Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Jet Black · #**101** 9th November 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by bevets

I agree that the article (specifically the phrase I have italicized) is poorly worded and misleading. It is apparent that the writer did not receive the account first hand. I am SHOCKED that an evolution web site would misrepresent a creationist.

touche

Either[sic] do I. Meet Kurt Wise.

okay, if he did all that when he was 8, could you back that up?

Jet Black · #**102** 9th November 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

I have a polydactyl cat, too. His front paws look like they have thumbs.

Here's a picture: http://www.animecritic.com/_temp/mykitty.jpg

I wonder if it is an advantage in cats, or whether this was just something that was present in the original felis domestica stock then....

Pete Harcoff · #**103** 9th November 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by bevets

I assume you were citing this reference to a private email:

I count 4 sentences that have been quoted without possibility of verifying context. If you could cite a published account where Dr Wise has confessed that scientific evidence dictates an old earth, please do so. Here is the only published account I was able to find that relates to this question:

<snip>

Rather than going around hunting for quotes, why not just find out what he believes directly? Here's a page with his email address on it: http://www.bryan.edu/academics/faculty/wise.shtml

bevets · #**104** 9th November 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

Rather than going around hunting for quotes, why not just find out what he believes directly?

I was his student.

Pete Harcoff · #**105** 9th November 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by bevets

I was his student.

That tells me nothing. Is what you are trying to tell me that Dr. Wise believes the geological evidence points to a young Earth? That that email quoted by the other poster was incorrect?

Rather than dance with you around this issue, I'm going to email him myself to see what he says.

greatcogitator · #**106** 9th November 2003, 04:15 PM

I'm glad that someone will listen to reason and finally realize that creationism, despite its claims is false because it can't produce evidence. When the EAC told me that creationism was on the down slide I couldn't believe it but now I realize that they are 100% correct.

Just wondering:
Assumptions:
1) Let's assume that there is in fact an EAC out to make christians atheists.

2) Let's assume evolution is a fairy tale. (Despite the evidence that points to
similarities between species and the fact that we can observe the
genetic changes over time...)
3) Let's also assume that there is in fact a large number of christians that
have been stripped of there belief. (Though I think you may have read a
few too many Chick Tracts...)
4)...n) Therefore Creationism is true.
I am confused on the steps 4)...n), What are they? And as a side note it would appear that you are making a fallacy of breaking this in to an either-or argument, but it isn't. (!(evolution) != Creationism) The problem is that in addition to evolution there are numerous types of creation myths, as well you have the problem of the two co-existing. However I await steps 4)...n).

I find it ironic that you use the fallacy of ad hominem in order to make an ad hominem attack, but I'm just some crazy weirdo... I, oddly enough, agree with you that Science can never actually reach a conclusion, but I must clarify that in this position I think that science can give the most probable soluion, just because you can't be 100% sure doesn't mean you are wrong. Again we come to the innerrancy of the bible, and I present a reductio:
Assumptions:
1) Humans have free will concerning their actions, and thus are able to
disobey God, and thus sin.
2) The Bible is divinely inspired, but is written by humans.
3) The bible is inerrant
Facts:
3) Humans have a tendency to make errors.
4) Free will is the ability to make choices.
5) God gave people the ability to ignore/misrepresent him.
Conclusion:
6) Either a) God gives us free will which allows for the possibility of human
error in the Bible.
b) God doesn't give us free will, which is against the idea of sin
c) God gives us partial free will, this brings me to ask, Wouldn't the
people God inspired be removed of the will to choose him, and
thus wouldn't their deeds and faith be minimized?
Therefore either the Bible isn't inerrant, God doesn't give man free will, or God plays favorites and all but guarantees some access to heaven. (The easiest way out is to accept the third one, but I think this makes God unjust...)

QED

PS Please forgive the manner in which I have quoted you, however CF is acting a bit odd... and thus I have put in TO standard

bevets · #**107** 9th November 2003, 04:27 PM

All we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely, organized complexity. ~ Richard Dawkins

Originally Posted by Jet Black

I fail to see how he effectively uses evolution to explain away God.

superfluous

adj 1: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being

If a Creator is 'superfluous', what does this indicate about his existence?

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin

Originally Posted by Jet Black

again, this does not detract at all from a creator. It simply says "there isn't a God of the gaps"

Where did you read the phrase 'God of the Gaps'? What did your 'Creator' create?

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking... The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic.

Originally Posted by Jet Black

no, the manner of thinking is agnostic at the most. you are trying to separate God and nature, and say that "nature = without God"

Would you say that the concept of 'nature = without Creator' is more consistent with theism or atheism?

Originally Posted by bevets

Blood spatter experts invoke the scientific method by causing blood spatter and then observing the effects. These observations are then compared with blood spatters that the expert did not personally witness. Please explain how this is connected to evolution.

Originally Posted by Jet Black

retroviral insertions would be a splendid example of this.

Please explain.

Originally Posted by Jet Black

mind you, I had a funny feeling you would do this with the analogy anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

If we were discussing the sum of '2+2' would you have a 'funny feeling' I might say '4'? What is the relevance of your 'funny feeling'? Why doesnt it 'really matter'?

Originally Posted by bevets

Please elaborate how 'the universe is closer to a literal, unblemished word of God' than the Bible aka The Word of God.

Originally Posted by Jet Black

because God created it didn't he? notice how God "spoke" and the universe came into being... in a sense, the universe is the word of God. furthermore no-one has had the ability to get their sticky fingers on it and change bits.

Please explian what you mean by 'no-one has had the ability to get their sticky fingers on it and change bits'

Please explain why your interpretation is better than mine.

Originally Posted by Jet Black

This is completely irrelevant to the point I made, so I'm not going to go off topic with it. Good interpretation of the bible will lead to God.. is this correct?

If the Bible contains a Creation account directly from the Creator, do you suppose that it would become relevant in a discussion about origins?

Pete Harcoff · #**108** 9th November 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by bevets

superfluous

adj 1: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being

If a Creator is 'superfluous', what does this indicate about his existenc

*sigh*

bevets, in context it is clear that Dawkins is referring to the notion of God, precisely mimicking the results of natural selection, as superfulous as an explanation for the complexity of biological life with respect to evolutionary theory. Basically, he is saying that if you are going to invoke God as an explanation for complexity, it begs the question of the complexity of God Himself. You might as well just invoke complexity of life as being a solution unto itself.

Furthermore, he admits that the notion of God using evolution to shape biological life can't be disproven in the first place. Therefore, evolution can't disprove God.

revolutio · #**109** 9th November 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

I wonder if it is an advantage in cats, or whether this was just something that was present in the original felis domestica stock then....

It happens predominantly in inbred cats so it is a mutation. However I really wouldn't know how to look at that from an evolutionary point of view as to why a particular mutation is more common.

Bushido216 · #**110** 9th November 2003, 06:07 PM

Please address my post, bevets. I am interested in seeing your refutation.