How did I do?
Posted on: February 15, 2009 - 12:45pm
Offline
How did I do?
This is a sad commentary on the education system of one of the richest countries in the world - ours.
There has been a paradigm shift in science away from Evolution and towards Intelligent Design. Check out the link below of video of leading Evolutionary Scientists who have abandoned the theory as obsolete and insufficient. Evolutionary scientists cannot explain the lack of Transitional Forms, The Cambrian Explosion, and the information contained in DNA to name just a few. Darwin took his observation of Natural Selection or Micro Evolution and extrapolated it Macro Evolution. It was a huge leap of blind faith. The Scientific Evidence supports Micro Evolution within species but there is no scientific evidence to support Macro Evolution where one species transforms into a completely different species. I also highly recommend "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. Strobel has a law degree from Yale & was an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune. He was an Evolutionist until he investigated the scientific evidence.
http://video.google.com/vi
http://video.google.com/vi
I don't want to be disrespectful of your faith, Bruce, but "intelligent design" is a rebranding of "creation science" after the Supreme Court said that teaching creationism in school was unconstitutional.
No disrespect taken. I never mentioned education. My only point is that the scientific evidence is causing a shift in the understanding of the origins of the Universe by leading scientists. These are not Christian Scientists or Creationist Scientists. In fact, if you watch the video you will see that very few, if any, of the scientists interviewed share my Christian faith. This is about where the scentific evidence leads us and not about a particular faith or religion. Now if you want to have a discussion about the historical, archeological, and scientific evidence for the validity of the Bible, I'm up for that discussion too. 
"Intelligent Design" has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community, and the "leading scientists" you speak of are neither leading nor scientists. And Strobel, as you rightly state, is a lawyer and reporter - not a scientist.
I am not interested in attacking anyone's faith, nor will I. I would simply ask that people try to actually understand evolution before attempting to pick it apart. Here's a nice set of primers on it:
http://www.rationalrespond
I am not interested in attacking anyone's faith, nor will I. I would simply ask that people try to actually understand evolution before attempting to pick it apart. Here's a nice set of primers on it:
http://www.rationalrespond
Geir, you obviously haven't watched the video link I posted. You don't get any more prestigious names in science than Dean Kenyon who wrote many of the current college text books on evolution. Ditto Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, and Minnick. People on this thread seem to be confusing science with faith. These scientists didn't have a religious conversion and then change their scientific viewpoint. Quite the opposite. The scentific evidence led them to the possibility of intelligent design. The idea behind science is to go where the evidence leads no matter what our preconceived notions or beliefs may be. By the way, I would love to hear you explain how Intelligent Design has been "debunked." It is actually a scientific theory that is picking up momentum. I obviously can't compel anyone to look at the scientific evidence. But it is there for all who wish to be open minded.
I couldn't watch the video because the link appears to be busted. However - Kenyon's creationist ideas were rejected by his fellow faculty at San Francisco State University. Lehigh University, where Behe works, made a *public statement* that intelligent design is baseless. Johnson is, like Strobel, a lawyer and not a scientist. I'm not sure who "Minnick" is. My point is that these are not particularly well-regarded experts in the scientific community.
Here's a brief 10-minute primer on evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Here's a brief 10-minute primer on evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Oh, you mean Scott MINNICH at the University of Idaho. Another irreducible complexity subscriber whose work is minimally peer-reviewed. Here's a debunking of irreducible complexity, Minnich and Behe in the same place:
http://www.youtube.com/wat
http://www.youtube.com/wat
I beg to differ. Kenyon and Behe were highly regarded by the Evolutionist community until they dared to challenge the orthodoxy of Darwinism based purely on the scientific evidence. (It doesn't seem like you really know the facts. Are you just Googling this stuff and regurgitating the first few lines you read?) Galileo challenged the notion that the earth was the center of the solar system and he was mocked and persecuted by the scientists of his day, as well as the Catholic Church. By the way, to watch the video all you have to do is Google "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." You seem more caught up in resumes than in talking about the sceintific facts though. In fact, you don't sound very open minded at all. I would love to have a discussion about the facts: Irreducible Complexity, the Cambrian Explosion, lack of transitional forms. I challenge you to read Strobel's book. Its written by a Yale educated lawyer so it should be pretty easy for you to dismantle his arguments.
I've been a member of the atheist community for some time, and Stobel, Kenyon and Behe come up often. I have read their writings before.
Look, the two central tenets of Intelligent Design are Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity. The video I posted earlier debunks Irreducible Complexity (did you watch it? I know the link works). Here's a video that nicely explains why Specified Complexity doesn't work (although anyone who has taken one semester of statistics can do the same thing):
http://www.youtube.com/wat
The Cambrian Explosion and transitional forms arguments are also old, tired and busted:
http://evolution.berkeley.
http://ncseweb.org/creatio
We can have a "discussion about the facts", but the fact is I'm laying them out here rather simply. I'm not expecting you to change your mind, nor do I suspect you think I'll change mine. I just think you've been fed bad info.
Look, the two central tenets of Intelligent Design are Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity. The video I posted earlier debunks Irreducible Complexity (did you watch it? I know the link works). Here's a video that nicely explains why Specified Complexity doesn't work (although anyone who has taken one semester of statistics can do the same thing):
http://www.youtube.com/wat
The Cambrian Explosion and transitional forms arguments are also old, tired and busted:
http://evolution.berkeley.
http://ncseweb.org/creatio
We can have a "discussion about the facts", but the fact is I'm laying them out here rather simply. I'm not expecting you to change your mind, nor do I suspect you think I'll change mine. I just think you've been fed bad info.
