Believeing Christian myths

[Mr. Neil]

Oh for crying out loud! Is he still jerkin' his banana over the Dawkins interview?

[Penny1]

I agree with Hans Solo when I say that this thread has gone completely and totally off topic. No one here is entirely free fro responsibility, either. Txviper attacks, you respond.

 

When you have figured out that this is a conditioning stimulus, you will know how to respond and quit getting led around by the nose, which is simply a frustrating waste of time, as I have stated elsewhere.

 

Viper, go take a look at my posts in Irreducible Complexity thread about dog breeding being an example of beneficial mutations which were selected for by man. These dogs, we know, came from a common ancestor which we brought with us out of Africa, and yet they are more different from each other genetically than different races of humans are from each other. This shows the intensive selective process of man at work.

 

There was no way for men to "fabricate" these beneficial mutations. They arose spontaneously. We know they came from the same species because we have history to record it. We know these genetic differences account for changes in phenotype, i.e. characteristics of the dogs which are positive. The dogs, by the way, are still genetically viable, healthy, and able to reproduce, despite the "sheltering" we humans have given them from the process of natural selection. This shows that negative mutations can be removed from a genome by the process of recombinant DNA (in other words, the positive trait may get passed on, while the negative trait isn't, and that trait gets selected for) and by the process of elimination which humans or nature could apply.

 

You see, this is the one response which Txviper DARE NOT ANSWER. Why? Because he knows I'm right.

 

Another example: Tigers and lions are able to interbreed and produce live offspring that are also viable (i.e. "ligers"),. yet they are a different species from different geological areas. This shows they had a common ancestor, even though they are very genetically different. The same goes for dogs, too.

 

Let's get back to the real topic of this thread, which is the implausibility of the Bible.

[txviper]

c-tiger,

 

The numbers you are using are about a small number of mutations occuring in an enormous number of cells, perhaps 100 trillion in a human body. If you are going to tout mutations to be the work-horse of evolution, you need to realize that whatever the results of a mutation happen to be, they are only important if they are passed on to successive generations. Procreation normally spends a grand total of one cell from each parent. ONE. Your numbers are meaningless.

 

 

 

Penny,

 

I agree with the bulk of your post. However, it misses the point in the debate. Evolution requires adding new genetic information by way of mutation in order to get from single-celled orgs to you. There is very little in the way of evidence to indicate that this happens.Creation theory maintains that all the information was in the original kinds and that variations are due to loss of information during DNA replication.

 

I am responsible for this thread being off-track. I was pointing out that the expectations and demands that evolution places on mutations are not realistic and much less believable than the breaches in natural law involved in Biblical miracles. I still believe that the evidence or lack of such supports this.

[crazy-tiger]

c-tiger,

 

The numbers you are using are about a small number of mutations occuring in an enormous number of cells, perhaps 100 trillion in a human body. If you are going to tout mutations to be the work-horse of evolution, you need to realize that whatever the results of a mutation happen to be, they are only important if they are passed on to successive generations. Procreation normally spends a grand total of one cell from each parent. ONE. Your numbers are meaningless.

All that means is that each progeny has 240 mutations right from the start... and with that being 240 in just one cell (since the 2 cells combine into one) that's a hell of a lot of changes to the information. Oh, and since that's in the single cell that develops into a human, those changes WILL be passed on...

 

Now, we're dealing with just humans here, so the amount of time is large... but what happens if you use Mayflys? They live 24 hours, they have the same rates of mutations in their progenies, they produce one hell of a lot of progeny in one go...

After a year, the number of mutations passed on will be 87600... at a rate of 1% of 1% being beneficial, that's 8 beneficial mutations in 1 year from 1 set of parents!

 

Still think they are meaningless?

I was pointing out that the expectations and demands that evolution places on mutations are not realistic and much less believable than the breaches in natural law involved in Biblical miracles. I still believe that the evidence or lack of such supports this.

With the amount of work we're doing, showing you just what the evidence is, I find it hard to believe that you have bothered researching this at all.

 

You've said the evidence is that mutations are rare... that's been proven wrong.

You've said the evidence is that beneficial mutations are rare... that's been proven wrong.

You've said that changes can only occur by way of mutations... that's been proven wrong.

 

 

 

All you are left with is your belief in the Christian myth of creation, and you'll discount the evidence that contradicts it. Hell, you're not just rejecting the evidence, you're rejecting REALITY!

