' upon exposure to the new drug. That's absurd. It was natural selection that so happened to favor those 10 stronger microbes.

As I said before, evolution has made no philanthropic contribution to science, medicine, or any of its derivatives. It has only served to justify rogue eugenics and all of the overtones that go along with it. And if I'm here by accident then I can remove you by incident according to the theory, without any moral qualms attached to it. Even Nietzsche understood the societal implications of the theory. I'm wondering when everyone else is going to catch on.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by kuresu, posted 08-18-2006 2:21 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 7:39 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 257 by Brad McFall, posted 08-18-2006 7:50 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 260 by Nighttrain, posted 08-18-2006 9:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 255 of 298 (341182)
08-18-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by nator
08-18-2006 3:32 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Can you please show evidence that Atheists wish to destroy non-Atheists?

Exposing oneself to reality is the only way to cure naievete.

It is a self-evident fact corresponding to reality overwhelmingly. Feigning a legitimate question (framed rhetorically) only substantiates how out of touch with reality that anyone might be who doesn't know this.

Schrafinator:

What happens when you leave an atheist and a Bible alone in the same room ?

[hint: replace atheist with Catholic priest and Bible with young boy]

AtheistCLU drag the Bible into their rape (court) rooms and hold her down while "Christian" Judges and witnesses do the dirty work. Since no genuine Christian would cooperate with the ACLU, and the ACLU would never support one either, the "Christians" mentioned are not real Christians because their actions prove that they are atheists.

Atheists and Christians are worldview enemies, when they agree and cooperate in regards to the Bible then this fact proves ONE aint genuinely as such. In the case of our "Christian" Judges and witnesses we only need to explain their belief about themselves. Judas kissing Jesus is that explanation and proves that the Bible corresponds to reality.

And do you agree that Coulter's claim that all scientists are Atheists is in error, since about one third of all scientists are believers?

I don't believe Coulter said ALL scientists are atheists, there must be something taken out of context.

One third believers ?

Apply Judas syndrome.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 3:32 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Omnivorous, posted 08-18-2006 8:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 259 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 8:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019