And the Galileo point you make is interesting but misplaced. The sciences are clearly far more advanced now than they were in Galileo's day. If Galileo had made his observations today, he would have quickly been vindicated within *hours* by technology and a world-wide peer-review system. Unfortunately, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest courtesy of the Catholic Church, which waited 350+ years (1992) to conclude that Galileo was actually right. Just about the time the Internet was getting up and running.
Today, scientific peer-review has drummed intelligent design out of town. The only reason it lingers is because of church support, which has its own agenda. In science, it pays to be right. In religion, it pays to be religious.
Not misplaced at all. You obviously missed my point. Based on the EVIDENCE Galileo stood up to the "peer review" of his day despite being mocked and persecuted. Eventually he was vindicated. I just don't put any weight in "peer review" which maligns and demonizes legitimate scientific questioning of the current paradigm based on evidence.Kenyon was one of the heroes of the Evolutionary movement until he dared question it. Sounds more like the Spanish Inquisition than science. Would you stop reffering me to other people's work,and discuss the facts yourself. I am well versed in Evolutionary Theory and know that weak attempts to explain away Irreducible Complexity like the theory of "Co-Opting" falls flat on it's face. You still haven't watched the video have you? I doubt you will ever read "Case for a Creator" either. What are you afraid of? Is there even a small chance that you might be wrong? One thing is for sure. We will all find out what the truth is one day.
I refer to other people's work because they can explain it better than I can. It's called citing sources. I haven't watched the video because the link doesn't work. The scientific peer review system of Galileo's day consisted primarily of the church, which became very inconvenient for them when Galileo made an observation that contradicted their worldview. I have nothing else for you. You haven't posted a single creationist concept or supporter that hasn't been disproved. But let me ask you this - do you think the existence of evolution disproves the existence of God? I'm an atheist, and I don't think that's the case. If anything, the existence of evolution refutes the creation story in the book of Genesis, but so what? I don't think anyone expects a book compiled a couple of millenia ago to be scientifically accurate. You could say "God created the universe knowing that all of the raw materials would eventually evolve." I have more respect for that idea than the pseudoscience of ID.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
- Login to post comments
Oy, I think I'll need a little formatting assistance from a mod.
How did I do?
*it was hard to make the links work and get the formatting right, the links will have to be cut and pasted.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I'm tempted to join you in your fight there....
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You are good at instigating a good debate.
Geirj, one suggestion I might make is to focus on his claim to have the evidence on his side. Call that bluff! Ask to see this evidence. Ask him what he knows about the evidence supporting evolution. Ask him why humans and chimps share common endogenous retroviruses. Ask him why the human chromosome 2 shares so much in common with two different chimp chromosomes, which explains why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps have 24. Why don't chimps have 12 or 50 pairs?
Even more importantly than evidence, also focus on predictions. What testable predictions does intelligent design make that have been confirmed? (Hint: The only prediction I know is that irreducible systems such as the bacterial flagellum cannot function when even ONE piece is removed. But this prediction has already been falsified!) Ask him how did Neil Shubin know to look in Northern Canada and at exactly which stratological depth to search for Tiktaalik, the famous precursor to modern land-dwelling tetrapods? (Hint: He knew where to look because evolution predicts that transitional forms will be found in the layers between older species and their descendants. Northern Canada had just the right geological conditions to match the age of rocks he needed to find fossils in.)
Evolution makes predictions. Millions of predictions. We test them literally every day. Intelligent design makes no good predictions at all. This is why evolution is true and ID is false. It's why evolution is science and ID is NOT.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I would say at least 60% of Americans are idiots. It reminds me of Family Guy.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Ha, he obviously doesn't know anything about evolution. If he did, he wouldn't have mentioned "lack of transitional forms." Ask him what evolution is; that'll be funny.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
As awesome as that show is, that was the single greatest moment in its history. Even Peter is smarter than a creationist.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The reason I don't deconstruct apologetics is because it is a distraction to where they ultimatly want to lead you. I am glad that there are those who have that patience, but I dont.
To the newbie atheists or at least new to being active, let me clue you in on what they do by giving you the best advice I can give you no matter what you debate with them. Always consider what their end goal is. They want you to believe that a virgin was magically knocked up by a being with no body or DNA. They want you to believe that a being magically survived rigor mortis. Yet all they have is "POOF, GOD DID IT".
So their tactic is to attempt to debunk science and pass off their claim as the default position.
They have absolutly no way of replecating or falsifying either of these fantastic claims, much less any of the other childish myths they peddle. But these two are the core of the Christian belief and cannot be dodged as metaphore.
I would say to them if they are going to argue with buzz words would it convince them that Allah is the one true god, if Muslims used the same "Your science is wrong so therefor Allah exists".
It is a bullshit facade and nothing more than intellectuall insecurity that causes them to attempt to mimic lagit science to prop up a book of myth. Any idiot who knows that Harry Potter cant litterally fly around on a broom should be able to see the absurdity of blowing yourself up in hopes of a magical harem in the sky, much less a ghost knocking up a girl. Unfortunatly this same flaw of protecting one's ego is what gave birth to Scientology.
Even some atheists criticise me for not taking on every detail. I am just not into the scenic route. The moon is not made cheese, Santa isn't real, and I cannot fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.
"You are a bigot Brian37, you hate anyone who believes in a god!"
NO YOU MORON! I am simply bluntly saying you got it wrong. Being wrong doesn't make you bad or even stupid, and certainly doesnt mean I hate you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Agreed. I laugh every time I think about it. The development that leads up to it is excellent. Peter is built up as a man who's stupidity is beyond belief and then when compared to a fundie it's as if he is a genius.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace