Here is Reggie in a Ron Paul thread, here is prffsrx during my Xmas day post, here is Maurice when I posted the documentary "No End in Sight." All telling people to go learn that Evolution is false and that we all must bow to our God, it's basically a Lee Strobel fan site.
During a simpler time I would assume that this commentator is practicing the art of satire.
Perhaps, amusing us by joining the debates as a mock character, I hope this is the case, I actually think this AOLer legitimately doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. So for Maurice, Reggie or whatever you call yourself today, please watch this educational film about evolution. I am no scientist, but I think the jury is sold on this topic. Please, join us as we progress our species and move on, it'll be fun.
/via the sift
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 9)
31. Thomas J Gassett, Actually, there is only one type of scientific theory. And while theories can be disproved, they can never actually be proved, but they can be so well supported by evidence that it would be perverse to deny them. Evolution is one of those.
GalapagosPete at 3:15AM on Jan 1st 2008
32. Thank you Father John! I have been waiting for someone of the Christian faith to finally say something that made some sense. It has been agonizing. Post after post and I couldn't get one (Well one, Botts) to give me a satisfying answer. Yet in one post you managed to answer almost all of my questions. How refreshing your honesty is Father John. I wish I had come across you some time ago, I wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to get an answer.
amekf at 12:11AM on Jan 1st 2008
33. 15. BAAWA
Only someone like you would suggest that God would have to be created.
If the creator needed to be created, he would not be a creator.
Stop chasseing your tail,"spot."
Observant at 2:19PM on Dec 31st 2007
xxxx
If the 'creator' can create itself, then the universe can create itself and it is the creator. The step of 'god' is superfluous and not necessary if your 'logic' is followed.
This has been the lethal argument against creationism since its inception. There is no such thing as 'prime cause'. It's just a get out of jail free card for an argument that can't be understood by human reason. Therefore the concept of 'creator' falls outside the realm of science and reason.
You have no logical or rational basis for your faith if you have to say 'god always was'. That's an ooga booga statement and is more emphatic if you sacrifice a chicken or kiss a sarpint or something as many christians who aren't baptists frequently do.
The universe is perpetually observed and measured with increasing understanding; the 'creator' cannot be detected or demonstrated by any means known to anyone.
If evolution isn't correct, another explanation for the myriad of reported speciation events must be derived.
Having no explanation, religion looks the other way.
Since religions don't bother with laboratories, experiments, peer review or reproducable results, their 'science' can only be extemporized, like the 'intelligent' design dog-ate-my-homework apologetics that faith has to fabricate as a substitute for science or reproducable results.
Sometimes threats can be substituted if the church is powerful enough, but you'll never catch them in a proof because they don't indulge in them. They shun proof but want parity with science.
Observant indulges in this when he gets frustrated, threatening his enemies with the vengeance of his god and endless eons of agony while he will look on from somewhere and gloat.
Evolution will eventually be accepted by even the fundamentalist church, and older more moderate sects of christianity don't quibble with it or any other part of science, usually.
The church has since its inception attacked science whenever dogma is threatened and it always loses but it usually takes about 300 years. We're only about halfway there.
This is no different from flat earth, domed heaven, earth as center of the universe, man will never fly, man will never reach outer space, etc. Religion will eventually have to come around if the world goes on.
Clif Kuplen at 10:53AM on Jan 1st 2008
34. 30. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian Priest. I am really sick and tired of people who have houseplant IQ's being seen as the spokespeople for Christianity.
xxxx
As are probably the majority of us!
Father John, it has been my good fortune in life to have known a number of priests of various denominations who would endorse your position in the last post to the letter.
I do believe you speak at least in line with if not on behalf of the majority of americans of faith, and it's comforting to be reminded that you all are out there.
I wish we were all aware of that much more of the time, hence the next few paragraphs:
My question to ALL moderate people of faith, is how long are you all going to refrain from some kind of proactivism that is obvious to the media. Religion is being characterized and endorsed in what I think is a dangerous way by the media.
I'm sensing that moderate americans of any political persuasion and faith have some engagement to consider if there is to be a reversal of what I can only call an atavistic trend in a growing faction of american christianity, and a desire by this element to run all aspects of government.
I would be very happy to see moderate christians of any denomination standing up loudly and frequently and denouncing the robertsons and dobsons and hopefully Huckabees as extremists who in NO WAY represent the majority of resposible americans who pracice faith, be it christianity or whatever.
I would feel much safer in such a country. I would think we ALL would save those who want to continue the dominionist agenda.
Anyway thanks for standing up frequently. I wish it were on c-span in front of congress though, or on a major news network on a weekly basis.
Clif Kuplen at 11:15AM on Jan 1st 2008
35. There are still people who think that the moon landing was shot in Hollywood.
a born atheist at 11:16AM on Jan 1st 2008
36.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT ORIGINS
Q. WHAT IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
A. Scientists have discovered a universe that is brimming with intelligence. Einstein observed that behind mathematics and physics is what he called ãan intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.ä When Stephen Hawking saw the evidence for a finely-tuned universe he remarked, "There must be religious overtones, but I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."
In fact, many leading scientists, regardless of their religious persuasion, have made similar observations about apparent intelligence behind the laws of our universe. Thus, intelligent design is merely drawing the best inferences from scientific observation as it applies to our origins.
Q. IS THE ARGUMENT FOR DESIGN BASED ON SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE?
A. On the contrary. If youâve ever watched Disney's Fantasia, you may recall a god casting thunderbolts down from the clouds. Lightning bolts, rainbows, and many other natural phenomena were once explained as divine intervention. Such thinking is referred to as god-of-the-gaps reasoning÷attributing the mysterious to a divine hand.
But, todayâs intelligent design arguments are based upon a growing body of scientific evidence concerning everything from DNA to the laws of physics; and upon our uniform and repeated experience.
Design theorists offer extensive evidence that blind, material causes are incapable of building irreducibly complex and information-rich systems. They then point out that whenever we know how such systems arose÷such as with an integrated circuit, a car engine, or a software program÷invariably a designing engineer played a role. Design theorists then extend this uniform experience to things like molecular machines and the sophisticated code needed to build even the first and simplest of cells. An increasing number of leading scholars attest that increased scientific knowledge about such things has greatly strengthened the argument for design.
Q. ARE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND BIBLICAL CREATIONISM THE SAME?
A. Although materialists and the media often lump them together, their premise is so different that itâs like comparing apples and oranges. Biblical creationism looks at science through the lens of Genesis, whereas intelligent design draws its logical inferences about our origins from scientific discoveries without any such filter. It is actually the scientific discoveries that have led many scientists, such as Einstein, to believe in a super-intelligence behind the universe. Intelligent design advocates vary in their religious beliefs, and leave the identity of the designer to theologians. Biblical creationists specify the designer as the Judeo-Christian God.
Q. WHAT IS FINE TUNING AND WHY DOES IT HAVE SO MANY SCIENTISTS ALLUDING TO A "DESIGNER"?
A. Scientists have calculated that an impressive and growing number of conditions had to be fine-tuned to a razorâs edge in order for the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, and planet to accommodate human life. The ãcoincidenceä is so overwhelming that scientists bent on avoiding evidence of design have proposed the idea of countless unseen universes, with us being in an extraordinarily lucky part of one of the lucky universes, one that allows for advanced life. Such an explanation is not only far-fetched but unscientific and logically fallacious.
Q. IS THE ARGUMENT FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN ANTI-DARWIN?
A. Not actually. But it does evaluate his theory on the basis of the evidence. Darwin was correct about natural selection resulting in life’s many variations within species. For example, dogs, cats, birds, and humans come in various shapes, sizes, and colors. Thus his theory of microevolution (variation within a species) is indisputable. But the forensic fossil evidence does not support his theory of macroevolution, that life evolved by random chance all the way from a murky pond to human beings.
Q. IS THERE EVIDENCE MAN EVOLVED FROM APES?
A. Leading paleoanthropologists admit that museum and textbook drawings depicting our ape ancestry are speculative. All that fossil hunters have been able to uncover are a few extinct species of hominids, creatures vastly inferior to humans in their intellectual capacities. What archeology tells us, and that even the most ardent evolutionist is agreed upon, is that the uniquely human activities of art, language, and civilization emerged suddenly just a few thousand years ago. Renowned evolutionists acknowledge that Homo sapiens are a distinct species who suddenly appeared with a large brain from a single origin.
Q. COULD INTRICATE ORGANS LIKE THE EYE HAVE EVOLVED BY CHANCE AND NATURAL SELECTION?
A. New discoveries in microbiology suggest that the answer is no. Darwin hypothesized how the eye and other ãorgans of extreme perfectionä could have evolved through natural selection. However, in his later years he admitted that the eye still gave him a ãcold shudderä.
Q. WHAT CONVINCED LEADING ATHEIST ANTONY FLEW THAT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER EXISTS?
A. Flew was so impressed by the incredible genius behind even the simplest cell that he renounced 50 years of atheistic philosophy, stating that such an intricate system could not have arisen without a designer.
Q. HAS A DESIGNER GIVEN US CLUES THAT REVEAL WHAT HE IS LIKE?
A. Since the discovery that the universe had a beginning, scientists have been wrestling with the questions of who started it all, and why. Many of them believe that a designer not only exists, but has revealed himself to us in specific ways.
Q. WHAT EVIDENCE HAS CONVINCED MANY SCIENTISTS THAT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER EXISTS?
A.
The discovery that the universe had a beginning points to a beginner.
The fine-tuning of earth and the universe for life
The biochemistry of irreducibly complex systems like the eye.
The intricacy and genius of DNA.
The incredible human brain with its network of 100 trillion connections and its extraordinary capacities.
The uniquely human traits of an inner conscience that intuits a moral law, as well as our intrinsic desire for meaning and purpose.
DENA at 1:44PM on Jan 1st 2008
37. design and designer are human concepts. The 'designer' under such a 'plan' cannot be simpler than the design. Since the universe is a design, the designer must be more complex, meaning the d. can't exist in the universe. Since the universe is everything, there's a problem.
At that point just like at every other point above, the argument slips a cog.
Since the only reality that would accomodate such a conundrum is m-theory, and that is still being worked out mathematically, the concept is only an unsupported imitation of possible future models of the multiverse. It's way too soon for that.
Another thing to consider. The us has about 1/20th of the world population, and employment figures indicate about 150,000 full time life science researchers. The world figure is probably over a million.
If you look at the percentage of people in any segment of society with serious mental illness v the number of intelligent design koolaid drinkers in the life science population, and if you deduct the 'biostitutes', those scientists who turn tricks for money, you'll probably find the crazies greatly outnumber the creationists. Whether P(AUB)=1, I don't know, but you're dealing with a handful of individuals in any case, not even a perceptible minority. It's probably equal to the number of atheist fundamentalist preachers for about the same reasons.
Clif Kuplen at 2:47PM on Jan 1st 2008
38. By the way, the illusion of irreducable complexity can be illustrated another way. Listen to about four hours of Art Tatum playing solo piano and try to figure out why he rarely repeats himself.
If you take your ability, whoever you are and try to reduce Tatum's playing to something you can reproduce, you're likely to throw up your hands and claim irreducible complexity. Even Horowitz couldn't do it and he tried.
Clif Kuplen at 2:52PM on Jan 1st 2008
39. Dena
I will pose this question to you now. If we were created by such an intelligent designer, then why weren't we created perfectly? Why not create us without sin. Begin with heaven on earth. Why all the pain, suffering and death over thousands of years? For his own folly?
amekf at 2:55PM on Jan 1st 2008
40. All that fossil hunters have been able to uncover are a few extinct species of hominids, creatures vastly inferior to humans in their intellectual capacities.
xxxxx
out and out lies again.
There is an excellent and perpetually growing fossil record of early man, some mixed with ape features such as saggital crests and canine gaps, but with hominid cephalic indices.
Cro Magnon had the intelligence of modern man. H. neanderthalensis was very very close.
At one point the earth supported three hominid species, all of similar intelligence.
The tract is nothing but preacherbabble.
Moreover human chromosome number 2 is A FUSION OF TWO MONKEY CHROMOSOMES!
