Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Creatures That Defy Evolution

with 53 comments

This is another case for design, the question is how did these creatures evolve?

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

May 1, 2008 at 1:27 pm

53 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Go ahead. Tell us how the bombardier beetle was designed.

    myrmecos

    May 1, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  2. Personal incredulity is not evidence for anything except your own ignorance.

    splendidelles

    May 1, 2008 at 7:58 pm

  3. Look the case for evolution is seeing what the various animals evolved from. But animals have characteristics which are unlike any other animals.

    stuffgirlslike

    May 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  4. If they “defy evolution,” that makes a very clear prediction–if we sequence genes and proteins from these animals, they won’t fit into a single nested hierarchy.

    Of course, I suspect that you aren’t bright enough to understand the concept of a single nested hierarchy.

    BTW, the idea that teeth evolved from fish scales is idiotic. Apparently you haven’t noticed that many fish have teeth.

    john

    May 3, 2008 at 12:12 am

  5. Do, dawkinswatch, are you ready to tell us why you’re opposed to thought?

    J. Frantz

    May 3, 2008 at 2:55 am

  6. You still haven’t justified your anti-thought position. If you’re going to rant and rave against the institution of thought, you should explain your position a wee bit…

    J. Frantz

    May 5, 2008 at 6:47 am

  7. The idiocy! It burns!

    Learn something about evolution and biology, blogger, before you try and criticize it. It simply makes you look stupid. Or, stupider (is that a word?). The evolution of the Giraffe is pretty well understood. The fact that it is beyond your understanding is irrelevant. It is still fact.

    You may want to back up a bit and show some backbone for a change by either defending or retracting you claim about atheists and fear of death. I hope you will, but am pretty sure you won’t. You are to cowardly to admit that you are wrong and to stupid to actually provide evidence for a claim.

    Pathetic.

    Mike

    May 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  8. “idiocy . . . stupid . . . stupider . . . beyond your understanding . . . show some backbone . . . cowardly . . . stupid . . . pathetic”

    Hmmm . . . what a surprise to find that many attacks in one little comment. And to think, it came from a materialist! Shocking.

    Neil

    May 12, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  9. Shocking, too, that each and every one was deserved. How utterly amazing! I suppose that any claim that has ample proof (as mine do) is off-putting to a certain class of people, such as this blogger and the poster above.

    So, Neil, I suppose you are claiming that it is a trait of a “materialist” that I (or we, since I have been neatly labelled) tell people the truth about themselves, even when it is unpleasent? Is that what you meant? I doubt it, but that is what is happening here. This blogger should be ashamed of himself and he is the target of my right-minded vitriol because such foolishness as he spouts needs to be denied with vigour.

    You, too, should be ashamed of yourself for supporting this blogging bufoon in any way.

    Mike

    May 13, 2008 at 1:14 pm

  10. Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy, and yours was an extended play version. I just find the “New Atheist” approach amusing – the same old arguments played at a louder volume and in a more insulting way.

    Ironically, if your worldview is true and we are just the result of a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man process, then that very process led the blogger and me to our beliefs. So how can you make any judgments about those, let alone moral judgments about anything? We’re just bags of chemicals doing what comes naturally. Why get so upset about it? How can someone be ashamed of anything if materialism is true? Isn’t that just chemical reactions making you think you’re ashamed?

    Neil

    May 13, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  11. First, I’m not a “new” atheist. I’ve been one for a long time. This blogger deserves nothing but personal attack. He refuses to engage in a reasonable manner, after a long term effort from several people including me. All that is left is to let him know who pitiful he is. I am no engaging in an Ad Hominun attack. That is when one says, “This blogger is a christian so we shouldn’t believe anything he says”, or something similar to counter an argument. What I am doing is simple insult and a decrying of the blogger’s sadly failing character. Two very different things.

    Next you go into some very actual claims. A refreshing change in these parts. Observe the differnt way I address them.

    Before we proceed, perhaps we can agree on a concise formulation of what you are saying. I propose the following:

    1. We are the result of natural forces.
    2. Thus, all actions we can take are equally natural.
    3. Thus, all actions are equal.
    4. If all actions are equal, then no value judgements are possible.

    Is that correct? I will await your response in this forum.

