Friday, May 09, 2008
Un-Enlightenment - redux
BBC NI’s Will Crawley is having somewhat of a Creation Weekend [to atone for past sins? - Ed]. On Sunday Sequence, 9am Radio Ulster, he will be discussing this “dramatic serialisation” of the Book of Genesis.. and before that he’s visiting the Waterfront Hall where the founder of Answers in Genesis USA, Ken Ham - previously mentioned here - is hosting an 2-day event. Do tell us if you spot any NI Executive Ministers there, Will. Some of us like to keep an eye on what they’re up to with the Giants Causeway.. What with The Un-Enlightenment already being promoted elsewhere.. Adds pauljames, in the comment zone, points to this additional piece of information - “Also, please remember all the speakers in your prayers--particularly as Ken will be meeting with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly Government. He will also be doing interviews with the BBC.”
Pete Baker @ 04:17 PM
I’m a “Go forth and prosper” type of guy. Creation.. and then Evolution....
Works for me.Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 11:01 PMTurgon/pauljames
Since you are incapable of understaning science, indeed life, nice god showed those Burmans, eh?
100,000 refugees on heavens shores.The nonsense you were spoonfed since birth..Time to ditch that wee comfort blanket/duvet. It’s hard, I’m sure.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 11:09 PM6countyprod,
‘and no one has a right to say that someone else’s opinion is not valid.’
Nobody is saying that. Prove to me that the Earth is 6,000 years old and I’ll change my belief . I don’t deny you the right to practice your faith . Just don’t mix ‘creationism’ with science . The latter is based on material facts and observation not on words from the void or a book /books written a couple of thousand years ago.
‘That being the case, Creationism has as much right to be heard as the theory of Evolution.’
It has a right to be heard but in the realms of religion and faith not in the realm of science .
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 11:09 PMIt always amazes me that we are subjected to the utter puerile foolishness by the evolutionary fundamentalists like Pete Baker who seems obessesed with trying to attack Creationism (Ironic as according to his fairy story we are all a product of determinstic evolutionary genes, yet he tries so hard to convince us!).
I have raised this perennially on this forum that the Scientific Method cannot even be proven yet Baker et al place their whole confidence on this and lambast those who have “faith” in a revelation like the Bible.
Evolution is not science as it is a tautology that cannot be disproven e.g. who are the fittest to survive? They repeat those who have survived ad nauseum! It postulates a theory of the origins of man that cannot be observed because the circumstances they claim existed “back then” can never be repeated or tested for (convenient eh.. for Pete and his gang when awkward questions are asked!)
For Baker et al - as they are so confident in their paralysing intellects, perhaps they could give us all a “scientific” answer to the following:
(1) What is morality and how do we judge it?
(2) What is “good” or “evil” and how can we judge it?
(3) Why is there an “is?”
(4) Can they describe one biochemical pathway (just one!!)that is credible how one step of macro evolution can occur?
(5) When did the first “force” for evolution occur and what drove this force?
(6) Do you believe the universe had a beginning in time? If so, where did all of time, space and matter come from? (be prepared readers of Slugger for the greatest fairy story in history if any of our intrepid heros dare to cobble something together here).
(7) Do you believe that the laws of physics have come about by chance and are undesigned? Is the force of gravity a real force or imagined?
(8) Is mankind at the top of the evolutionary tree? Will there be something greater than us to emerge?
Pete Baker - no doubt you live under a little world of cyperspace of your own vivid imagination, but do us all a favour and don’t assume we all checked our brains at the door before switching on our computers and believe your little tritisms and fairy stories. If you really want to believe that we all came into existence by a “mysterious force” which you call “evolution” playing around with particles that exploded out of nowhere by nothing to produce something, then more power to your elbow. The majority of the world who (thankfully!)do not inhabit your atheistic universe will not so easily surrender our critical thinking. Whatever dope you were smoking when you write your posts is certainly working.
