Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[[serious]]

I accept evolution as defined: Biological evolution defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

Ok, agreed.

 

[[serious]]

The road, which represents deep time, isn't the issue here.

If you want to factor a whole country in, then insist I should believe in macroevolution, then I'm going to have to say that your "country" can take a hike.

How far of a hike?

If you accept micro, but not macro, I'd be curious what distinction you draw between them other than degree. Or alternatively, I suppose you could say the last 6000 years of evolution happened, but anything longer than that couldn't because your interpretation of the bible dictates that nothing older than 6000 years actually happened.

 

[whois]

How much of the Quran is true?

Any sentence can be made to say whatever you want it to say, even America is mentioned in the bible,
'And they entered a land of plenty and the multitude did go forth unto their estates', surly it's talking about the US,
where else do they have estates? apart from every where on earth?

There are a couple of sure fire ways to make money, write a book about religion or start your own religion, either way the religious will pay a lot of money for both.
Would you buy a book that told you that what you wanted to believe was in fact true?

from the review:
Lest Six Day Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates see Parker's book as support for their readings of Scripture, Parker is at pains to dismiss such arguments. In no way is he trying to suggest that Genesis 1 is a scientific account.

The dangers with a book like this is that in writing such an honest account of one's pondering about faith and the origin of life, the writer leaves himself open to criticism from absolutely everyone. Some scientists will critique his science, Christian's may critique his reading of Genesis, theologians might question his reading of Scripture and his understanding of God, and historians could question some of the historical analysis.

from the author:
But I must admit, rather nervously as a scientist averse to entertaining such an idea, that the evidence that the writer of the opening page of the Bible was divinely inspired is strong. I have never before encountered such powerful, impartial evidence to suggest that the Bible is the product of divine inspiration.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So, I've never said that evolution was only a theory? What am I wrong about?

And yet, after all those threads and long, long, looooooong discussions on the topic, it's still completely unclear to me what your stance on it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

such as this guy?
andjustincase.blogspot.com/2009/11/genesis-enigma-why-bible-is.html

an excerpt:
A new book on Genesis is not unusual, nor is one that claims that the Bible is true. But what is more unusual is to find a scientist with no faith claiming that Genesis chapter 1 is consistent with the latest evidence-based science. This is in stark contrast to many scientists and atheists who spend a lot of time pointing to what they see as the inaccuracy of the Bible.

Like Maurice Bucaille. Only he said those things about the Quran.

You can find them in every religion if you look hard enough.

 

[Jan Volkes]

from the author:
But I must admit, rather nervously as a scientist averse to entertaining such an idea, that the evidence that the writer of the opening page of the Bible was divinely inspired is strong. I have never before encountered such powerful, impartial evidence to suggest that the Bible is the product of divine inspiration.

Is there any mention of which divine power did the inspiring or should we just assume there is only one?
if there is more than one what if a believer picks the wrong power to worship? is it right to think that there would be only one divine power? surely where there's one there will be others? why should one exist on it's own?

 

[DogmaHunter]

from the review:
Lest Six Day Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates see Parker's book as support for their readings of Scripture, Parker is at pains to dismiss such arguments. In no way is he trying to suggest that Genesis 1 is a scientific account.

The dangers with a book like this is that in writing such an honest account of one's pondering about faith and the origin of life, the writer leaves himself open to criticism from absolutely everyone. Some scientists will critique his science, Christian's may critique his reading of Genesis, theologians might question his reading of Scripture and his understanding of God, and historians could question some of the historical analysis.

from the author:
But I must admit, rather nervously as a scientist averse to entertaining such an idea, that the evidence that the writer of the opening page of the Bible was divinely inspired is strong. I have never before encountered such powerful, impartial evidence to suggest that the Bible is the product of divine inspiration.

He is talking about "feelings" and "impressions" and "appearances".

I'ld say you are easily impressed.

 

[whois]

If you accept micro, but not macro, I'd be curious what distinction you draw between them other than degree.

i'm not sure science itself knows what the distinction is.
only recently have they come up with a possible theory that could be empirically tested.
no, i don't think it's a matter of degree.

 

[whois]

Is there any mention of which divine power did the inspiring or should we just assume there is only one?
if there is more than one what if a believer picks the wrong power to worship? is it right to think that there would be only one divine power? surely where there's one there will be others? why should one exist on it's own?

you need to ask the author these questions.

 

[fat wee robin]

If you accept evolution then you are not wrong about anything, if you don't then you're wrong about everything to do with evolution because evolution is a fact..

The problem is that both creationists ,and non theistic evolutionists are wrong .

 

[AV1611VET]

There are a couple of sure fire ways to make money, write a book about religion or start your own religion,

How about creating a Christian website?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that both creationists ,and non theistic evolutionists are wrong .

Including Jesus?

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[[serious]]

Including Jesus?

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. Which one was male and which one was female?

If you instead think he was talking about the beginning of mankind, I agree that mankind has been male and female since the beginning.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The evidence for the theory is so overwhelming, that there is absolutely no doubt that organisms have evolved into their current state.

That statement is in complete abandonment of intuitive logic. Atheist scientists today have done a great job at shaping minds into not wondering into any other form of reasoning other than analytical, because intuitive logic breaks the biases reaped from base analysis.

Creationists have an intuitive mind, and deduce automatically such possibilities that even with the alleged overwhelming evidence, it's really just what one wants to perceive. If you want to see evolution, then you'll see evolution. But if you want to see creationism, you'll see God shifting the Earth, cultivating it through animals who die out and then created, fish on mountaintops and oil at sea floors from a catastrophic flood- an entire world of life hand crafted by God and moved at His will.

The logic of evolution is built on the premise that everything has to come about and continued on by it's own accord. The problem is, without an answer of origin or breathing force, that idea is just that- an idea. And so is evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. Which one was male and which one was female?

If you instead think he was talking about the beginning of mankind, I agree that mankind has been male and female since the beginning.

Evolution says the female comes first.

The exact opposite of what Genesis says.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i'm not sure science itself knows what the distinction is.

Right, right.... scientists don't know...but you do I bet.

only recently have they come up with a possible theory that could be empirically tested.
no, i don't think it's a matter of degree.

Luckily, the science doesn't concern itself with what you think.
The exact same processes power micro and macro. In terms of biology and bio-chemical processes, there is no difference between them.

 

[whois]

Evolution says the female comes first.

correction:
evolution doesn't have an answer to what came first

 

[DogmaHunter]

That statement is in complete abandonment of intuitive logic

"Intuition" is not a pathway to truth.

Some more statements that are/were "counter intuitive":
- time is not a constant and rather relative to speed and the observer
- in some places, gravity is so big that not even light can escape
- particles can be in 2 places at once
- the earth's crust is made from "plates" that move around and shape the land
- the earth goes around the sun, not the other way round
- ...

Your "intuition" or "common sense" is rather worthless when it comes to finding out how reality works. Especially when you need to leave your comfort zone of medium sized-objects with medium masses at medium speeds.

Unlike what the argument from "common sense" tries to imply - you do NOT know what is "sensible" in advance.

To call something "counter-intuitive" and use that as an argument to simply dissmiss the evidence, is not rational.

Atheist scientists today have done a great job at shaping minds into not wondering into any other form of reasoning other than analytical, because intuitive logic breaks the biases reaped from base analysis.

Again, as I have just explained, "intuition" is not that helpful as a tool, when you are trying to learn things that you don't yet understand.

Creationists have an intuitive mind

Right, which is the problem.
They have this idea that the universe must conform to their "intuition". But the universe does not change to accomodate our primitive minds.

To use the famous words of Lawrence Krauss: "to call something 'inconceivable'....just means that you can't conceive it..."

To call something "counter-intuitive" that is in evidence, simply exposes the limitations of your mind. Again, the universe doesn't owe you any "conformity" to what you think is sensible / intuitive. The universe is filled with counter-intuitive things.

You may not like that, but though luck... You don't get to dissmiss it because you don't like it.

, and deduce automatically such possibilities that even with the alleged overwhelming evidence, it's really just what one wants to perceive.

No, rather - as you just demonstrated - it's more like a possibility that the creationist does not want to conceive.

If you want to see evolution, then you'll see evolution. But if you want to see creationism, you'll see God shifting the Earth, cultivating it through animals who die out and then created, fish on mountaintops and oil at sea floors from a catastrophic flood- an entire world of life hand crafted by God and moved at His will.

The problem is that one doesn't have to deny evidence the go with the first, while one does have to deny evidence to go with the latter.

Like marine fossils on mountains and oils beneath seas. Science has explanations for those coming from fields like geology - independend of the fields of biology. Sea beds weren't always sea beds and mountains weren't always mountains. And we can pretty exactly tell you how plate tectonics made the land move over the millenia. We can tell you pretty exactly what the plates are and where they are colliding. This in turn explains the mountain regions, the volcanic activity around the world and why some mountains have marine fossils on top of them..

To go with your creationist ideas, it's not just biology that you need to deny. It's also physics, chemistry, geology,...

This is not about one specific idea versus another specific idea.
This quite literally is about science versus religion.

See, this is why certain theories (like evolution) in science are so mega solid... Not just because of the evidence in their own fields of study, but also because of the many convergent pieces of evidence of other, independend, fields.

The study of plate tectonics in geology has nothing to do with biology.
But off course, the biology goes on on the surface of the planet, ON the plates.
So it's logical that as these plates move, they take the biology on them, with them.
If land from the seabed is pushed up through geological activity at a certain point in time, turning it into a mountain millenia later, and if the geological study can also give us a rough date on when it emerged from the seas....

Then we can cross reference that with evolutionary history. There would be certain marine fossils we would expect to find while there would be others that we would NOT expect to find.

If a certain plant lived in the area that is now west africa and east latin america before Pangea broke apart.... Then we should find remnants of this in the geographic distribution of species. Which we do.
More then that, again here we can make predictions about what life we should find on which continent and which we shouldn't...

For example, a still extant plant that already existed before the break up, could be found on both continents. But a plant that evolved after the break up should be found only on the continent on which it evolved.

This is how geology, geographic distributions of species and evolution theory fit together like a glove.

This is what makes theories like evolution so strong.
It's not just an "internally consistent idea".

No, it is consistent throughout the natural sciences. It converges with other independend fields.

To remove evolution and insert creationist ideas, for this reason also requires the denial of plenty of other fields and theories.

People who think that they can simply remove evolution theory from science and assume that the rest of science remains without plot holes are extremely mistaken.

Those who realise the plot holes and think that they can stuff them with religious shenannigans are just as bad.

The logic of evolution is built on the premise that everything has to come about and continued on by it's own accord. The problem is, without an answer of origin or breathing force, that idea is just that- an idea. And so is evolution.

Evolution addresses the diversity of living things. It doesn't address the origins of living things, nore does it need to.

Life exists and we can study it. Life works the way it does, no matter how it came about. However it came about, it produced the type of life that exists.

It's a pretty safe assumption to state that life exists, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Mumbo Jumbo.

Seriously?

What Is Evolution?
Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two majormechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which producesrandom changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

Seems like not so much jumbo mumbo?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evolution says the female comes first.

The exact opposite of what Genesis says.

Evolution doesn't explain how or why sex came about at all. Sex is one element in evolution that remains unexplained and even some think it doesn't seem to fit at all. Why go to all that trouble and necessity for two organisms to reproduce.