    P.S. See? You actually say something and I actually respong, Neil. This blogger is the lowest of the low that can be found on the web. He makes repaeted, insane, unfouded claims that are insulting to those he is making claims about and reguses to engage when people try and correct him. That is why he deserves all the abuse that can be piled on him and it is also why you should, as I said before, be ashamed of yourself if you support him.

    Mike

    May 14, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  12. Mike,

    Go look in the mirror. Ridicule is not an argument. I get trolls at my blog, and I delete them. I see fools at other blogs and I ignore them. It is quite simple. I should give free blogging tips to atheists, but you aren’t going to persuade anyone of anything with that approach.

    You have demonstrated to me that a productive dialogue is probably impossible, but for grins let me point out a couple things:

    Your item 4 annihilates everything you said about this blogger and me. Think about it. You have made an endless stream of value judgments about us both, most recently saying I should be “ashamed.” How can that be if no value judgments are possible?

    You are yet another materialist who can’t go 5 minutes living in concert with his worldview. I encourage you to meditate on that and think about whether there is another worldview that better explains how things really are in the universe.

    I’ll stop by to steal your stereo later as well. Since no value judgments are possible I’m sure you won’t mind ;-).

    Neil

    May 14, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  13. What on earth are you talking about? I proposed a clear formulation (in no way implying that I agreed with it) of your argument as I understood it and awaited your agreement or correction so that discussion could continue. If you think that is ridicule, I can only express amazement.

    I note that you do not respond to my question. I ask again. Was my four line expression a clear demonstration of your argument or was it not?

    Yes, by the way, I do make value judgements because I, using reason, can do so.

    My dealings with this blogger have nothing to do with you. You actually presented an argument and I addressed it in a reasonable manner. This blogger is a buffoon who could, if anyone actually listened to him, do great harm. That is why he and anyone who supports him should be ashamed of themselves.

    So, will you answer my directly asked question or not? Is my formulation of your argument valid?

    I note that it is possible that you are the blogger. He has decietfully tried to use other names before, but I do not think you are. Your grammer is better.

    Mike

    May 14, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  14. The ridicule I referred to was all the other things you’ve said. I think that is pretty clear.

    If you think those 4 points express an argument for my worldview then you are so far off I don’t know where to start. Read my blog if you want to know my views. I’m pretty candid with them on just about any topic.

    No, I am not the blogger. I always use my real name and I have my own blogs. P.S. grammer is actually grammar.

    “Yes, by the way, I do make value judgements because I, using reason, can do so.”

    I know you make them value judgments, but why should anyone care about them? Do you believe in universal morality?

    Neil

    May 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm

  15. Again, I can only express amazement. You wrote the following:

    “Ironically, if your worldview is true and we are just the result of a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man process, then that very process led the blogger and me to our beliefs. So how can you make any judgments about those, let alone moral judgments about anything? We’re just bags of chemicals doing what comes naturally. Why get so upset about it? How can someone be ashamed of anything if materialism is true? Isn’t that just chemical reactions making you think you’re ashamed?”

    I just tried to address it so that we could discuss it in a rational manner. At thi spoint it is unclear whether you are willing to do so.

    To answer your question, no. Universal morality does not exist because for it to exist, there must also exist a universal formulator (at least) of that morality. No such universal formulator can be shown to exist. I invite you to do so if you can.

    Now, since you seem to be having trouble following me, is my short outline a fair restatement of the argument you presented in the paragraph I quoted? You said it wasn’t a fair outline of your worldview but I wasn’t addressing your worldview, just what you said.

    Mike

    May 14, 2008 at 11:54 pm

  16. “Universal morality does not exist because for it to exist, there must also exist a universal formulator (at least) of that morality. No such universal formulator can be shown to exist.”

    I think you are wildly incorrect. Surf the Apologetics links to the right of my blog if you want to know more.

    But for now, I hope you’ll at least concede that if there is no universal morality that you are not living out your worldview very well. You are very upset about the comments made here and have made a succession of judgmental statements and telling us to be ashamed. But we don’t share your definition of morality, so why put our judgments on us? Why be so self-righteous?

    Neil

    May 15, 2008 at 12:24 am

  17. I see that you are not in fact willing to engage on the subject of the claims that you made.

    I am quite famaliar with the major claims of Apologetics and am aware, as you are not, that if one does not begin with the apriori assuption that a deity exists, they all fail. I thought perhaps you would come up with something new, but from you apologetics links, you have not. if you care to pick one specifically, we can discuss it. Unlike you, I am willing to engage.

    Your last point is also invalid. A universal morality based upon the word of a founder does not exist, as no evidence of a founder exists. The converse, claiming that a universal morality exists and is proof of a founder also doesn’t work. To claim that, one must first define this “Universal Morality” and once you start trying to do that, you will quickly see problems I think.

    What we actually have is an evolved survival strategy that involves group living, altruism, and a lot of other specific traits that we call morality. It works and exists because we collectivly agree that it works. In this scenario, one would expect varaition in behavior from individual to individual and group to group. If morality truly were universal (i.e. everyone agrees on it in all details) it would be evidence for theism. However, what we see in the real world is the variation i mentioned.

    Now, I have engaged your questions. Can youi do the same? I have asked two. First, the one I posed earlier about my paraphrase of your claim in this forum. Second, I asked you to choose one favorite argument from apologetics and we can go over it in detail. Can you do either?

    As a last point, if there is a universal morality, how could we disagree on it?

    Mike

    May 15, 2008 at 1:27 am

  18. I’m not dodging you, but – and I mean this in the nicest possible way – I really don’t care. I get all the traffic I need at my blog and prefer to do most of my writing there.

    If you completely avoid the kind of talk you started this thread with then you are welcome at my blog. I’ve had about 1,000 comments (literally) from atheists who came “raiding” from Richard Dawkins site, so I don’t mind visitors if they behave.

    “As a last point, if there is a universal morality, how could we disagree on it?”

    Easy. Have you ever noticed how people break rules? Also, people suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1) and rationalize all sorts of evil like abortions.

    Neil

    May 15, 2008 at 2:08 am

  19. Forgot the last line – Just because people rationalize evil doesn’t mean it isn’t evil. Otherwise you have no reason to distinguish between Mother Teresa and Joseph Stalin.

    Neil

    May 15, 2008 at 2:09 am

  20. Oh, you just don’t care. OK. That doesn’t look anything like you dodging a difficult question because you can’t answer. You just felt that I needed correcting and this despicable blogger needed defending.

    Well, wrong on both counts. Now, crawl back to your little blog where you feel safe.

    I am yet again bourne out in my opinion that theist fanatics are loudmouths who tuirn and run the minute they are challenged.

    Mike

    May 15, 2008 at 3:47 am

    • I never run from the truth, even though I wouldn’t consider myself a fanatic, you might have to define that word to others.

      Eric Berger

      August 8, 2009 at 9:37 pm

  21. Yeah, I’m afraid of the guy who, true to form, reverts to his ad hominem attacks whenever he doesn’t get his way. How surprising. Yeah, I can’t handle the atheists – except the 1,000 comments from the Dawkins crowd. It couldn’t be that I’d rather not waste my time in a one on one conversation with someone who can’t go three sentences without a personal attack when I could be addressing my comments to hundreds per day, could it?

    I revoke the offer – don’t stop by my blog, except to read.

    Neil

    May 15, 2008 at 8:35 am

  22. Again, you don’t know what an Ad Hominum is. I’m just telling yiou the truth about you and you:

    1. See it as an insult (sorry you don’t like yourself).
    2. Think it is a formal fallacy when it isn’t, for the reasons I outlined above. You don’t learn very well, do you?

    You can keep whining all you want about how you don’t have time or any of the rest of it. You had time to come in here and get on your high horse but when challenged reasonably, you high-tail it out.

    No, it could not be that you want to engage in a more public place. If you did you would say, “I will reply at this other location, please reply in this way…” You didn’t. You even go so far as to high-handedly refuse me access to your blog. Not only are you running, you’re locking the door behind you in fear.

    Mike

    May 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    • I think it’s funny that you basically included a personal attack while trying to prove that you don’t use personal attacks, “sorry you don’t like yourself”

      Eric Berger

      August 8, 2009 at 9:39 pm

  23. Actually I know what it is and I know how to spell it correctly: ad hominem.

    From Wikipedia: “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”

    In fact, there is a specific ad hominem attack you are using: Ad hominem abusive.
    “Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent’s.”

    I am more than happy for any middle grounders to view this thread and draw their own conclusions or to visit my blog. I don’t aim to change the views of hard core materialists, but I do think the undecided and truly seeking folks can learn from these exchanges.

    Neil

    May 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  24. I agree. You are spending a lot of time here for someone who was leaving.

    Now, you quote;

    “consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim…”

    I didn’t do that. I did insult the blogger, but that was purely for the purpose of insult. I addressed every argument substantively, and neither you nor the blogger responded in kind. You persist in not seeing the difference between deserved descriptions of bad character and argument. One begins to suspect that you don’t really know how to engage in argument, since you consistently refuse to do so and then misuse a charge of fallacy. I never once replied to an actual claim or argument with a diversion of the type you claim. One wonders why you fail to see that. Perhaps one need look no further then that it is another excuse for you not to engage.

    Also, charges of poor spelling are the last refuge of the person with nothing to say. I type these entries quickly and with little attention to form. Can you do no better then that? You are aware, that by engaging in a dig at my spelling ability, you are (by your definition) engaging in a fallacy? Of course, that’s just by your definition, which is incorrect. You aren’t using that silly charge to refute or disarm an argument, so it isn’t a fallacy. See the difference?

    Mike

    May 15, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  25. your a douche if you deny God!

    obvious

    May 27, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  26. you guys are FREAKIN NAZI’S MAN! FREAKIN NAZI’S!
    If your an atheist and would like help tryin to prove any and possibly every point, then this is the best site for help http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop

    obvious

    May 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  27. I shake my head in despair that, in the 21st century, people still apparently hold supernatural beliefs strongly enough to argue so strongly. When the religious man provides me with real scientific evidence that god (which one?!) exists then I shall take him seriously. Otherwise, let him quietly get on with what keeps him happy. But he may as well be talking about Father Christmas.

    FTM

    July 22, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  28. As a Christian I focus on the evidence. There are several important facts that even skeptical historians will concede:

    – Jesus died on a cross
    – The disciples really believed He rose physically (even if the skeptics don’t believe He rose physically they realize that the disciples did)
    – The Apostle Paul persecuted Christians then converted after claiming to see the risen Christ and wrote at least Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philipians, Galatians and Philemon, which record key doctrines and traditions at early dates. Paul was hostile to the faith and had no reason to believe.

    More here – http://www.risenjesus.com/challenge/frameSet.html

    On the other hand, you set up a false dilemma where you claim that you must prove an immaterial being using material (i.e., scientific) methods. It may seem like a clever way to patronize people of faith but it is illogical.

    Do you have empirical evidence to prove that only empirical evidence can be considered as evidence? Of course not, that would be circular reasoning. You must use the correct system to measure something. You can’t weigh a mile on a scale, but that doesn’t mean miles don’t exist.

    Neil

    July 22, 2008 at 4:28 pm

  29. You are basing your entire supernatural belief system on an ancient set of manuscripts and on what you have been instructed to believe by the religious authorities. The manuscripts were almost all written at different times, some many years after the events supposedly happened, and the religious authorities have a habit of ‘losing’ those manuscripts that do not appear to agree with the others.

    You still have not provided me with any evidence. You are boldly declaring an immaterial being. I am saying such an entity (probably) does not exist, there is certainly no physical evidence to suggest it does. Where is your proof to say the entity does exist? It is just not good enough to claim one cannot use scientific methods. Sure I can’t weigh a mile on a scale, but I can weigh a kilogram on a scale and a mile by walking. This argument is entirely logical. I do not accept your argument without the production of evidence. If you produce real evidence to back up your outrageous claims then I will acknowledge that you were correct, bow my head in your church and buy you a beer/Coke (delete as appropriate).

    Why do you allow yourself hold such beliefs without a scrap of evidence? Presumebly in a lot of cases it has to do with the way people are brought up. Perhaps in other cases it is due to people not being able to answer questions, so they at some point made up answers. Maybe it is the fear of death. To place an entire set of supernatural beliefs only on the ramblings of an ancient book is staggering to say the least.

    FTM

    July 22, 2008 at 9:21 pm

  30. Nice dodges, but I’ll just point back to my previous comment. I pointed out how you rigged the rules to favor your outcome – some call that cheating, but since atheists do it so reflexively and rarely get called on it I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance.

    I pointed you to significant historical evidence, attested to by even skeptical historians. You ignored it. Why should I share more? I have lots of time and energy for honest seekers. Check out the apologetics links to the right of my blog. For those with false motives I just highlight them and move on, as I’m doing now . . .

    Peace,
    Neil

    Neil

    July 22, 2008 at 9:29 pm

  31. Sorry, my bad, I shouldn’t have been so snippy. Please replace “ignorance” with “misinformation,” “honest seekers” with “seekers” and “false motives” with “alternate views.”

    Neil

    July 23, 2008 at 1:58 am

  32. They weren’t dodges. So, as you have done, I shall just point back to my point. I do not accept your argument without the production of evidence. You are the one making the outrageous claim of an immaterial being, so the onus is on you, not me. Let’s see your evidence, it is down to you to provide evidence to back up your claims otherwise how can anybody take you seriously. As I said, I may as well choose to believe in Father Christmas. There is a similar amount of evidence that he jumps down my chimney each Christmas – ie. none, except for what my parents used to tell me when I was young.

    Reading through your posts you appear to be sadly blinkered. (I’m sure you will now argue that you see me as blinkered too.) The difference is I have made up my own mind based on the evidence in front of us both. You and your crowd, on the other hand, appear to have done what so many others do – that is believe what you are told to believe and follow like sheep without real question. If a question comes up that you can’t or don’t want to answer then you duck, as you have done in your previous replies. For this to happen in the 21st Centrury I find deeply saddening.

    FTM

    July 23, 2008 at 9:54 am

  33. One last comment – I should have just pasted this link earlier as it addresses your straw man argument and other logical fallacies. Read it and go from there – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/hyperbole-gone-mad/

    It also lists link after link with evidence for God. Also see the Apologetics links to the right of my blog. If you don’t agree with them, that is fine, but to ignore that I gave evidence (the historical claims that have far greater concencus than many of your scientific claims) is revealing. You pretended that I didn’t even type the historical claims, so why should I type more here? If you are really interested, then prove it and read some more.

    Or go read City of God by Augustine. He soundly refuted the atheistic and other pagan arguments 1,600 years ago, and the arguments haven’t changed.

    We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, historical evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc. If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission.

    But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible. When they trot out the unicorn, Father Christmas and similar arguments I just treat that as the Atheist Concession Speech. It means they aren’t even trying or are truly ignorant in their claims.

    I’m confident that true seekers will realize which side is more credible.

    Neil

    July 23, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  34. Hey Neil, this conversation could just go round and round. Obviously we’re both convinced we’re right in what we are saying. I’ve no wish for the argument to turn personal but equally I just do not accept your evidence as being up to scratch. I have read the text on the link you provided plus the Apologetics links – both with interest. None of the evidence you have quoted stands up to real scientific analysis. I particularly dislike the idea of Intelligent Design. Surely this only puts the argument back a step – if you claim that something is too advanced and too perfect so that the only way it can exist is to have been designed, then that implies there is a designer. Surely the designer therefore must be even more advanced than the life he has designed. It just leaves us with the problem of ‘who created god?’

    My problem is not with any religion as such. Crikey – there are enough to choose from after all. It’s more a problem with people accepting ancient fairy tale ideas without evidence just because other people do. Anyway – as I say, this could go on and on. It’s unfair as we’re not playing on a level field. I’m asking for real evidence and you’re giving me stuff like prophecies, morality and the resurrection of a Jew.

    Keep praying and I’ll just keep shaking my head in disbelief ;o)
    At least you’ll not be disappointed when you eventually die as you won’t know anything about it.

    FTM

    July 23, 2008 at 9:19 pm

  35. “I’m asking for real evidence and you’re giving me stuff like prophecies, morality and the resurrection of a Jew.”

    I take back the comment where I backed off some assertions. Now I can confidently say that my hunches were right: You are dishonest and your motives are false. You are just an endless stream of logical fallacies: Straw man arguments being the most common, rigging the rules. I gave you real historical evidence, and you come back and say otherwise.

    Have fun in your little made up world. I know this passage to be true, and it is all about you. When you eventually die, if you don’t repent and believe in Jesus as your Savior, you’ll admit it is true as well. You are without excuse.

    Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    Neil

    July 23, 2008 at 9:55 pm

  36. “Have fun in your little made up world” – oh the irony. If anything you’ve made me smile over the past few days.