Creationists never want to acknowledge this.
This stuff dena posts is nothing more than easily debunkde preacherbabble. Ask for the published papers or scientific experiments or anything reproducible and you'll get nothing but evasion and threats.
Creationism is nothing more than preacherbabble and evolution is factual.
In time the fundamentalist sects will have to abandon this as they always must do when confronting science. When I was a kid, to a man, fundamentalists said blacks bore the mark of cain and that man would never reach outer space.
This is no different. There are countless documented examples of species differentiation in the past hundred years or more. Even ONE would disprove creationism.
Clif Kuplen at 3:03PM on Jan 1st 2008
41. amekf, If Dena was capable of an original thought, she wouldn't have trolled by here with a cut and paste from a website she didn't even have the courtesy to cite.
She doesn't have the tools to have an intelligent conversation, or she would at least have tried.
GalapagosPete at 4:21PM on Jan 1st 2008
42. I like the bacteria that eat nothing but nylon. (Andromeda strain lol)
There is nothing yet that has been shown to be irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is a lie.
What I find fairly interesting is the way fetuses develop in the womb. There is residual genetic information in our dna. The result is that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny', ie. the growth of the fetus follows a similar pattern to evolution.
a born atheist at 3:59PM on Jan 1st 2008
43. Don't feed the troll, i.e. Dena.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:46PM on Jan 1st 2008
44. 39. Dena
I will pose this question to you now. If we were created by such an intelligent designer, then why weren't we created perfectly? Why not create us without sin. Begin with heaven on earth. Why all the pain, suffering and death over thousands of years? For his own folly?
amekf at 2:55PM on Jan 1st 2008
We were created perfectly. Before man, God had kicked satan (then named Lucifer) and his fellow-angel followers from heaven. satan roamed the air, angry at God. When God created Adam, then Eve, satan came down here, as a spirit and having some powers, tempted Eve into disobeying God. Nothing happened. It wasn't until Adam disobeyed God by eating the fruit that their eyes opened and suddenly knew right from wrong. Before, they were innocent as children. God's Spirit left Adam because sin entered into him. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would still be in the garden today. But because they disobeyed God, they were cursed and forced from the garden. Adam would have to, from then on, work for their food and Eve would be cursed with pain in childbirth, since God knew there would be lust following their disobedience. They would also die in the flesh. This is why people are born into sin. But God made a way for everyone to repent of their sins and have Him take care of them/us. We are accountable for our own actions, but because of His grace, he made a way for us to be redeemed and that way is through Jesus Christ. Heaven had to be separate from earth. When people are born-again, that means we are 1st born of the flesh, in sin. But through redemption, we become born-again in the Spirit. In this world, but not of this world. satan is the cause of all pain, sadness, death, corruption, etc., because we all allow satan to compel and deceive us. God is there when we need Him, but it is up to us to reject satan and his deceit.
DENA at 8:11PM on Jan 1st 2008
45. You atheists have no real interest in science, other than the fact that evolutionary science fits your belief that there is no God, no Creator. You have before you evidence that is completely counter to evolution and you refuse to accept the facts. You prefer to think that you are more qualified in science than those evolutionists-turned-Creationists who have been trained in science. They are turning to Creationism because their studies have been debunked and they are beginning to see that there are only 2 possibilities how everything came into existence. Either through evolution/the big-bang OR an intelligent being who created so perfectly and flawlessly. They have come to realize that there is stronger evidence for the latter than the former. Your evolutionary heroes are abandoning ship and going to a stronger one. What is making them do so? As scientists, they see something you laypeople don't. Not one scientist who has studied Creationism has ever jumped to the other side. It's because they also see something you don't understand. You would argue with a dog if you could win that argument. But evidence contrary to evolution would not make you even wonder if there could be an intelligent designer, because that would thwart your whole belief system and force you to concede there is a God, something you are not willing to do. I am finding science even more fascinating and have learned alot through reading it. I have read both arguments objectively and still find Creationism more evident. Now, this is my original thought. No paste in here. I would love to debate with an intelligent objective and mature person in here, but have not come across anyone like that in here.
DENA at 8:37PM on Jan 1st 2008