If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Jesus will not be riding his dinosaur in Texas   (dallasnews.com) divider line 908
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

26980 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:02 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



908 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-26 09:50:06 PM  
But there still is the super devil
a792.ac-images.myspacecdn.com

/At least six inches taller than the normal devil.
//Rides a flying motorcycle.
///Carries a jar of marmalade that forced people to commit adultery.
 
2009-03-26 09:51:48 PM  
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2009-03-26 09:51:59 PM  
Do the intelligent design advocates believe that everything in the universe that looks ordered or structured has been purposefully designed and assembled by some intelligent thing, that such arrangements can't ever happen by chance?
 
2009-03-26 09:56:48 PM  
Befuddled: Do the intelligent design advocates believe that everything in the universe that looks ordered or structured has been purposefully designed and assembled by some intelligent thing, that such arrangements can't ever happen by chance?


Apparently, yes. Which goes to a lack of basic math and logic skills. Which says a lot about what and how we teach in this country.
 
2009-03-26 09:56:48 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts: What happened to the little quotes button?

img3.fark.net

you're welcome
 
2009-03-26 09:57:05 PM  
Befuddled: Do the intelligent design advocates believe that everything in the universe that looks ordered or structured has been purposefully designed and assembled by some intelligent thing, that such arrangements can't ever happen by chance?

Yes. They believe that their god designed and assembled the malaria bug that kills millions of children every year.

They may not understand that they believe this, but they do.
 
2009-03-26 09:58:12 PM  
Great headline. I laughed.
 
2009-03-26 09:58:19 PM  
Ever notice how when you are really stoned the TV with the sound off really seems to sync with the music on the stereo...well it's kinda like that. Or so I have heard. Random seems kinda like intelligent when you're baked. Oh and infinity is big...really big.

/oz
//floyd
///stuff
 
2009-03-26 09:59:09 PM  
Peter von Nostrand: All of our actions and deeds are watched by Him. He was watching today and those responsible for rejecting his presence and love will be called to reckoning one day. There will be no relief as the fires in the pits of Hades can not be alleviated by some man and his turtle from the Galapagos.

/don't mind me, just doing a little fishing
//did i do it right or too over the top


you lose points for admitting it. you have to sound both believable and certain of your statements.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 10:00:32 PM  
Malaclypse the Younger: CDP:
Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist? That's a spectacular job of taking a quote out of context as well. Not only is your argument baseless, it's wrong.


Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Two NASA land rovers, named Spirit and Opportunity, explored Mars during 2004. The topography showed obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life, or any signs of past life, on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface with an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that these life forms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life were found, it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:00:46 PM  
0Icky0: Yes. They believe that their god designed and assembled the malaria bug that kills millions of children every year.

It is a test of faith! Like the Dinosaur bones! And sex!
 
2009-03-26 10:05:03 PM  
I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2009-03-26 10:06:08 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts: What happened to the little quotes button?

Here, try mine: img3.fark.net
 
2009-03-26 10:06:56 PM  
CDP: Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now.

"Real" link please. Not an "infected" one.

The bible generates some heat when burned. Magic?
 
2009-03-26 10:07:01 PM  
Anything that defeats the Christers's plans to take over the country is fine by me.
 
2009-03-26 10:07:10 PM  
CDP: Link (new window)

lol, from that site: "Evolution is a Religion - the Worship of a Make Believe Time-god."


Make believe time god? Like, Grandfather Time or something? Maybe Tiamat from Dungeons and Dragons...
 
2009-03-26 10:09:04 PM  
Somebody with skillz needs to shop a "creationist tears" bottle, preferably over a can or bottle of Lone Star.

/I still can't believe the chairman of our state board of education believes the earth is under 10,000 years old. If the universe were intelligently designed, such a thing would never happen.
 
2009-03-26 10:09:26 PM  
CDP: Link (new window)

I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.


He's absolutely correct, but inadvertantly.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific law.

Thats why it is not called the Law of Evolution.
 
2009-03-26 10:09:52 PM  
maddogdelta: psssst....look at the pictures...

Don't spoil the fun ;)
 
2009-03-26 10:11:30 PM  
What kind of moron would send their kid to a public school anymore?

I don't care about creation vs evolution, whatever. I have just recently noted that public school education truly sucks today.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 10:11:44 PM  
Pharque-it: CDP: CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified).

Do you have ANY idea of how long 14 Billion years are?
Actually the probability of ANYTHING is close to one seen in the light of possibilities in the universe over this timespan.

CSI = Calling Shiat Intelligent!


Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark. Based on evolution's claim for the origin of man, the same ½ percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.[34]

• Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth's oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element's influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.[34]

• Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.[34] At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.[10]

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:12:00 PM  
heinekenftw: I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

Oh don't stop, there, that website is full on wharrgarble hilarity.

NASA Discovers a Rabbit Hole on Mars - Oh, Isn't it Wonderful.

Mars Lander May 25, 2008.The Jet Propulsion Laboratory division of NASA believes they have finally proven that evolution is true. An unsubstantiated comment made by one of the mission leaders about the first photos received back from the May 25, 2008 mission, "Oh, isn't it wonderful. We landed right in front of a rabbit hole. Oh, this is the most exciting time in history. Charles Darwin was not a nut case. Evolution is true. God bless our mission. Oops, I didn't mean to say God bless." Click the image to see an enlargement.

No! It is not a rabbit hole, stupid, and evolution is false.
 
2009-03-26 10:13:17 PM  
CDP: Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that these life forms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life were found, it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.


So no matter what we find on Mars, or any other planet, evolutionary theory is wrong because...you say so? I would just like to point out the methane plumes that have been found with no sign of chemical origin, and the fact that the rovers and all probes are cleanroom bacteria and virus free, and...aw, who am I kidding? You lack the capacity to understand the most basic of scientific ideas, dismissing them out of hand, or you are a troll, either way, get up, take off all your clothes, and go lie down in field. Every single other thing in your life is based on science, and the true faith based approach involves some lilies and a field, if I'm not mistaken. So go, and be true.
 
2009-03-26 10:14:01 PM  
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!

With that said, it wasnt destroyed, it was deadlocked. Which means my state is only HALF farking fundementaly christian insane. Which still scares the fark out of me.

/Eventually the scales will slip and it will be time to run away to another state.
//But not today.
 
2009-03-26 10:14:30 PM  
Jesus never rode dinosaurs. Bulls, on the other hand...

i384.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:15:10 PM  
And more so, the author of the link CDP posted obviously has limited understanding of statistics and human biology.

Humans in the tropics would have reflective skin instead of black? Does he understand what melanin does? It protects us from UV. Thats why people in Africa and the tropics are black! Thats why middle easterners and Indians are brown!

Never in an eternity will the proper order of DNA form? Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen. And even if it would take countless eons to perform every attempt, it could always succeed on the first or second try.

Especially when you have billions of cells replicating several times a day.
 
2009-03-26 10:15:25 PM  
wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand
 
2009-03-26 10:16:00 PM  
bmihura: I have just recently noted that public school education truly sucks today.

That's a pretty broad paintbrush you have there.
 
2009-03-26 10:16:05 PM  
Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?
 
2009-03-26 10:17:15 PM  
CDP: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:

i. Observation:

The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:

If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.


Putting Intelligent Design to the Test:


Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):

(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Table 3.

Line of Evidence Data

(1) Biochemic ...


ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

/You can't be serious.
 
2009-03-26 10:17:53 PM  
bmihura: I have just recently noted that public school education truly sucks today.

Blame idiot school boards for this. Of course the US could fix their issues with public education with a few simple reforms, but national standards tends to send up the hackles of the State's Rights fetishists.
 
2009-03-26 10:18:04 PM  
stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

What's the strength of ID again? That it makes Creationists look like bigger morans?
 
2009-03-26 10:18:27 PM  
CDP: Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2009-03-26 10:18:33 PM  
CDP: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:

i. Observation:

The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:

If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.





I want to know who wrote that pile of copypasta fail. It sure doesn't look like it meets the requirements for being intelligently designed.

Seriously, get a clue. Just because there are scientific looking big words on the page, doesn't mean that it is science.
 
2009-03-26 10:19:02 PM  
Murkanen: wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand


Where does "creationist" mean "biblical creation" anyways? besides, nowhere in the Bible does it give the planet's age, so what's this 10 thousand year bullshiat?
 
2009-03-26 10:19:14 PM  
orclover: Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!

With that said, it wasnt destroyed, it was deadlocked. Which means my state is only HALF farking fundementaly christian insane. Which still scares the fark out of me.

/Eventually the scales will slip and it will be time to run away to another state.
//But not today.


I always thought it would be better to just go back to having 49 states again.

This makes me move a little bit toward not despising Texas.
 
2009-03-26 10:19:15 PM  
SoxSweepAgain: ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

/You can't be serious.


You read all of that and still missed the cartoon he used to sum it all up?
 
2009-03-26 10:20:37 PM  
stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

Putting aside that its retarded to ask that of any theory.

Is there a single scientific theory other than evolution that you are capable of listing the strengths and weaknesses?

I'll take one. Demonstrate to us how science should be taught.
 
2009-03-26 10:21:34 PM  
SoxSweepAgain: ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

Yes.