 

So, getting the topic right back on topic, why do you believe a myth over reality?

[Zach]

The numbers you are using are about a small number of mutations occuring in an enormous number of cells, perhaps 100 trillion in a human body. If you are going to tout mutations to be the work-horse of evolution, you need to realize that whatever the results of a mutation happen to be, they are only important if they are passed on to successive generations. Procreation normally spends a grand total of one cell from each parent. ONE. Your numbers are meaningless.

I already showed you that every human haploid gamete has 64 unique mutations. That's 128 per embryo.

 

Evolution requires adding new genetic information by way of mutation in order to get from single-celled orgs to you. There is very little in the way of evidence to indicate that this happens.Creation theory maintains that all the information was in the original kinds and that variations are due to loss of information during DNA replication.

I really wouldn't advise mixing information theory with evolutionary theory. Before you continue with this line of thinking, perhaps you could tell me if a missense mutation adds or removes information from a genome?

 

I'm also still waiting in the Irreducible Complexity thread to see your mechanism for congruent horizontal endogenous retrovirus insertion.

[Saviourmachine]

Shut up about evolution theory overhere!

 

[crazy-tiger]

Shut up about evolution theory overhere!

 

It's just so hard to keep things on track, isn't it?

[Saviourmachine]

Shut up about evolution theory overhere!

 

It's just so hard to keep things on track, isn't it?

Yes, so it seems. That's why I became so bloodthirsty. Most of the stuff here belongs to a "Believing non christian myths" thread.

[Wertbag]

Evolutionary theory would have you believe that all life forms on this planet came about through wholly accidental, random events. The ultimate thought is that all life forms came from rocks and some undefined/undiscovered/undemonstratable stimulus.

 

"I'm no expert on what Evolutionary theory teaches, but I'm certain that your simplistic explanation is wrong"

 

No, my explanation is accurate. It's just that when you see evolution in stark, summarized terms, you recognise that something is missing or incorrect.

 

You are actually quite wrong, its a common misconception that evolution teaches where life started, this is not so. Evolution requires life to exist, then explains how it changes over time, it does not mention where life came from in the first place. The theory of life starting is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis can create a population that could then evolve, but the two are not necassarily linked (eg there are Christians who believe God created life then it evolved to His plan, meaning they believe in evolution but not abiogenesis).

 

The next step back is the creation of the universe (eg big bang theory or similar), this tries to explain where the physical universe came from, but does not go into explaining the creation of life or what happens to life once created.

[Guest adriannastargazer]

Every one says something to the effect of " God said it, and I believe it"... I just got to know, how old are you?

[Penny1]

I agree with the bulk of your post. However, it misses the point in the debate. Evolution requires adding new genetic information by way of mutation in order to get from single-celled orgs to you. There is very little in the way of evidence to indicate that this happens.Creation theory maintains that all the information was in the original kinds and that variations are due to loss of information during DNA replication.

 

I am responsible for this thread being off-track. I was pointing out that the expectations and demands that evolution places on mutations are not realistic and much less believable than the breaches in natural law involved in Biblical miracles. I still believe that the evidence or lack of such supports this.

 

You agree with the bulk of my post, however, blah, blah, blah, blah, yakety-shmakety. You didn't even pay attention to what I said. The same mechanism that allows beneficial mutation to arise in dogs can also take you from a single cell to billions of cells over billions of years.

 

See, you didn't read my post showing the enormous number of mutations that would take place in that amount of geological time. You completely ignored it. I showed how 2.1 X 10^40 mutations at bare minimum would have occurred in the first 2 billion years of evolution alone. I also said the following in my last post:

 

There was no way for men to "fabricate" these beneficial mutations. They arose spontaneously. We know they came from the same species because we have history to record it. We know these genetic differences account for changes in phenotype, i.e. characteristics of the dogs which are positive. The dogs, by the way, are still genetically viable, healthy, and able to reproduce, despite the "sheltering" we humans have given them from the process of natural selection. This shows that negative mutations can be removed from a genome by the process of recombinant DNA (in other words, the positive trait may get passed on, while the negative trait isn't, and that trait gets selected for) and by the process of elimination which humans or nature could apply.

 

Here's the proof you need that mutations (changes in DNA structure, NOT reduction in total DNA material) has resulted in beneficial mutations. See, that's the problem--you keep jumping from one topic to another. FIRST you ask to be shown proof of beneficial mutations that apply to higher lifeforms, such as man. THEN you ask to be shown how we got from single-celled organisms to multicellular ones. It doesn't make one whit of difference. The mechanism is the same: beneficial mutation.

 

You've been shown evidence of that. Then you act as if I hadn't said a word about it. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

 

 

Creation theory maintains that all the information was in the original kinds and that variations are due to loss of information during DNA replication.

 

Ha, ha, ha, ha! What a hilarious hypothesis! It makes me laugh that you call it a theory. I never read that in the Bible. Don't you have time to read your own book?

 

Well, how are you going to prove your creation "theory", viper? Are you going to alter the evidence to make it fit, as you have accused evolutionary scientists of doing so many times?

 

There is no evidence to support reduction in genetic material, txviper, far from it. Each generation is adding more and more genetic material to the genome, much of it redundant. Explain why your god would add 50% redundant material to the genome. Explain how reduction in genetic material would lead to interesting variations. Let's see you reproduce it in the lab. Show your proof.

 

 

 

Shut up about evolution theory overhere!

 

It's just so hard to keep things on track, isn't it?

Yes, so it seems. That's why I became so bloodthirsty. Most of the stuff here belongs to a "Believing non christian myths" thread.

 

I am tired of hearing this remark, Saviourmachine, from dabblers in Philosophy divorced from reality. Show how evolutionary science is a "Non-christian myth".

[txviper]

Penny,

 

"I showed how 2.1 X 10^40 mutations at bare minimum would have occurred in the first 2 billion years of evolution alone."

 

So how and why do bacteria remain unchanged for a billion years?

 

 

"You've been shown evidence of that."

 

No one had shown any evidence of this whatsoever. The process for adding nucleotides to the DNA molecule has not be demonstrated at all.

 

 

"There is no evidence to support reduction in genetic material, txviper, far from it."

 

Look again. I said loss of information, not genetic material. Loss of information is called genome degradation. Look it up and get back with me about what you find.

 

 

"Each generation is adding more and more genetic material to the genome"

 

Actually they are finding out that what is being added is an accumulation of deleterious mutations. You seem to be hanging on the idea that species are in a constant spiral upward. The enormous number of mutations you calculated are having the opposite (and predictable) impact. You think we are adding redundant and useless information. I believe that the original human had it all and over time, it has been diminished by mutations.

 

"Explain how reduction in genetic material would lead to interesting variations. Let's see you reproduce it in the lab. Show your proof."

 

The dogs prove it.

[Samurai Tailor]

So how and why do bacteria remain unchanged for a billion years?

They occupy an extremely specific niche. If there is not an organism better-adapted for that niche then there will be no selective pressure due to competition.

 

Of course, bacteria have evolved. Doubtful there were any capable of breaking down cellulose before true plants arose.

No one had shown any evidence of this whatsoever. The process for adding nucleotides to the DNA molecule has not be demonstrated at all.

Are you being serious? Because probably any high school AP biology student can spot the bullshit here; for sure any college genetics student.

Look again. I said loss of information, not genetic material. Loss of information is called genome degradation. Look it up and get back with me about what you find.

That is a term specific to purposeful loss of genetic material, and I have only heard it used in conjunction with bacteria.

Actually they are finding out that what is being added is an accumulation of deleterious mutations. You seem to be hanging on the idea that species are in a constant spiral upward. The enormous number of mutations you calculated are having the opposite (and predictable) impact. You think we are adding redundant and useless information. I believe that the original human had it all and over time, it has been diminished by mutations.

You can believe that all you want. Show where historical genetics is wrong.

[Mr. Neil]

You know, viper has had more scientific leads thrown at him than he could possibly have asked for. If he has any interest in following them instead of trying to quibble with people, then in all likelihood, he'll be one of those Christians who come back after about ten to fifteen months to apologize and announce his apostacy.

 

Viper, if you have any interest in learning about this world, then I dare you to follow up some of the topics that you participated in and read what actual scientists have to say. Go to your local library or bookstore and pick up some books by people who actually work in the field of evolutionary biology. If you have a credit card, then hit Amazon.

 

I know you have a lot to say about Richard Dawkins, but how many books by him do you own? Hmm? If you can set aside your contempt for a moment, then I suggest you give it a try.

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

I have heard scarcely anything here that I have not heard before. The only thing different is the greatness of faith in the preposterous. You guys don't seem to grasp the concept of preponderance of evidence. You substitute conjecture, speculation and acceptance of paper-thin explanations (more often excuses) for scientific method.

