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

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Bottom line is that it is a theory. It has nothing to offer on the origin of life. It falls flat, along with Darwin falling flat on his face.

You've had this explained to you before. You therefore either have the poorest memory on record, or you are deliberately being duplicitous in order to score points.

Evolutionary theory has nothing...NOTHING to say about the origins of life! It was never designed for that purpose, it has NEVER spoken on that purpose!

Your ridiculous charge would be like saying "The theory of gravity has nothing to offer about why there are germs - it falls flat"...!

Evolutionary theory explains why the diversity of life we observe (as fact!) has come about. And it does it perfectly. Despite over 150 years of nervous nellies and religious fundamentalists like yourself trying to poke holes in it, it has stood the test of time. So much so, that it is regarded as THE most well supported theory in all of science! The National Science Academy of the US recently voted it as amongst the top 5 developments in all of science - ever!

go back to your 2nd paragraph.....2nd sentence..what do you mean "It was never designed for that purpose....."?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
he used the term intelligent design. He used that term because he was unable to give an answer or "theory" to the origin of life. He was actually nearly stuttering as he spoke it. He seemed to be at a loss.

In your position, I´d be really careful to psychoanalyse other people. It might backfire.

you just got a little side-tracked, didn't you?

 

[Freodin]

you just got a little side-tracked, didn't you?

No, not really.

I guess it is rather difficult to have a clear and objective view of one´s own behaviour... but as an outsider, you can make observations and corresponding conclusions from an independent point of view.

Your observation and conclusion of Dr.Dawkins "behaviour" was that he was "at a loss". You interprete that in a certain way - one that supports your worldview - which may be wrong or right. Considering the alternative explanations for that mentioned scene, I´d say your interpretation is wrong.

But let´s consider your own behaviour. Let´s take post #10 of this thread as an example. Your response to Nathan´s post was " ".(Sorry, wrong second smily - I can´t copy/paste them. What experession is this you were using?) I´d say that you were "at a loss". Combined with your comments as "evolution is a theory" and your other empty rethorical responses I conclude that you simply don´t have a clue what you are talking about.

I may be wrong, though I´d say the evidence points in my way. We´d have to go deeper to find out.

And now what does that say about your opinion on Dr. Dawkin´s little interview?

 

[brinny]

No, not really.

I guess it is rather difficult to have a clear and objective view of one´s own behaviour... but as an outsider, you can make observations and corresponding conclusions from an independent point of view.

Your observation and conclusion of Dr.Dawkins "behaviour" was that he was "at a loss". You interprete that in a certain way - one that supports your worldview - which may be wrong or right. Considering the alternative explanations for that mentioned scene, I´d say your interpretation is wrong.

But let´s consider your own behaviour. Let´s take post #10 of this thread as an example. Your response to Nathan´s post was " ".(Sorry, wrong second smily - I can´t copy/paste them. What experession is this you were using?) I´d say that you were "at a loss". Combined with your comments as "evolution is a theory" and your other empty rethorical responses I conclude that you simply don´t have a clue what you are talking about.

I may be wrong, though I´d say the evidence points in my way. We´d have to go deeper to find out.

And now what does that say about your opinion on Dr. Dawkin´s little interview?

He was stumbling over his words. He had no idea how to even broach the subject of the origin of life, which was in direct contrast to his declaring earlier that those who believe differently than him, are stupid, at which time he spoke quite forcefully and without a verbal stumble or stutter. He appears unaware of how narrow and primitively limited he appears.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
He was stumbling over his words. He had no idea how to even broach the subject of the origin of life, which was in direct contrast to his declaring earlier that those who believe differently than him, are stupid, at which time he spoke quite forcefully and without a verbal stumble or stutter. He appears unaware of how narrow and primitively limited he appears.

<staff edit>

LOL He is the esteemed scientist being interviewed. i am not.

i am learning much about Dawkins, who supposedly was credible. the more i hear him, the more incredulous i find it that anyone would find him credible. He's intolerant and almost childish in his reactions to those who believe differently than he does.

Darwinism is insidious.

 

[Freodin]

<staff edit>

I fear this demonstrates another problem within the "evolution / creation" debate... we are talking different languages. Oh, both sides may use the same words, but they use them in different ways.

Usually, such miscommunication can be fixed by explanations... but here again I have to blame the creationist side: they are not interested in explanations, neither in hearing the others nor giving their own.

So when a scientist says (in a certain context) things like "I don´t know.", his idea behind that is something like "I´m not certain which of the various ideas and possibilities are factual, but I try my best to look into it."

The creationis hears "I don´t have the slightest clue".

And before the scientist can start to explain and present the various ideas and possibilities that might explain, the topic is changed or ignored. And the creationist community has another quote(mine) to prove: "Scientists are admittedly clueless!"

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Things evolve -- we've observed it happening.

What specific original species have you observed evolving from another species?

What species did you observe archaea to have evolved from?

What species did you observe cyanobacteria to have evolved from?

 

[Psudopod]

See here for observed speciation events:

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[MoonLancer]

The theory of evolution is antiquated and based on Darwin's stunted ideas of cells. He thought cells were simple. Since that time, it has been known that cells are galaxies more complex than Darwin was aware of. Bottom line is that Darwin does not know how life started. Neither does Dawkins.

how did gravity start? opps i guess its a myth.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

See here for observed speciation events:

Observed Instances of Speciation

From your article:

Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats!

So maybe you could tell me in your own words and also answer my questions.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

how did gravity start?

According to Newton and the hypothesis of universal gravitation: God did it!

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

Isaac Newton, General Scholium

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

***

opps i guess its a myth.

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7424929-4/#post53733365
See here for observed speciation events:

Observed Instances of Speciation
From your article:
Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats!

What&#8217;s your problem with this?

So maybe you could tell me in your own words and also answer my questions.

Why should I type that whole list out when you could read it for yourself? Me typing it out again is only going to run the risk of me introducing typos.

As for your questions, they&#8217;re irrelevant as I personally haven&#8217;t seen any speciation events. Doesn&#8217;t mean speciation events don&#8217;t happen, just mean I don&#8217;t get involved with them myself.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What’s your problem with this?

If dogs beget dogs, and cats beget cats, then what is the origin of species?

As for your questions, they’re irrelevant

LOL.

Clever dodge but not persuasive.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7424929-4/#post53733797
What&#8217;s your problem with this?
If dogs beget dogs, and cats beget cats, then what is the origin of species?

The common ancestor between cats and dogs.

As for your questions, they&#8217;re irrelevant
LOL.

Clever dodge but not persuasive.

Why? What does it matter if I personally have or haven&#8217;t witnessed these events myself? If I lied to you and said claimed to be someone on one of those papers would you suddenly change your mind?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The common ancestor between cats and dogs.

What common ancestor between cats and dogs?

What's it called?

What fossil evidence do you have of this mythological creature?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod

The common ancestor between cats and dogs.
​

What common ancestor between cats and dogs?

What's it called?

What fossil evidence do you have of this mythological creature?

I've been reading into this as it's not an area I'm particularly knowledgeable about. It would appear the ancestor of all Caniformia and Feliformia, appeared about 42 million years ago and was miacid - a small, arboreal weasel like carnivore.

 

[AirPo]

Bottom line is that it is a theory. It has nothing to offer on the origin of life. It falls flat, along with Darwin falling flat on his face.

Your bottom line needs a bailout.

 

[Nathan Poe]

From your article:


So maybe you could tell me in your own words and also answer my questions.

You asked for species, you got species. "Dogs" and "cats" are not species.

 

[brinny]

You asked for species, you got species. "Dogs" and "cats" are not species.

what are species?

 

[Cabal]

what are species?

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

"There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used."