SoxSweepAgain: /You can't be serious.
//he isn't
 
2009-03-26 10:21:40 PM  
Murkanen: wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand


Fairly certain he simply means he believes god created via evolution. Which has its own theological problems regarding free-will/destiny, as well as scientific problems regarding stochastic mutation and probability.

But w/e, its a smaller set of a problems. Take what you can get.
 
2009-03-26 10:22:53 PM  
ninjakirby: Make believe time god? Like, Grandfather Time or something? Maybe Tiamat from Dungeons and Dragons...

Tiamat? Are you sure you don't mean Chronepsis?

/yes, I knew that without looking it up
 
2009-03-26 10:23:41 PM  
heinekenftw: Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen.

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.
5. A god exists currently.

YOU LOSE!
 
2009-03-26 10:23:56 PM  
CDP: Link

Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar. He does not believe in the God of the Bible who created all things and all life in an instant.

The Religion of Love and Compassion. What BS!!!

Define INSTANT.

Atheist version:
Anyone that says he accepts God, and also claims he believes in the Theory of Evolution, is an OK person. He does not agree with the Bible Theory, that all things and all life were created in an instant.
 
2009-03-26 10:25:17 PM  
Murkanen: wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand


It's called old earth creationism and theistic evolution and the Catholic leadership supports it.

The idea is that God created the world with scientific principles such as Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (the Big Three as I like to call them). He caused the initial expansion of the big bang and guided the process until we arrive at today. Genesis on the other hand is metaphorical.

/not my personal belief mind you, but a fair compromise for Christianity and Science.
 
2009-03-26 10:25:32 PM  
wippit: Where does "creationist" mean "biblical creation" anyways?

Everywhere because that is exactly what is meant by the term creationist. It's possible that you may be using some unheard of use for the term before, but it would be akin to saying you were going to serve "Motor boat with steamed motor oil" for dinner and getting upset because you spent the past few hours making pot roast with mashed taters. The more likely scenario is that you are using the term creationist when you really mean that you are a follower of theistic evolution, which is not creationism.

besides, nowhere in the Bible does it give the planet's age, so what's this 10 thousand year bullshiat?

Crazy monk did a math experiment, put the earth's age at 6,672 years old and creationists have been angling anything between that and 10k years as the age of the earth.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 10:26:21 PM  
heinekenftw: CDP: Link (new window)

I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

He's absolutely correct, but inadvertantly.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific law.

Thats why it is not called the Law of Evolution.


The Theft of True Science

The thief is not coming except that he should be stealing and sacrificing and destroying.
John 10:10

Here is my definition of science:

Science is the systematic, unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos, the formulation of the truths found thereby into general laws, and their application for humanitarian, political, and economic purposes.

The "unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos" is, in effect, the search for truth. Our attitude towards science should ever be one of inquiry. A scientist's task is to ascertain what a thing does mean. He or she must not presume to dictate what it must mean. Such a predisposition demonstrates bias. A scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.

In accord with my definition of science, we try to the best of our ability to let nature and the cosmos speak for themselves. In regard to what is happening on this earth, we try to let the structure and events of nature lead us where they will.

Neither belief in creationism nor evolution is necessary to the actual examination of nature itself. Creationists look at the Grand Canyon and see the result of the upheavals caused by Noah's Flood. The evo-atheists look at the Grand Canyon and see millions of years of erosion. The evidence for both interpretations is exactly the same. On page 26 of their book, the NAS authors write, "The bones in the forelimbs of terrestrial and some aquatic vertebrates are remarkably similar because they have all evolved from the forelimbs of a common ancestor." A creationist, examining the same evidence would say that the similarity is a result of the fact that all these vertebrates were made by the same Creator. To the ones examining the vertebrates, what difference does it make? None.

Evidence is not the problem: it is the interpretation that causes the controversy. Creationism and evolution both interpret the structure and events of nature, representing opposite hypotheses with different assumptions. The creation hypothesis, or the God hypothesis, looks at the apparent design in nature, and says that this points to a Creator. The evolutionary hypothesis also sees the apparent design in nature, but says that this is illusory, and that all life can be explained chemically and materialistically (methodological materialism) without reference to a Creator.

An honest scientist cannot exclude either explanation of nature without presenting evidence for that exclusion. Is it possible that there is a Creator God? Is it possible that there is not a Creator God? The answer to both questions is "Yes." When we muster as much "objectivity" as we humans are able, we have to answer both of these questions in the affirmative. Unbiased science accepts the reality of both of these possible explanations for existence. Arbitrarily excluding one of these explanations in our search for truth is fundamentally unscientific; that is, it is the abandonment of the "open-ended search for-truth" frame of mind in favor of something else.

