Thu 30 Nov 2006
The ignorance of some atheists never ceases to amaze me.
Posted by Jon Haynes under new discoveries
[12] Comments
Lawrence Dorr from South San Francisco Calif. wrote in a letter this to Time Magazine (and it has been published in the Dec 4th issue along with a series of other letters on both sides of the issue, which were in response to the God vs. Science story in the November 13 issue):
What Intelligent Designer came up with caner and toothaches? Who “designed†your appendix and tonsils, organs that do nothing but get infected and cause you grief? How intelligent is the famously fragile human spine, or the narrow pelvis that makes childbirth harder for humans than for almost any other species? There are evolutionary explanations for all of these, but I hardly think there was much intelligence in designing halitosis, acne and flatulence.
I wish this guy would figure out which side he is arguing, because it seems he is almost arguing more for the Intelligent Design side; especially by bringing up that the human pelvis is so narrow as to make childbirth harder for humans than any other species. Lets see Genesis 3:16
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” NASB
that is only the third chapter of the whole Bible. This guy is trying to argue against God without even reading three chapters of God’s book. Is it so much to expect that it you are going to reject the concept of a designer you at least knows a little bit about the history the Designer has reveled? As for his other points isn’t evolution suppose to enable us to adapt, so why hasn’t natural selection done away with the appendix, and tonsils and all these other problems that he mentions. Unless maybe God created us, and now, because of sin we have the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: “There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work.” In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
The ignorance of some creationists never ceases to amaze me. The Bible is not a science text; it is a collection of myths and legends, ultimately no more authoritative that ancient Greek myths about Zeus and Apollo. Genesis 3:16 was written by men to rationalize their tyranny over women.
Ultimately that is just you opinion. Just because Science is not able to explain everything in the Bible does not make it myth or legend. Eventually science may catch up ( since it is always changing), but for now there are indeed parts of the Bible that must be taken on faith. In addition, Science has not shown any real evidence that disproves anything in the Bible. In fact often times when scientists do see some of the flaws they have made the Bible has been actually proven to be true time and time again. In fact scientists have now found flesh on a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells; which were so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible, meaning that dinosaurs could really have lives with people, as the Bible has said. In addition carbon 14, which should not last beyond 12,000 years, has been found in supposedly 300 million year old coal and diamonds. Also a fossil of a snake that apparently had legs was discovered not long ago, proving that the snake was indeed cursed to craw on it’s belly. http://www.haynes.tv/2006/04/
In addition there are worldwide myths creation and flood myths both similar to the Genies account that our uncannily similar yet there is no way that all of the cultures could of copied each other. Furthermore the book of Genesis has been shown to have patterns that are too complicated to be there by chance. Below are some quotes and a link to more information concerning the patterns in Genesis:
In conclusion when we look at all the mounting evidence proving the Bible the idea that some men just invented a text to “rationalize their tyranny over women†seems kind of silly. Below are an excerpt and a link explaining the Bible’s true view regarding women:
Science isn’t in the business of trying to prove or disprove anything in anybody’s holy book. The object of science is to create a model of reality based on observation. Since religion is based on revelation rather than observation, religion and science don’t exist in the same conceptual realm, and thus oughtn’t to have any effect on one another.
If you’re referring to the fossil snake mentioned in your link, then I have to tell you that A) paleontologists have known for decades that snakes are descended from four-legged reptiles, and B) snakes are not dinosaurs.
What you’re really revealing here is that you don’t actually understand evolution.
You ought to be aware that a later issue of Statistical Science published a refutation of this claim.
This claim has been made countless times about countless phenomena. It is based on the false assumption that we already know everything there is to know about the universe, and that therefore any phenomenon that is currently unexplained is permamently inexplicable. The more we learn, the more explanations are found for previously unexplained phenomena.
Virtuous, of course, being defined as properly submissive to men. Both Paul and Peter refer to the Old Testament to justify the submission of woman to man; the creation of Eve after Adam (1 Corinthians 11:8-9) and the transgression of Eve before Adam (1 Timothy 2:12).
1 Peter 3:1-6 justifies submission on the grounds that “Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord”.
Unless, of course, you want to argue that “submission” isn’t a form of tyranny.
By the way, John J. Loughlin published his Daily News op-ed again, this time in the Projo. For some reason, he uses “Democratic” instead of “Democrat”. Whoops.
If science is trying to create a model of reality based on observations then the process of evolution cannot even be called science. Because evolution cannot be observed or reproduced, the only way that creation can be explained is through revelation. There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists, and as I learned in biology life does not come from non life. Unless you give it enough time (a few billion years) then some random event might happen to cause life. That is not science, because it can not be reproduced or observed. There are many scientists that would have you believe science and religion must be in two different conceptual realms, but there is no reason they have to be at odds with one another, they can indeed augment one another. Either, way you approach it you will have a bias either an atheistic bias or a creationist bias.
Paleontologists have only known for decades that, but the Bible revealed millennia ago that the snake did not have to crawl on its belly, at one time. Furthermore, I do know the difference between a snake and a Tyrannosaurus Rex. I am sorry for any confusion that may have cause, but when I was referring to the Tyrannosaurus Rex I was referring to a completely different piece of evidence. Here is a link with some information concerning the Tyrannosaurus Rex http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/tyrannosaur_morsels/
I may have been wrong on the ELS, I admit I do not really know if the ELS is true or not and have not looked greatly into that, because I do not base my belief of the Bible as an accurate text upon the validly of ELS, but wow with the statement concerning the universe you have argued for one of the same points I was trying make regarding science: that just because certain seemingly mythological parts of the Bible cannot be explained by science does not mean that they are false. And as we learn more and have more reveled we may eventually be able explain them scientifically. Science helps my faith, but since nothing in Science is concrete and is ever changing the man who believes only in science really does not know for sure what they believe.
1 Peter 3:1-6 is not advocating tyranny; look at the next verse where the husband has to honor the wife
You are right the Bible is definitely not feministic, but it does not advocate tyranny. It also explains why women have to be the one’s to bear children, which science really has failed to explain sufficiently, and it explains why they are weaker physically. However it does not advocate taking advantage of these things it advocates protecting women from those that would take advantage of them, and loving your wife as yourself.
Evolution can be and has been observed and reproduced. I direct your attention to the classic example of peppered moths evolving to adapt to changes in their environment. I also direct your attention to bacteria that evolve to resist the effects of antibiotics. However, since, as I’ve noted, you don’t understand evolution, I don’t think you’ll understand either of these examples. I also don’t think you understand science.
I’m going to go way out on a limb here and guess that you were homeschooled.
Gary S. Hurd explains why you’re wrong about the T. Rex “tissue”. Even if you understood it, though, I don’t think you would accept it.
I’ll try to put this as simply as possible: you can’t cherry-pick science. You can’t accept nuclear physics as true (assuming you do, in fact, accept nuclear physics as true) while dismissing evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, and anything else you think contradicts your faith. It’s all part of a unified whole.
You cited the ELS as proof that, as you put it, “the book of Genesis has been shown to have patterns that are too complicated to be there by chance”? Now you admit that you don’t understand the ELS argument. Do you see any inherent contradiction in citing things you don’t understand to support your beliefs? Do you?
Science is irrelevant to your faith, and your faith is irrelevant to science. If you understood science, you’d understand that.
“Science” is not a body of knowledge. “Science” is a technique for discovering knowledge. To be more exact, “science” is a technique for disproving ideas that are capable of disproof.
I repeat: science is based on observation, religion is based on revelation. The Bible, being a product of revelation, is not subject to scientific proof or disproof.
In fact, I’m going to be really obnoxious here and suggest that your need to have your faith “helped” by science is evidence of how weak your faith actually is. If you really thought the Bible was true, you wouldn’t care whether it could be scientifically “proved” or “disproved”.
I suppose it depends on how you define tyranny.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Do you think biologists are unaware of the phenomenon of sexual dimorphism? Do you think sexual dimorphism is some inexplicable mystery?
There is no real proof for the evolution of new genetic material in animals. Animals are limited by the genes are born with. If they by some chance have a mutation in the genes it will always cause an undesirable effect, and it certainly would not be in order to adapt. The bacteria and pepper moths do not actually gain any new genetic material, it is likely either turning on and off genes that are already there, through Epigenetics; or if there is any “natural selection†occurring it is only choosing between genes that were present in the genetic material, of the organisms. No new genetic material is being created in either of these two organisms nor has it ever happened in the past. They may use things like operons similar to the Lac operon; that can be triggered by things within the environment.
For a recent study of this amazing phenomenon of epigenetics see the link below
http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-06/cover
Bacteria
Pepper moths
Also in regards to the theory of survival of the fittest, Jack Hanna recently told Larry King that the red fox takes care of its young and sick first, and why do humans take care of the young and sick, if you fully believe the survival of the fittest theory then shouldn’t we stop wasting resources on the sick. These things seem contradictory to the theory of survival of the fittest; perhaps scientists are reluctant to admit that all the evidence is really showing Darwin’s theory of evolution to be as obsolete as the flat earth theory because they have no other option than to admit that the Bible is true.
I am not trying to cherry picking science; I am exposing the false science form the real science. Again Darwin theory of evolution is not science it is mythology under the cloak of science; is it an unproven theory that has worked it way in under the pretense of science. Scientists are not perfect and may even sometimes attempt to deceive us.
Here is some scientific proof that the current scientific dating methods used by evolutionists are flawed. Here is another link within that site explaining some broader flaws of the evolutionary dating scheme Evidence for a Young World. There are quite a few more articles detailing the scientific proof for creation, I imagine it is possible you might be a able to find some flaws within some of them however I think that over all, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors creation, and if creation science was not so limited in its funding I am sure there would be much more scientific evidence for creation.
I apologize for not having as extensive of an education as you; however I am not a simpleton. For record, when I said ‘life does not come from non life’ it is in the words of a well respected college professor of Biology; who has been teaching biology for 30 plus years, and holds a Ph D. from Brown University. Of course he added to the end of that “except for that first time of courseâ€. Maybe Brown schooling is kind like homeschooling. Again scientists may think they know how life began, in spite of all there knowledge and understanding they are completely baffled as to how to create life from non-life. In fact they are still living in the middle ages or something with there theory of upon the origin of life; they think it happened like in Frankenstein almost. Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the prevailing theories is that there was some primordial soup with some amino acids just floating around; then at some point got hit by lighting or something; or perhaps bombarded by cosmic rays, and suddenly there was life, kind of like Frankenstein. Of course that theory does not really work because lighting or UV would denature any proteins that could before they could come together and before they are any even close to “randomly†coming together and forming RNA. I don’t know maybe some other professors who are not as set in there ways have moved on and put the beginning of life at the bottom of sea where the UV and lighting won’t denature the proteins before they can get started, but where it is still too hot and harsh for life to beginning, or maybe the prevailing theory today is the alien theory, as I call it; where some meteorite with the right chemicals comes from outer space, and life somehow begins, but that just moves the problem to somewhere else. Whatever the current theory on the origins of life is now I guarantee you it is some far out thing, which takes a lot of faith to believe in and does not use much real science. So, maybe you are the one with more faith, because I do not have enough faith to believe in these far out theories.
I don’t quite understand; are you trying to say that somehow the two contradictory things, the Bible and evolution can both be true. If they contradict does not one have to be wrong and the other right? Do you not believe in absolute truth? How can two contradictory things both be true, are you proposing some sort of parallel universe theory maybe? I know you say they are both in different realms or something as if the spiritually has no effect on the physical, but to me it sounds more like you are a Relativist, am I correct? If not pleases explain more of this apparent paradoxical philosophy> Why is Metaphysics denied its rightful place in the unified whole, just because it is not physical does not mean it is not scientific there are other ways to observe the effects of Metaphysics in this world and so what if it comes by revelation, it is still as real as anything physical.
I did not say that my faith needs to be helped I said it can be helped. I do not need to have my faith helped by science however the more I find science proving what I believe the more it affirms what I believe. It works in much the same way as when someone tells you some great news; and you of course trust them, but when you hear from someone else the same great news, you have even more reason to believe it to be true. I know that in the Bible is not going to be completely proved in this life, but it is like a boost when something is proved. However, if a part of the Bible could be “truly disproved†that would make my faith invalid; since I do not compartmentalize might faith from other parts of my life. Although, I do not let it bother me to a great extent when supposed disproof for the Bible comes out because I know that it is faulty and eventually the true will come out. The reason I continue to seek scientific proof of Bible is because it is the only thing those like you will listen to; your faith demands scientific proof, or maybe you just enjoy arguing either way maybe after seeing proof you will change your mind. Ergo, I do not need it for myself I need so that I can make a defense when people say the Bible is just myths and legends:
Furthermore, because ELS is only a scientific analysis of patterns in the Bible using human reason and is not the actually the revelation or the text, and therefore it was only a relatively small and insignificant item in my large repertoire of scientific proof for the Bible. Hence, it is possible for that to be disproved without the Bible being disproved. However, if ELS is proved right it would help support the Bible, because it would augment the foundation, but it would not be the crux.
However, I do agree that using science we cannot absolutely prove any revelation, because we being flawed humans with flawed reason can never come to an absolute truth through science and may sometimes therefore may sometimes be fooled by faulty and deceptive science. So I guess I do have to agree with you in one sense that the Bible is not really subject to being “disproved†or “proved†100% because we can never achieve true proof or disproof using our flawed human reason. However, that means that only through revelation can we come to absolute truths. Consequently, the only way to insure correct science is to constantly refer back to revelation (the Bible), which insures that our flawed human reasoning does not get in the way.
Yes and no, they are mostly aware of the how; or so they think; but some mystery still surrounds the why. For example why does the male not carry the child since the man is physically stronger? Why is the female not the larger, as in many other species of animals? Also why are our divisions so much less clear?
Also, why did mammals completely abandon an asexual reproduction system, and evolve a much more complicated and riskier system, what natural selection mechanism made that decision, oh wait it was completely random process, but they say it is to increase the genetic pool, but when you can have unlimited mutation, as in evolution, why not just mutate more genes instead of a better reproduction system wouldn’t that be how evolution would deal with that problem, again it all just random. Also, where do you think the whole idea marrying for life came from, did it evolve. Because, if it did, it does not help with reproductive success much; just maybe it came from the Bible requiring the husband take responsibility to care for the woman and children. If evolution is true why is the human male not trying to mate as many partners as possible to help his genes continue on, and why is the human female not trying to get pregnant as much as possible, but evolution has somehow chosen quality of life over reproductive success in humans by all random process. And how about these many STDs that have come about to stand in the way of reproduction, which we are certainly not evolving to adapt with, although they seem to be evolving to adapt to us just look at Africa for proof of that. In fact we are moving further away from reproductive success with the homosexual movement. Are these an evolutionary response to over population? These are just some of the mysteries that scientists; bound by an atheistic bias are unable to give good answers to, sure they may come up with answers that people believe for a while, but eventually they will prove false. And it the end if I believe it evolution life is has no purpose and everything is just random, there is to much order it this world for me to accept evolution, to be true.
Yes, as I suspected, you don’t understand evolution.
Pay close attention, this is how evolution works: an individual organism happens to be born with some trait that gives it some advantage over its fellow organisms. An herbivore, say, has the ability to eat a particular weed that other herbivores can’t eat. This allows the herbivore to eat better, grow stronger, live longer, mate more often, have more offspring. The offspring share this trait, which allows them, in turn, to have more offspring with this trait. Eventually, the trait spreads out among the population until everyone has it. This species has just evolved.
There, that’s it. That’s how evolution works.
The trait doesn’t specifically have to involve diet. It can involve being able to run faster, or see better, or hide better, or even put on displays that potential mates find more attractive. Anything, ultimately, that allows an individual organism to produce more offspring is an advantageous trait, from an evolutionary point of view.
[snip additional stuff making it clear that you don't understand evolution]
“False science” being defined as science that you disagree with. Yes, we’ve already established that.
That’s why all scientific claims have to be independently confirmed before they’re accepted. In order to reject evolution, you have to assert that every single scientist who accepts evolution is either mistaken or lying.
I’m not the one saying they’re contradictory. You are. All I’m saying is that an apple is not an orange.
Ah, here we come to the nub. Revelation isn’t subject to human reasoning. One cannot prove it to be true or false, one can only assert it to be true or false. It isn’t possible to independently verify the truth or falsity of revelation.
By contrast, independent verification is the whole point of science. Observations have to be independently verified by other observers. Experiments have to be indepenently verified by other experimenters. This is how we compensate for, as you put it, flawed human reason. If an observation or experiment can’t be independently verified, it isn’t accepted.
By its very nature, science isn’t subject to revelation. If you reject the exclusive role of observation in science, then you reject science. You can’t say, “I accept this body of scientific knowlege because it seems compatable with this body of revelatory knowledge, but I reject this other body of scientific knowledge because it doesn’t.” It doesn’t work like that.
If you reject evolution because you think it contradicts the Bible, then you are rejecting all of science, because, despite your assertions to the contrary, evolution is deeply embedded within the total corpus of scientific knowledge. You might just as well reject Newton’s laws of motion or Boyle’s gas laws. The Discovery Institute to the contrary notwithstanding, evolution has survived a century and a half of scrutiny from thousands of scientists all over the world, and it remains the central organizing principle of biology.
In short, if you insist that the Bible is incompatable with scientific knowledge, then you’re going to have to reject either one or the other.
You state that Rhode Island is dominated by democrats. However, since you are a political science major you should know that we were first republican, and all the old money of our state lies in republican hands. Furthurmore, Rhode Island has a shrinking population, and all our new money and democratic minds leave the state faster than a Jewish person from Hitler. I would also like to point out that your German descent makes you biased against Republicans. If you’re raised with free health care and education with a female chancellor of course you will hate Bush. I’m not saying I support Bush, but I don’t believe you can be trusted to give an opinion I would care about. In fact you overstep your bounds by far. You think you can argue evolution. Last time I checked you weren’t an actual scientist, just a political scientist(a.k.a. historian with bias). You can’t argue facts on public opinion and natural bias.
This statement is based on the fact that Rhode Island has three times as many registered Democrats as Republicans, that Democrats currently occupy both US Senate seats, both seats in the US House of Representatives, four out of five elective state offices, 33 out of 38 seats in the state Senate, and 60 out of 75 seats in the state House of Representatives.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I was a political science major. As a matter of fact, I majored in history.
Rhode Island was originally Federalist, then National Republican, then Whig, then Republican, then Democratic.
Even if this is true, so what? I imagine there’s plenty of “new money” in the hands of Democrats, and there’s every reason to think that the new money outnumbers the old money.
The population drain is an established fact, but do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that “new money and democratic minds” are leaving the state faster than “old money and republican minds”? And by the way, that’s a really creepy and disturbing metaphor.
This is a remarkably stupid statement on a number of levels. In the first place, “Kalinowski” is not a German name. In the second place, Germans are not a notably Democratic-leaning ethnic group. (Does the name “Eisenhower” ring any bells?) And in the third place, ethnic descent does not bestow any inherent partisan bias.
Amazingly, you’ve managed to follow it up with an even stupider statement. First, even if I were of German descent (which, as I’ve noted, I am not), that doesn’t mean I was raised in Germany. As a matter of fact, I was born here in the United States, and I’ve lived here my whole life. Like all of my fellow native Americans, I have never had free health care.
Second, the fact that Germany currently has a female head of government has no bearing on the fact that Germany has free health care, since health care in Germany has been free since the 19th century, while Angela Merkel has only been Chancellor since 2005. Incidentally, Frau Merkel is head of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union, which (as you might guess from the name) is one of that country’s conservative political parties.
Third, my hatred of Bush is due to Bush being an arrogant, power-hungry, incompetent, irresponsible, dim-witted, mean-spirited, short-tempered, childish a**h*le, and has nothing to do with my ethnic origin.
By an intersting coincidence, the fact that you keep making stupid statements means that I don’t believe you can be trusted to give an opinion I would care about.
Pot, kettle, black.
Wow, you’ve managed to pack a whole lot of stupid into just three sentences.
Yes, I can argue evolution, even though I’m not a trained scientist. As the folksinger Zimmerman noted, you don’t have to be a meteorologist to speak knowledgeably about the weather.
And, as I pointed out to your blog buddy Jon above, I believe in evolution for the same reason I believe in the rest of the corpus of scientific knowledge, because it’s been independently confirmed by thousands of people from all over the world, and not because of public opinion or “natural bias” (which I have to confess is one of the most bizarre notions I’ve ever come across, and I’ve seen some doozies).
Btw, since I’ve taken the trouble to respond to your comment at great length here, I see no reason why I should leave its duplicate cluttering up my own blog. I try to avoid leaving large chunks of wingnutty stupid in my comments section.
I apologize for Bill’s ill humor. However, that is, apparently, his opinion and as I have allowed you to express your opinion I have allowed Bill to express his. In addition, I am not ignoring your last post concerning evolution. I am currently formulating a rebuttal, though I am taking the time to fully research your misconceptions surrounding the science; apparently stemming from the notion that evolution is some sort of “law†of science(as you stated in your blog), and unified within the corpus of science in some way. Although, science has yet to be observed as a unified whole, only maybe theorized as such and Darwin’s theory of evolution remains only a widely accepted unproven theory, and as I have pointed out before many misconceptions have been widely accepted throughout history. We need only look no farther than the misconceptions of Jihad among radical Muslims to see evidence of this.
At any rate I am currently contemplating your many assertions and how I will best respond more fully to them. Until then, I will leave you with this passage from Romans 3:4 in order to make it clear that I have no problem with rejecting something just because it is deeply imbedded.
If evolution had been discovered in the 18th century rather than the 19th, it would be called “the law of evolution”, in line with 18th century nomenclature. I know you creationists like to make a big deal out of your (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the definition of a “theory” so, even though I strongly suspect it’s an exercise in futility, I’m going to explain. “Theory” does not mean “guess”; the word for that in modern science is “hypothesis”. I suspect you already know this, but choose to ignore it so you can go on pretending evolution is just a vague assertion unsupported by any evidence.
In view of that, you can only assert Darwin’s theory of evolution to be true, as I can only assert the Bible to be true. We are both just making assertions. However, you are apparently unwilling to allow my statment, in regards to in regards to evolution, stand on your blog as where I allow you to freely make your assertions here. Prehaps there was just some error in posting, at least I would hope that to be the case. I do believe you were justified in deleting Bill’s comment, however I am more interested in debating the merts of the topic rather than your merits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory