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

[BananaSlug]

This isn't entirely true (there is some overlap), but I agree thata lot of the existing ToE is fine without a working theory of the origin of life. This continual reference back to the origin of life is just a red herring on the part of creationists.

I agree, but you know how creationists are horrible at gray areas.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What science knows now, is that a cell is at least several galaxies complex.

Science, eh? Guess what other things science knows nowadays ...

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by BananaSlug
The origin of life has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution

This isn't entirely true (there is some overlap), but I agree thata lot of the existing ToE is fine without a working theory of the origin of life. This continual reference back to the origin of life is just a red herring on the part of creationists.

well now hold on a minute...if there are genuine questions...they should be asked and explored, do you agree?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
What science knows now, is that a cell is at least several galaxies complex.

Science, eh? Guess what other things science knows nowadays ...

Do you disagree that the cell is complex?

Please, enlighten me on what other things science knows nowadays.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

well now hold on a minute...if there are genuine questions...they should be asked and explored, do you agree?

Yes, the origin of life is being explored. But claiming the ToE somehow falls down because we don't have a unified theory of the origin of life is nonsense. It's nothing more than a red herring to distract from how well supported the current ToE is.

Again, I'll go back to the subject of applied evolution. To quote from the abstract of this paper:

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.

Is any of the above dependent on knowing how the origin of life occured here on Earth? The answer is no.

 

[sfs]

Because it's the essence of this entire discussion. Evolutionists have been trying to leave the origin of life out of their little club because it's a roadblock to their need to die as sinners and not have to worry about a deity.

Confusing two different subjects is the essence of this entire discussion? Well, yes, I can believe that. Evolution does have some overlap with the origin of life, but they are fundamentally different fields of study, researched by different people using different methods. I sometimes study evolution, but I don't know much of anything about the origin of life, nor do I much care (beyond idle curiosity) how it happened.

As for your claims about the motivations of those who study evolution . . . these are just random lies you've made up, or that someone passed on to you and you chose to believe. Why you think slandering people you don't know and whose actual motivations you haven't a clue about is a good idea I don't know, but it sure isn't a godly one.

 

[brinny]

Yes, the origin of life is being explored. But claiming the ToE somehow falls down because we don't have a unified theory of the origin of life is nonsense. It's nothing more than a red herring to distract from how well supported the current ToE is.

Again, I'll go back to the subject of applied evolution. To quote from the abstract of this paper:



Is any of the above dependent on knowing how the origin of life occured here on Earth? The answer is no.

is ToE "evolution"?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Can you show that he thinks of Darwin the same way you think of god?

Dawkins thinks Darwin was infallible because evolution/atheism is a religion.

What would your reaction be to someone who told you that the world was hollow and filled with the souls of aliens who escape thru volcanos?

I would tell them that makes a hell of lot more sense than evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sinSG4mYajg

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by JusSumguy
Because it's the essence of this entire discussion. Evolutionists have been trying to leave the origin of life out of their little club because it's a roadblock to their need to die as sinners and not have to worry about a deity.

Confusing two different subjects is the essence of this entire discussion? Well, yes, I can believe that. Evolution does have some overlap with the origin of life, but they are fundamentally different fields of study, researched by different people using different methods. I sometimes study evolution, but I don't know much of anything about the origin of life, nor do I much care (beyond idle curiosity) how it happened.

As for your claims about the motivations of those who study evolution . . . these are just random lies you've made up, or that someone passed on to you and you chose to believe. Why you think slandering people you don't know and whose actual motivations you haven't a clue about is a good idea I don't know, but it sure isn't a godly one.

you are making assumptions here, it appears....it ruins your post.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Do you disagree that the cell is complex?

Me, I am not a science luminary exactly. But since you asked, I would say after skimming over the Wiki article on cells, yeah, you could call it complex.

Please, enlighten me on what other things science knows nowadays.

You are never all that quick on the uptake, are you? I was of course alluding to the ToE; and whether or not you agree, science is about as confident about common descent, changing allele frequencies, engenous retroviruses, nested hierarchies et al, as they are about the complexity (and structure etc) of cells.