Posted by on May 11, 2008 @ 04:58 AM(6) Do you believe the universe had a beginning in time? If so, where did all of time, space and matter come from? (be prepared readers of Slugger for the greatest fairy story in history if any of our intrepid heros dare to cobble something together here).
If you look up the word irony in a dictionary, it would probably have this statement, with a note explaining that it came from a Christian.
Thanks for the laugh Sam.Posted by on May 11, 2008 @ 05:51 AMSome evidence here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnB3T00ZuU&feature=related
from Carl Reiner that that 6,000 figure estimate might require some readjustment.
Posted by on May 11, 2008 @ 09:15 AM(6) Do you believe the universe had a beginning in time? If so, where did all of time, space and matter come from? (be prepared readers of Slugger for the greatest fairy story in history if any of our intrepid heros dare to cobble something together here).
- I’m not sure what this has to do with evolution, like much of your post, but… the smartest person admits to his/her ignorance and you seem to be asking people to explain something that at the minute, amongst scientists, is educated speculation. There is no need to sling out a fairy tale (like you do). Science may or may not find this answer out in time… That there is no current answer in no way proves the existence of God.
As far as I am aware the Big Bang theory does not say that the universe came from nothing. You are just setting up a straw man here. In any case, if something cannot come from nothing as you seem to be asserting, where did your God come from? Nothing perhaps?
I find Christians like you appear to be so infuriatingly arrogant. You disdainfully reject the work of millions of scientists across the world, work that you clearly don’t understand and a discipline you don’t understand, on the whim of a book, cobbled together originally about 2000 years ago by men who couldn’t keep their excrement out of their food.
“The majority of the world who (thankfully!)do not inhabit your atheistic universe will not so easily surrender our critical thinking.”
- I don’t think i’ve ever read as silly a statement. Your post displays absolutely no element of critical thinking. Rather, you sound like a sheep who has just been at a Ken Ham talk.
Posted by on May 11, 2008 @ 09:49 PM‘you disdainfully reject the work of millions of scientists across the world, work that you clearly don’t understand and a discipline you don’t understand’
Millions of scientists? Put the pipe down kiddo. Most Christians I know (hundreds..almost) don’t take the literal road you so blithely ascribe to we stoooooooooopid creationists. Rather we interpret in many different ways and arrive at the same conclusion… an intelligent design.
You fools are full of shit at every turn, thinking that if you bleat something a few million times it becomes reality. I’m sure these same million scientists ( my apologies to real science professionals) have their global warming beanies and their pro choice tshirts at the ready so when their secular, foaming at the mouth, atheist screamers pull the chain, it’s off to the next fabulous misguided race.No element of critical thinking indeed. Shovel the soda cans, dorito bags, and the inflatable dolls out of your subsidized flat and stick your empty head out the window. Take a deep breath.
Read a book (non-fiction)
Prat.Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 12:45 AMBfB,
That is a funny response indeed. The non-fiction works that I read aren’t half religion/pseudo-science.
Do I thnk creationists are stupid? Yeh the vast majority probably are in this context.
.
“Millions of scientists...”By the way, what ‘most Christians’ are you talking about? I was talking about Christians like SHanna. Plenty of Christians accept evolution.
Yes, millions of scientists who have worked or are working on evolutionary science over the course of 150 years or so, across the world in fields such as molecular biology, population biology, gentetics, geology, phyisics, anthropology, paleontology and so on. I’m not sure what you find so fantastic about that.
“You fools are full of shit at every turn...”
This whole paragraph means nothing.
Peter
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 09:12 AMBfB,
Actually i’ll take you up on that offer. Recommend me a good book on evolution then and maybe you can enlighten me…
Peter
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 09:14 AMThere were about 20 kids in full uniform from Portadown Independent Christian School - pretty disturbing.
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 11:36 AMKen Ham is Dawkins’ mirror image. Neither is a scientist. Both are shit stirrers, both are rich. Ham is more polite. Ham believes in his god, Dawkins thinks, like the sexist/imperialist/genocidal Darwin before him, that he is god.
Because neither of them is science, neother evolution nor its bastard child (creationalism) should be taught in school.
Just as Dawkins says the children of believers should be taken from them for “indoctrination”, so also should the children of atheists be taken off them. Remeber George Bush’s wise words re atheists. They cannot be trusted. Just like homosexuals but without the gay bits.Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 02:34 PMGreenflag, I like your summary and Turgon, I really appreciate your honesty here.
Greenflag “...it’s clear from the evidence that evolution is a fact of life but it is not directed at creating or ‘evolving’ an intelligent animal such as man”
The awesome scale of time and space has always bothered me and it seems clear that the human race is not in any final sense necessary or inevitable. And yet, the universe has surely in some sense created us, clearly at a ‘higher level’ than the other life forms we know of.
Evolution has created something amazing, and perhaps it was inevitable that it would do so. Are we, in a singular, accidental and contingent way, the universe’s way of ‘knowing’ itself? Fuckin’ hope so.
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 02:44 PMmickD,
Sounds like something from a Raymond E. Feist novel with us being one the universe’s attempts at understanding itself.
Nice thought tho :P
Peter
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 02:58 PMMickd - I think most evolutionary biologists would be uneasy with the concept that the universe has created us in some sort of teleological sense.
It’s actually ‘just’ blind random chance. We’re not the top of some sort of evolutionary ‘ladder’ either - we actually sit on a niche parallel to, say, the chimp and the amoeba - who are no less successful, in evolutionary terms, than ourselves (although the chimp’s days are probably numbered).
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 03:52 PMISBN: 0307396266
The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
by David BerlinskiEducate that you may be free.
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 04:12 PMThe Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
If the title, which alludes to an imaginary mythical character as some kind of reference, is any indication of the rest of the book, I think I’ll pass.
Science, being science, is duty bound to offer criticims of the evolutionary models, and indeed it does so, there are perfectly valid criticism from within the scientific sphere, no need to go asking the religious nutters for advice.One of my favourite exchanges in the Evolution Vs Creationism debate comes from A christian radio station which invited biologist PZ Myers to debate with a creationist. Despite the fact that the Christian fundies changed the topic to be discussed without informing Myers makes his clear victory all the sweeter.
The phrase “rip someone a new arsehole” seems to be about the best summation of what happened
You can hear it at this location.http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons & Myers.MP3
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 04:46 PMmickd,
‘And yet, the universe has surely in some sense created us, ‘Not in some sense actually in a very real sense . Take any human being and if reduce said person to his/her basic elements you ‘ll find about 60% water i.e H2O (Hydrogen and oxygen ) along with carbon and traces of essential minerals such as iron , copper, zinc traces and other rare elements . These latter heavy elements were only created were created a couple of billion ears after the Big Bang and were created in the heat of super novae . At some point these ‘heavy’ elements made it to the this region of earth before the planet started to coalesce into it’s present form . Evolution did the rest . Mind you we still don’t know how life was created but at some point several billion years ago it ‘twitched’ into existence and it’s been going on ever since .
‘ Are we, in a singular, accidental and contingent way, the universe’s way of ‘knowing’ itself?’
Who knows ? When you add up the singular , accidental and contingent ways we as humans have come to be - it appears to be unlikeley that we have been replicated elsewhere . However life may be found elsewhere and a lot of the space effort and research is directed to finding ‘life’ elsewhere. Bear in mind that for 4,200,900,000 years of this planets existence - Homo Sapiens was not around . His predecessors Homo Habilis, etc etc had been climbing the evolutionary tree for a couple of million years prior to our ‘sudden ‘ appearance approx 150,000 years ago in NE Africa . It appears also that we nearly did’nt make it . At one point there may have been as few as 2,000 separated into small groups barely surviving . From this group we are all descended in one way or another .
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 04:50 PMnestor makhno,
‘ who are no less successful, in evolutionary terms, than ourselves
Don’t omit bacteria :) They have been around longer than any amoeba :)
(although the chimp’s days are probably numbered).’
You might think that but there is evidence on this thread that at least one chimp has advance to the point of signing his thread dave o connell :(
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 04:55 PM‘Remember George Bush’s wise words re atheists. They cannot be trusted.’
So the only people who can be trusted are those who are not ‘atheists’ ? Well lets look at the evidence . Nobody doubts the sincere attachment to their religious beliefs of the people of Northern Ireland . The display of trust between these fine upstanding Catholics and Protestants has been remarkable over the past 40 years and longers . So much trust have these non atheists in each other that they came to a political agreement without the help of others and only after 40 years of senseless killing of each other .
But perhaps God is not a Christian and he/she/it prefers to be called Allah or Shiva . We remember the heady days of India winning it’s politcal independence from the British Empire. Surely every non atheist believer remembers the trust shown between Muslim and Hindu back at that time . Had these believing folk not had so much trust in each other then surely they would have killed more than the 1,500,000 estimated to have been slaughtered in the mass exhibition of religious fervor in 1949? Trust between believers ? -sure there’s nothing like it for racking up the body count .
But India and Northern Ireland are perhaps aberrations on the map of the world and surely not comparable to the wonderful example of Christian fundamentalist America . White and Black americans share their Baptist faith and we know that throughout the history of the United States this unity of belief in God has meant that White Americans and Black Americans have trusted each other so much that there was for a long time need for Black Americans to have a vote much less use the same washroom or swimming pool as white Americans ?
Perhaps George Bush’s words on this matter cannot be trusted :(
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 05:25 PMmickd,
‘The awesome scale of time and space has always bothered me and it seems clear that the human race is not in any final sense necessary or inevitable.’
Humbling is’nt it :)? I’m not that bothered about the ‘awesome ‘ scale of the macro universe . What I find utterly awesome is what is happening and why and how with the micro universe i.e at the sub atomic level . Now thats a whole other universe which may yet ‘awe’ us all a lot more than the final frontier :)
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 05:31 PMTak tak: The Devil’s Advocate is written by an atheist. Not that closed minds want to know or anything
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 07:53 PMThe Devil’s Advocate is a work of fiction, atheists can write tales based around imaginary characters without compromising their beliefs.
What was your point again?Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 08:18 PMDave O’Connell,
Was that a recommendation for me? Berlinski’s book isn’t about evolution or creationism/intelligesnt design, just an insecure rant on the back of ‘The God Delusion’ et al… The synopsis is amusing…
“Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.”- Erm David Berlinski, it is the religious who claim that God exists. The burden of proof is on them. Most people think it is impossible to disprove 100% and very few has argued that it is possible (including the bogey man Dawkins), although it can be shown to be very unlikely. On the flip side, has anyone proved the existence of God… not even close Mr Berlinski.
“Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.”- Oh right, so in a world where 99% of species that have existed have become extinct, where humanity has existed for a tiny proportion of the Earth’s existance, a ridiculously small proportion of the universe’s existence and given the size of the universe we can only knowingly exist on this tiny planet… hmm if God does exist, he gets 1/10 for effort. I would suggest the universe is not fine-tuned for life!
Anyway, apologies for the digression. TAKKABO, I heard that PZ Myers debate with the creationist too… It was pretty hilarious.
Peter
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 11:13 PMDave O’Connell,
I presume you meant ‘The Devil’s Delusion’ rather than ‘The Devil’s Advocate’ which is an average film at best.
Berlinski describes himself as an agnostic (which is distinct from being an atheist), secular Jew, although you wouldn’t believe it from his writing.
It’s hardly relevant though is it. Even if he was an atheist what is your point?
Peter
Posted by on May 12, 2008 @ 11:22 PM