A scientist ought to behave like a detective in that they both have to search for clues and further information leading to a conclusion. Just about half the shows on evening television concern police investigations. From Miss Marple to Joe Friday to Horatio Kane, we're all familiar with the logic of the investigative process. In a murder investigation, would detective Eddie Green of Law and Order exclude a possible suspect without grounds for that exclusion? Of course not. If he did, the whole police investigative process would not make sense to us, and it would suggest some degree of prejudice on his part. That's why fictional detectives and real detectives always insist upon evidence (e.g., an alibi which proves non-involvement) before they exclude a person as a suspect.

A bad situation only gets worse if, in addition to arbitrarily excluding one suspect, detectives railroad someone else out of a predisposed desire to see them punished, regardless of the evidence.

In the same way, the investigative procedures of true science do not make sense if they arbitrarily exclude one possible explanation for phenomena in favor of another. There is a genuine possibility that there is a Creator God, and that therefore, nature is designed. Absent any proof otherwise, the God hypothesis remains a valid scientific hypothesis.

ARBITRARILY EXCLUDING THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

We saw in Chapter 1 that, in 1964, Julian Huxley urged his fellow evo-atheists to construct something to replace the intellectually and morally burdensome (to them) God hypothesis.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the book published by the atheistic hierarchy at the NAS, has given us a summary of that "something" which, in response to Huxley's order, they have fabricated-not only to take the place of the God hypothesis, but to obliterate its mention from America's public school science classrooms. The NAS's arbitrary exclusion of the God hypothesis leaves only one possible explanation for our existence-their atheistic evolutionary one. There is now only one brand of science available, a brand they insist that everyone-from kindergarten children to laboratory researchers-must be satisfied with.

Their arbitrary exclusion of the valid God hypothesis is based entirely on their atheistic prejudices, the world-view they favor, and not upon sound scientific principles. All investigations of nature ought to be unbranded, or generic, in the sense of being nonspecific insofar as the God hypothesis and the evolution hypothesis are concerned. Ideally, let unbiased researchers present their findings from their systematic examinations of nature, and let the creationists and atheists interpret the findings in terms of their respective assumptions, or hypotheses. The interpretation of the findings (the evidence) that makes the most sense is the one more qualified to a "theory" status.

The atheists at the NAS cannot allow the open competition of the two hypotheses, because based on what we actually see in nature, the God hypothesis always makes more sense. To get around that severe problem, the NAS must, by atheistic fiat, brand all science as exclusively evolutionary. Science becomes "evolutionary science." Biology becomes "evolutionary biology." Anthropology becomes "evolutionary anthropology." Their goal is to force-feed you and your children their atheistic brand, and their atheistic brand only. Are your kids hungry for information on the origins and purpose of humanity? Do they wonder how they got here? Fix them another bowl of evo-atheism. That's all that's left on the shelf.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:26:21 PM  
Murkanen: /to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things

1. God directed evolution.
2. Evolution produced a variety of organisms.
3. That which can be traced back to an ultimate cause can said to be created by that cause.
4. God created a variety of organisms.

Evolution and creationism. YOU LOSE!
 
2009-03-26 10:27:25 PM  
zeph`: heinekenftw: Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen.

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.
5. A god exists currently.

YOU LOSE!


i130.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:27:51 PM  
heinekenftw: CDP: Link (new window)

I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

He's absolutely correct, but inadvertantly.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific law.

Thats why it is not called the Law of Evolution.


This is where all the repugnitards shoot themselves in the foot.

Yes, Evolution is a theory. Do they KNOW what that means? Of course not.

A "theory" is not the same thing as a "hypothesis", which is what most repugnitards treat it as. The only reason Evolution has not been promoted to scientific Law is that the process cannot be recreated under laboratory conditions, because the process takes millions of years.

Now, the ENGINE of evolution (Natural Selection) can and is easily proved under lab conditions all the time. If you have a population of marmots and eliminate all the speckled ones before they reproduce, in a very short time you will have no speckled marmots in your population.

Now, if you took a mutated marmot that had, say, been born with no hair, and gave it a natural mating advantage (i.e. eliminated all other male marmots), in a very few generations you would have a population of entirely bald marmots.

That's all evolution is, folks.

When a random mutation happens to produce a mating/survival advantage, specimens with that mutation have a greater share of the gene pool because the others cannot compete as well in that environment.

Even god can't argue with that. It's all based on easily observable phenomena, and the only reason it's not proven as Law is that it takes too long to wait for valuable random mutations in a species.
 
2009-03-26 10:27:54 PM  
zeph`: 1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

FAIL.

You have zero evidence that its possible at all.

Life on the other hand...
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report