 

[brinny]

Me, I am not a science luminary exactly. But since you asked, I would say after skimming over the Wiki article on cells, yeah, you could call it complex.



You are never all that quick on the uptake, are you? I was of course alluding to the ToE; and whether or not you agree, science is about as confident about common descent, changing allele frequencies, engenous retroviruses, nested hierarchies et al, as they are about the complexity (and structure etc) of cells.

Wiki is your source for cell knowledge?

 

[Freodin]

Wiki is your source for cell knowledge?

I just have to ask: what´s your source?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Wiki is your source for cell knowledge?

I just have to ask: what´s your source?

does it matter, since no one knows their origin?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Wiki is your source for cell knowledge?

Sure. Along with the tidbits I recall from school, TV docus, online discussion, and such of course.

It may come as a schock to you, but as far as matters scientific are concerned I am pretty much a consumer. Esp. when it comes to the nitty gritty particulars; I feel always quite at ease when it comes to principle matters.

 

[Cabal]

i fear you may have misunderstood my post, sir :o

Nope. You've been making assumptions about the reasoning and motives of the actions of others since your first post in this thread, when you started trying to psychoanalyse Darwin and Dawkins.

And even when you had Dawkins' explanation of the interview situation in question in his own words, like the mark of a true quote-miner who genuinely doesn't care about truth, you ignored it and kept on throwing presumptive remarks out there.

And you want to call other people on assumptions? Drop yours, then you may be listened to.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Wiki is your source for cell knowledge?

Sure. Along with the tidbits I recall from school, TV docus, online discussion, and such of course.

It may come as a schock to you, but as far as matters scientific are concerned I am pretty much a consumer. Esp. when it comes to the nitty gritty particulars; I feel always quite at ease when it comes to principle matters.

Here's a tidbit...it has been said by Dawkins, amongst others, that no one knows the origin of the cell. Is that true?

 

[Cabal]

He's the one selling out.

No, that would most definitely be IDists. While YECs are even more wrong than IDists on the science, at least they acknowledge who's in charge of the creation process - for that reason they have far more respect from me on that count.

ID was a no no to him. Now he seems to be relenting.

Except that ID and panspermia are actually different concepts, though they may overlap - but picking an intelligent designer that isn't Jehovah is well within the right of any ID follow. If you don't like, the ball is in your court.

Don't tell me I know more about your fearless leader than you do. It can't be true. (-:

He isn't my "fearless leader", smarty pants. *points to faith icon*

He isn't anyone's leader. He's only the leader to know-nothing creationists because he's the only evolutionary biologist they've ever heard of, because they don't ever read actual science!

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
i fear you may have misunderstood my post, sir

Nope. You've been making assumptions about the reasoning and motives of the actions of others since your first post in this thread, when you started trying to psychoanalyse Darwin and Dawkins.

And even when you had Dawkins' explanation of the interview situation in question in his own words, like the mark of a true quote-miner who genuinely doesn't care about truth, you ignored it and kept on throwing presumptive remarks out there.

And you want to call other people on assumptions? Drop yours, then you may be listened to.

Dawkins did a splendid job of spilling out his own inconsistencies and bizarreness. He did not need help from me. Darwin speaks for himself. He's an unfortunate embarrassment to any who gave him credibility he should've never had from the gitgo.

 

[Cabal]

does it matter, since no one knows their origin?

We were talking about sources with regard to cell complexity, not cell origin.

Now please, cite your sources.

 

[Cabal]

Dawkins did a splendid job of spilling out his own inconsistencies and bizarreness. He did not need help from me.

Those were his words, and his explanations of his words. And yet you claim to know more about his motive for speaking those words than he did. Big assumption - big hypocrisy.

Darwin speaks for himself. He's an unfortunate embarrassment to any who gave him credibility he should've never had from the gitgo.

Which is funny, because you've never actually been able to successfully use of any of Darwin's word to indicate why he shouldn't be taken seriously. So that only negatively affects your credibility, not his