    There is little point in attempting to reason with somebody who refuses to accept the evidence of their opponents, or stubbornly refuses to provide evidence of their own arguments. In your world “it’s written in The Bible therefore it’s true”. When somebody holds such strong and irrational beliefs then there is no point in anybody trying to persuade them otherwise, regardless of the abundance of evidence to support evolution (for example). As a scientist I am always prepared to accept new evidence and adjust my understanding accordingly.

    I’m not sure if you’re really genuine or if this site is just a spoof. Giving you the benefit of the doubt then I wish you well. One doesn’t have to believe in the supernatural to be a ‘good’ person.

    Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

    All the best from the UK
    FTM

    PS. If I see you in heaven I’ll buy you a pint!! ;o)

    FTM

    July 24, 2008 at 9:36 am

  37. Neil, if the Apostle’s belief is an important factor in your belief then I have to worry… what if they were wrong to believe?

    Plenty of people nowadays believe in things that I think you and I would both agree were not true or real. If I believe that Tony Blair’s belief about WMD was genuine that still doesn’t make it true that WMD’s existed!

    I’m also worried that you believe in the beliefs of people that you have never met and thus, you don’t actually know if their surviving “words” truly are/ were their own.

    The thing about science is, we are skeptical about belief and we try to find external proof/ truth. We have devised a mechanism for finding out whether something is true – we do not rely on the opinions of others.

    SpiderMonkey

    July 24, 2008 at 9:55 am

  38. “There is little point in attempting to reason with somebody who refuses to accept the evidence of their opponents,”

    That’s true, only I was the one that offered evidence and you didn’t provide any. Or maybe that was a confessional statement on your part?

    ” or stubbornly refuses to provide evidence of their own arguments.”

    Again, just for the record, I provided evidence, you did not. For you to keep typing otherwise either means you are deluded or spectacularly ignorant.

    You trot out the strawman that we don’t believe science. That is a joke. Science rocks. I have a great appreciation for science. What a great way to see how God put the universe together.

    I have never seen science prove that the universe came from nothing and that life came from non-life. I’ve seen lots of scientific evidence for micro-evolution and NONE for macro. None. Millions of fossils support my view. Millions! There’s some more evidence for you.

    The Big Bang theory is evidence that the universe came into being at a point in time. Hmmmmm . . . sounds like evidence for creation to me. Unless you don’t believe the Big Bang, theory, of course. Or do you think the universe eternally existed? That is demonstrably false and anti-science. Do you think the universe caused itself to exist? That is anti-science and anti-logic. Do you think the universe came into being without a cause? That is anti-science and anti-logic.

    “One doesn’t have to believe in the supernatural to be a ‘good’ person.”

    That’s just it: Neither of us are “good” compared to God. You have sinned countless times against a perfect and holy God, and so have I. He knows every single thought you’ve ever had, everything you’ve done that you shouldn’t have done, every good thing you should have done but didn’t, every mean word, etc.

    You can ignore the free pardon of Jesus if you like, but I don’t. That’s the difference between us. Heaven and Hell. For eternity.

    Yes, if the Bible says something it is true. It can be demonstrated to be the word of God if you’ll take the blinders off and study.

    Finally, remember that even if all the evidence is wrong and your worldview is correct, then Darwinian evolution created all religions. Think about it. We’re just acting out our random thoughts as bags of chemicals and none of this has any meaning. So there is zero room for you to be proud of holding your views or to be critical of anyone else’s views. We’re just doing what comes naturally. Meditate on that for a while.

    Neil

    July 24, 2008 at 10:59 am

  39. Neil,
    I have to ask you about this statement;

    “Yes, if the Bible says something it is true.”

    Do you think any parts of the Bible are folklore?
    Do you think everything contained inside is THE way it actually happened?

    Sprockets Macphereson

    July 24, 2008 at 7:04 pm

  40. “The thing about science is, we are skeptical about belief and we try to find external proof/ truth. We have devised a mechanism for finding out whether something is true – we do not rely on the opinions of others.”

    First, I am not anti-science. You all try to make a false dichotomy of religion vs. science but that is a fallacy.

    Second, are you going to convince me that you replicate every scientific experiement and every scientific tool before believing something? Or do you find ways to determine if certain sources can be trusted?

    “Plenty of people nowadays believe in things that I think you and I would both agree were not true or real.”

    Agreed. The next question is why so many people believed those things. If you dig into the historical evidence and the facts about mass hallucinations I think the most logical explanation for the evidence is that Jesus rose from the dead. The Apostles had no incentive to create lies about the resurrection. They had just seen Jesus get crucified. They were in different places at different times and mass hallucinations don’t occur that way. The Apostle Paul was hostile to the faith and had no incentive to believe if Jesus didn’t really appear to him. He got beaten up all over the Mediterranean for changing his beliefs and was eventually killed for them. His writings are reliable and abundantly clear. And so on.

    Neil

    July 24, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  41. Ok, I accept your point about the science/ religion dichotomy, so I won’t paint you as an opponent of science again.

    I still worry about your acceptance that a book – that is 2000 or so years old, and whose provenance is widely debated even among sects who believe – is undeniably true. It is only one of many books claiming authenticity and based on fabulous tales. You have chosen to believe one of these accounts – I don’t think you chose the Christian account because of facts… unless you are 2000 years old 😉 Frankly I don’t believe in most of what today’s papers say so I can’t really believe in ancient reports.

    SpiderMonkey

    July 25, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  42. By the way, I’m an evolutionary biologist, and if you want to get back to talking about evolution (from no idealogical viewpoint, but for the fun of debate/ conversation) we can do that too…

    SpiderMonkey

    July 25, 2008 at 1:24 pm

  43. “Ok, I accept your point about the science/ religion dichotomy, so I won’t paint you as an opponent of science again.”

    Thanks, I really appreciate that. It goes a long way towards advancing the conversation.

    Re. the 2,000 year old book: It is the best attested book of antiquity. There are many other works that people take at face value that have far lesser credibility with respect to the quality and quantity of manuscripts and time from the writing to the earliest manuscripts.

    Actually, I did choose to believe based on the facts. If the books had been written 10 years ago people would deny them for being too young. The age of them doesn’t bother me, especially when even skeptical textual critics like Bart Ehrman concede that we know what the originals said.

    I think the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus best accounts for the facts that even skeptical historians concede. I have studied apologetics in depth. Does that make me right? Of course not, but it means that I accepted it without evidence or in spite of it.

    You are wise not to believe what is in today’s papers. The Bible has had a little more scrutiny than that. Is is possible that the writers were some kind of evil super geniuses that concocted the resurrection story to get some attention, then endured persecution and/or death rather than admit their lies? Uh, maybe.

    But there are some very authentic parts of their accounts. Women were considered property in that culture and could not testify in court. So if you are making up the empty tomb, why have women as the first witnesses? Why admit how you doubted your Savior and denied him and ran away after the crucifixion?

    Yes, believers debate many parts of it. I addressed that here – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/disputed-matters/ . In short, just because a book is capable of being misunderstood doesn’t mean it is incapable of being understood.

    Romans 14 and other passages address how we are to handle disputed matters. From this we can immediately infer two things:

    1. God knew we’d have disputed matters.
    2. He gave guidance on how to handle them.

    Some beliefs are essential if one is to call himself a Christian – e.g., Jesus is the only way to salvation (mentioned directly or indirectly in 100 passages), Jesus is God, etc.

    Other things have guidance but not absolutes. For example, with respect to alcohol the Bible teaches not to get drunk, to obey laws and not to tempt others with our drinking. But it doesn’t say never to drink. If people don’t want to drink that is fine, but that shouldn’t be presented as a Biblical requirement or an essential of the faith.

    Contrary to many myths, we have a lot of freedom in Christ. Christianity contains many principles and some specific rules, but we can exercise our personal preferences in many ways, such as worship styles.

    Neil

    July 25, 2008 at 1:36 pm

  44. “but it means that I accepted it without evidence or in spite of it.” should have read, “but it doesn’t mean that I accepted it without evidence or in spite of it.”

    Neil

    July 25, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  45. Fu3BlJ comment2 ,

    Vfeomkxa

    May 8, 2009 at 10:32 am

  46. […] originally posted this video the creatures that defy evolution but the original was taken down by youtube, so I am reposting it […]

  47. I remember when I was an atheist, how I couldn’t believe how people could believe in God.

    After all faith is only for idiots right…

    I only believe in what I can see and taste and touch…
    wait a second… and radiowaves.

    It couldn’t be possible that there is an entire spiritual universe out there could it?

    After all I don’t have the instruments to measure it.

    Eric Berger

    August 8, 2009 at 9:32 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: