Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[biggles53]

How about we put evolution to the test.The faith-based hypothesis of evolution predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 50,000 years ago because they hadn't evolved yet.When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 100,000 years ago.When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 130,000 years ago.When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 154,000 years ago.When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 160,000 years ago.Notice a pattern?

Yes...I see the scientific method at work!! This is EXACTLY what science does when it is operating correctly....it adjusts our knowledge in the light of new evidence!!

Just as we once thought that the earth was flat (and your Bible STILL says it is!), new evidence led us to understand that it was spherical in shape. Further evidence refined this understanding to that of it being an oblate spheroid.

We once thought that disease was caused by 'evil spirits' (again, thanks to your drivel in the Bible). Later on, it was explained by 'bad air' (mal - aria, anyone?). Still later, the Germ Theory of disease was developed - again as a result of observing the EVIDENCE!

You see Ag, unlike your book of myths, science does NOT arrogantly proclaim to have all the answers, at any given point in time. What it DOES do is to promote the best possible explanation for a phenomenom, based on the available evidece - however, it always leaves the door open for the admission of new evidence which may alter or even overturn our current understandings.

Ag, why don't you try some honesty.....save yourself, and those with whom you argue, a lot of time and energy. Why not just make a simple proclamation:

"No matter what evidence is presented, no matter how overwhelming the conclusions might be, I will ALWAYS refuse to accept that the diversity of life on earth can be explained by the theory of evolution"

It's the Henry Morris stance....won't it make you feel better....?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You see a hypothesis making nothing but failed predictions and yet you still are in love with it. Interesting.

 

[biggles53]

You see a hypothesis making nothing but failed predictions and yet you still are in love with it. Interesting.

HAHAHA! Yes, those same "failed predictions" which allow you to take antibiotics to cure disease, to be able to fly around the planet in hours, to be able to communicate on this computer, to be able to store your food at low temperatures.

Yes, monumental "failures" weren't they.......????

 

[LightSeaker]

then what good is evolution?

Evolution is a wonderful window into how God creates new life forms. That's a lot of good.

.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Missed this the first time (the consequence of the ignore feature I guess), but figured it's worth responding to for the lurkers:

The hypothesis of evolution is absolutely useless in science.

Except it is useful, despite all the ignorant claims to the contrary:

In the past two decades, however, evolutionary biology has assumed a broad relevance extending far outside its original bounds. Phylogenetics, the study of Darwin's theory of “descent with modification,” is now the foundation of disease tracking and of the identification of species in medical, pharmacological, or conservation settings. It further underlies bioinformatics approaches to the analysis of genomes. Darwin's “evolution by natural selection” is being used in many contexts, from the design of biotechnology protocols to create new drugs and industrial enzymes, to the avoidance of resistant pests and microbes, to the development of new computer technologies.

Continuing on:

"[Darwinism is] a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences. ... Yeah, biologists do agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life, but here are some points you should consider as well: 1) the theory doesn't have any substance, 2) it's preposterous, 3) it's not supported by the evidence and 4) the fact that the biologists are uniformly in agreement about this issue could as well be explained by some solid Marxist interpretation of their economic interests." -- David Berlinksi, author, 2008

Here we have little more than an ignorant opinion piece made even less credible given that:

1) Berlinski's not a biologist
2) He has performed no research into the field of evolutionary biology
3) He's just a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute (who, by the way, have currently made zero contribution to the applied sciences)

And continuing on even further we have:

Evolution News & Views: ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

I've seen this before and I'm amazed at how completely out-to-lunch the author is. I'll grant that in terms of medical practice (i.e. when you go in for a check-up, operation, etc), a doctor is not going to be reaching for a textbook on evolutionary biology.

But what amazes me is that this supposed professor has obviously not kept up-to-date with the modern applications of evolution. For example, he mentions the cracking open of the genome, but misses the fact that evolutionary biology underscores certain approaches in modern genomics research. And yes this includes in medicine! (like my favorite example relating to HIV research). It also underscores modern disease tracking, evolutionary medicine and in one case was even applied in a criminal case involving HIV infection.

I find it hard to believe a medical doctor could be so clueless, but the facts are the facts. Evolutionary biology is useful and sees real world application as we speak. To claim otherwise, one must be living on another planet.

 

[TerranceL]

hmmmmmm....ok. That's true. It angers me that soooo many give him un-bridled credence, when there are such incredible gaps in his theories. It's becoming more irritating as i learn more about what he wrote.

The Theory of Evolution has moved beyond his theories...

 

[TerranceL]

Myth based science-fiction by a trained theologian is entertaining fairy tales but has nothing to do with actual science.

I couldn't have described creationism better if I tried.

 

[TerranceL]

And also you have no evidence to prove your great-great-great-great-great grandmother was a fish.

He claimed his great-great-great-great-great grandmother was a fish?

Quote?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

 

[TerranceL]

Cute, I used to post at PW all the time.

That said, the people who made that poster were ignorant.

Nobody believes in Darwin the way you believe in god.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Nobody believes in Darwin the way you believe in god.

Do you know who Richard Dawkins is?

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane ...." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, February 13th 2004

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The Theory of Evolution has moved beyond his theories...

Absolutely. People treat Darwin (and certain other figures like Dawkins) as though they somehow have the final word on the subject. But they don't. They're just individuals in a sea of thousands (or probably hundreds of thousands) of biologists using, modifying and contributing to the greater understanding of evolutionary biology.

If critics of evolution spent some time reading the textbooks and journals about this, they'd realize there's a lot more to it than what any individual scientist writes or says.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Absolutely. People treat Darwin (and certain other figures like Dawkins) as though they somehow have the final word on the subject. But they don't. They're just individuals in a sea of thousands (or probably hundreds of thousands) of biologists using, modifying and contributing to the greater understanding of evolutionary biology.

"Science, we are told is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word. But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their theories tentatively. Thus, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn quotes with approval Max Planck, who wrote: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, March 16th 2000

If critics of evolution spent some time reading the textbooks and journals about this, they'd realize there's a lot more to it than what any individual scientist writes or says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaUEAkqhMY

 

[gipsy]

Just to prevent them creationist from wanting the same experiments from "evolutionists":

1. Evolution is science and not religion
2. other than religion no parent will talk about evolution with their children without being directly asked for it.
3. "normal" children learn sometimes in higher school classes about evolution, contrary to religion which is taught from the very first moments on.
4. I don't know of any "Evolutionists" or "Darwinists" families ...

...

 

[CoderHead]

Do you know who Richard Dawkins is?

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane ...." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, February 13th 2004

"Atheist preacher?" What the heck is that?

Oh, and are you saying you agree with his statement? It sounds reasonable.

 

[gipsy]

Sounds like you guys are trying to convince yourselves that you're right.

Bwaaa...

Even your fearless leader Dawkins admits that there is prolly ID involved---> As long as it came from outer space. Some other Gods. Just not our God.

He's bending (cracking) to the truth as well. Don't believe me? Iscool, that makes my day.

BwaaaaHaHaaaaaaaa.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7424929/#post53733196

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Sounds like you guys are trying to convince yourselves that you're right.

This sounds like projection on your part. For instance, I already pointed out, with examples, that evolution is an applied science. Nobody has refuted this. In contrast nobody can make the same claim about creationism or ID.

This right there puts the nail in the coffin of the C/E debate.

 

[JusSumguy]

This sounds like projection on your part. For instance, I already pointed out, with examples, that evolution is an applied science.

Are you suggesting that evolution is founded in science? You accept a failing thought process. There is no scientific proof for this.

Ahhhh, a new category. Scientific conjecture.

Conjecture is fine as long as it's your conjecture, right?

What about all the other scientists that get blackballed for mentioning ID? Can't get funding. Can't even get a job.

It's an old boys, toe the party line, club. And you know this to be true.

Yet THE EVIDENCE says that the numbers are just too big to be overcome by happenstance. THE EVIDENCE says that life could not have started spontaneously. Yet you still believe. Boy, talk about a faith based religion.

One question for you. Do you prescribe to the DNA protein model, or the RNA world model? Or maybe the space aliens theory works for you.

No longer funny.... Just sad.

I'll pray for your soul.

 

[CoderHead]

What about all the other scientists that get blackballed for mentioning ID? Can't get funding. Can't even get a job.

Because it's not science.

What social, technological, or medical benefits will stem from a study of ID? What methods will a scientist use to study ID? How much funding do you need to publish, "it's possible that life was created by an intelligent designer?"

Are you serious?

 

[Cabal]

Sounds like you guys are trying to convince yourselves that you're right.

Bwaaa...

Even your fearless leader Dawkins admits that there is prolly ID involved---> As long as it came from outer space. Some other Gods. Just not our God.

Hey, you wanted the theory that used the deliberately vague term "Intelligent Designer". Dawkins is within his right to choose whichever one he wants - there's as much empirical evidence for any of them, God, FSM, aliens....

If you sell out, expect to be short changed.