 

Scientism, more specifically evolutionary scientism, has become the finest of religions. It has every single religious component short of hymns and holy days, the most remarkable being the astonishing faith and militant zeal of its devotees. This is truly amazing when you consider that it is an ideology which ultimately declares that everything is meaningless. Justice, kindness, honesty, goodness; these are, according to your religion, nothing more than human constructs. They have no more value than their counterparts because in evolutionary retionale, everything is about random chance and accidental processes. There is no right or wrong, good or evil.

 

This is madness.

[crazy-tiger]

Mr. Neil,

 

I have heard scarcely anything here that I have not heard before. The only thing different is the greatness of faith in the preposterous. You guys don't seem to grasp the concept of preponderance of evidence. You substitute conjecture, speculation and acceptance of paper-thin explanations (more often excuses) for scientific method.

Project much?

Scientism, more specifically evolutionary scientism, has become the finest of religions. It has every single religious component short of hymns and holy days, the most remarkable being the astonishing faith and militant zeal of its devotees. This is truly amazing when you consider that it is an ideology which ultimately declares that everything is meaningless. Justice, kindness, honesty, goodness; these are, according to your religion, nothing more than human constructs. They have no more value than their counterparts because in evolutionary retionale, everything is about random chance and accidental processes. There is no right or wrong, good or evil.

You don't pay attention, do you?

This is madness.

Yes, but we tried to bring you to sanity...

[Vigile]

Scientism, more specifically evolutionary scientism, has become the finest of religions. It has every single religious component short of hymns and holy days, the most remarkable being the astonishing faith and militant zeal of its devotees. This is truly amazing when you consider that it is an ideology which ultimately declares that everything is meaningless. Justice, kindness, honesty, goodness; these are, according to your religion, nothing more than human constructs. They have no more value than their counterparts because in evolutionary retionale, everything is about random chance and accidental processes. There is no right or wrong, good or evil.

 

This is madness.

 

I'll say it for Neil so he can keep some of his poise in the debate. You're retarted.

[Mr. Neil]

I'll say it for Neil so he can keep some of his poise in the debate. You're retarted.

No! He's Petarded!

 

 

And you know what? Fuck poise! I got some shit to say to this fucker that needs to be said. I am sick and tired of viper's quibbling non sequiturs and evasive actions. He wants to talk about evolution, but when I offer him the best evidences, he either hand-waves them or he fucking bolts because he's tired of talking about it.

 

I have heard scarcely anything here that I have not heard before. The only thing different is the greatness of faith in the preposterous. You guys don't seem to grasp the concept of preponderance of evidence. You substitute conjecture, speculation and acceptance of paper-thin explanations (more often excuses) for scientific method.

You're afraid! You won't even take me up on my suggestion. Instead, you start attacking what I said. You're a fucking coward.

 

Scientism, more specifically evolutionary scientism, has become the finest of religions.

Scientism!

 

It has every single religious component short of hymns and holy days, the most remarkable being the astonishing faith and militant zeal of its devotees.

 

This is truly amazing when you consider that it is an ideology which ultimately declares that everything is meaningless. Justice, kindness, honesty, goodness; these are, according to your religion, nothing more than human constructs. They have no more value than their counterparts because in evolutionary retionale, everything is about random chance and accidental processes. There is no right or wrong, good or evil.

I don't have a religion. Don't you ever fucking insult me like that again, bitchboy!

 

Evolution doesn't address ethics. Evolution is a theory of biology. You know what else doesn't address ethics? Chemistry. Astronomy. Physics. Geology. Archeology. Science isn't about determining what's ethically right and wrong. It's about learning what's true about the world around us. And if Christianity gets trampled in the process, too fucking bad!

 

Creationist idiots pull this stunt all the time. They say, "If evolution is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" Try replacing that with another scientific theory. "If relativity is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" "If quantum mechanics is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?"

 

Do you not see how fucking stupid that is!?

 

You don't just have evolution as an opposition to your fucked-up, ass-backwards savior-on-a-stick religion. You have every field of science going against you. Contrary to the Bible, the world is round, the sun is a star, and the moon isn't a light. The flood would have released so much heat that it would have baked the planet, and the Exodus never fucking happened. The gospels contradict each other, and they build their Messiah myth by stitching together other savior myths of the same era and taking several alleged Old Testament "prophecies" out of context.

 

I guaruntee you that if you have any intellectual honesty at all and follow-up the topics I have given you, you will see that I am right. Do it, bitchboy! Take my fucking challenge. Learn something! I daaaaare you!

 

This is madness.

That pretty much sums up everything you've posted on this forum thus far.

[Samurai Tailor]

I have heard scarcely anything here that I have not heard before. The only thing different is the greatness of faith in the preposterous. You guys don't seem to grasp the concept of preponderance of evidence. You substitute conjecture, speculation and acceptance of paper-thin explanations (more often excuses) for scientific method.

 

Scientism, more specifically evolutionary scientism, has become the finest of religions. It has every single religious component short of hymns and holy days, the most remarkable being the astonishing faith and militant zeal of its devotees. This is truly amazing when you consider that it is an ideology which ultimately declares that everything is meaningless. Justice, kindness, honesty, goodness; these are, according to your religion, nothing more than human constructs. They have no more value than their counterparts because in evolutionary retionale, everything is about random chance and accidental processes. There is no right or wrong, good or evil.

 

This is madness.

You wish to surrender, then? Very well, we accept.

[Amethyst]

Creationist idiots pull this stunt all the time. They say, "If evolution is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" Try replacing that with another scientific theory. "If relativity is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" "If quantum mechanics is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?"

 

Yes, it's like saying if the color yellow exists, how do we know that 2+2 = 4? And if gravity exists, how do we know that chocolate also exists? If a triangle exists, how do we know that we exist? You can't conjecture whether something else is true from statements that have nothing to do with the thing that's being asked. You can ask it in a separate statement (ex. Does chocolate exist), but you cannot use the fact that gravity exists to prove that chocolate exists.

 

I had a similar debate with my annoying fundy cube mate, who kept trying to use the excuse that his stress ball might implode at any moment proved that god existed, despite the fact that his stress ball had never imploded before.

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

 

"You're afraid!"

 

Terrified. Literally quaking.

 

 

"I don't have a religion."

 

You are a first class zealot for your faith. But I have trouble telling whether you are a traditionalist or a reformist. On the one hand you follow Dawkins. That makes you like the Shias, in reverent deference to Darwin and original creed. But then you also have a decidedly Sunni inclination, embracing neo-hadithic ideas like punctuated equilibrium. Some think Gould and Eldredge were heretics for that, alleging that PE is a cult doctrine. I guess its really a dispute over sacredness of icons and whose revelations are truly inspired. With both sides being evidence-free, it is just hard to tell.

 

 

"Creationist idiots pull this stunt all the time. They say, "If evolution is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" Try replacing that with another scientific theory. "If relativity is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" "If quantum mechanics is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" "

 

So you can answer the right from wrong question? And you are absolutely certain that evolutionists have not strayed into ethics and morality as it relates to evolution?

 

 

"Contrary to the Bible, the world is round, the sun is a star, and the moon isn't a light. The flood would have released so much heat that it would have baked the planet, and the Exodus never fucking happened. The gospels contradict each other, and they build their Messiah myth by stitching together other savior myths of the same era and taking several alleged Old Testament "prophecies" out of context.

I guaruntee you that if you have any intellectual honesty at all and follow-up the topics I have given you, you will see that I am right."

 

Elaborate on your assertions and I will respond. But be specific and complete. I have to question what you are willing to accept as evidence and explanation. Your work on the development of teosinte to a food source would not really qualify as a scholastic achievement.

 

It was entertaining however. I guess I never really associated the late stone age with agricultural R & D. Those guys must have been some kind of visionaries to hang in there for as many generations as it took to actually have something to eat. I'm betting the first few dozen got really discouraged. Can you imagine what they had to put with from their wives?

[Mr. Neil]

You are a first class zealot for your faith. But I have trouble telling whether you are a traditionalist or a reformist. On the one hand you follow Dawkins.

I don't "follow Dawkins". I don't worship scientists as though they were prophets. I simply appeal to them for their work to correct the baloney spouted by creationist morons such as yourself. If you can't even talk to me without blasting me with your ignorant caricatures, then I have no choice but to continue referring to you as a fucking idiot and a coward. You're afraid.

 

"Creationist idiots pull this stunt all the time. They say, "If evolution is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" Try replacing that with another scientific theory. "If relativity is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" "If quantum mechanics is true, then how do we tell right from wrong?" "

 

So you can answer the right from wrong question? And you are absolutely certain that evolutionists have not strayed into ethics and morality as it relates to evolution?

First of all, knock it off with the "evolutionist" label. That's a strawman. I'm no more an evolutionist than I am a gravityist. Evolution just happens to be a theory of science, like general relativity, that I accept.

 

Besides, you need to pay attention! I'm not talking about "evolutionists". I'm not talking about what certain biologists do when they're not talking about change in biology. I know some of them talk about ethics. Massimo Pigliucci, for example, is a champion of faithless ethics. That's irrelevent, though. I'm talking about the theory itself.

 

Do not confuse the theory with the people who support the theory. Science does not address ethics. Period.

 

Elaborate on your assertions and I will respond. But be specific and complete. I have to question what you are willing to accept as evidence and explanation. Your work on the development of teosinte to a food source would not really qualify as a scholastic achievement.

Assertions? Haven't you read your Bible? I would think that you'd know what I was talking about. It's right there in the opening chapter of Genesis. The sun and moon are great lights in the sky. And right there in Genesis 1:16, it says that God made the stars also; i.e., in addition to the sun and the moon.

 

And I know what you're going to say, "It doesn't say that the sun isn't a star." Yeah! Exactly! For something that's actually supposed to describe the creation of the sun and Earth, it remains silent about a lot of facts, and what it does tell you is blatantly misleading! If you didn't know any better and were reading the Bible, you'd walk away with the conclusion that the sun was BIGGER than the stars!

 

I mean, honestly! The moon as a light?! I don't know if you're hip on your scientific history there, pally, but we've been to the moon. It's not a light, nor does it give off any light. It simply reflects the light from the sun. The Genesis author, astonishingly, doesn't seem to realize this. It's almost as if it was written by some Bronze Age buffoon who didn't know anything about astronomy!

 

I mean, this isn't a description of anything that we know about the solar system today. It's not even close! I would be impressed if the Bible author actually got a little closer to the truth and said that God made the stars and around one specific star hell called Sol, God created a series of orbiting planets. And around each of these planets, God created smaller orbiting planets. And on the third orbiting planet of Sol, God breathed life... blah blah blah blah...

 

Sure, that's a rather vague description of the solar system, but at least it's somewhat accuratate. The book of Genesis, on the other hand, doesn't tell you anything about the solar system. In fact, it propetuated the wrong hypothesis of the solar system for centuries. People thought that the sun revolved around the Earth, and it took an act of bravery, combined with some good ol' fashioned scientific work (SCIENTISM!!!! ) to show otherwise!

 

As kind of a parallel to the ancient "wisdom" of God's people and their apparent inability to describe the nature of the Earth and its environment in the cosmos, here is a nice long paper written by Reggie Finley and Dr. Robert M. Price, who happens to be a Biblical scholar. They go into quite a bit of detail about your skydaddy myth, and they talk a lot about the sky and what the ancients actually thought was up there. Unfortunately, a lot of it is pretty embarrassing for the Christian for the Christian perspective.

 

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

 

As far as the genealogy of Jesus is concerned, you can join us here. Come on in and join us. We could use a good laugh.

 

It was entertaining however. I guess I never really associated the late stone age with agricultural R & D. Those guys must have been some kind of visionaries to hang in there for as many generations as it took to actually have something to eat. I'm betting the first few dozen got really discouraged. Can you imagine what they had to put with from their wives?

You missed the entire point. They didn't have to be visionaries to develop something that takes thousands of years. You have created a false dichotomy between astonishing agricultural foresight and crops that are divinely created as-is. I offered, as an alternative, a system of progressive, selective discoveries in agriculture. Without warrant, you have disqualified this third option and continued to exclude the middle.

 

My point wasn't even to provide an explanation, but to show you where your assumption was unwarranted. By creating a false dichotomy, you invent a problem that doesn't exist. However, now that I've explained your blundering error, you have two options: accept my alternative or continue your fallacious argument. I predict that you'll select the latter.

 

Furthermore, I fail to see what the point is for your argument, as it doesn't support creationism in the first place. You've not shown, in any way, what this has to do with proving Biblical creationism. Your tactic, like all other apologists, is to attack the scientific theory that most offends your already upward-turned nose and hope that you can defeat it, so you can put the story of Genesis in its place. You assume the Bible to be correct, a priori.

 

You scoff a the scientific method, in which nothing is proven and theories are only conditionally true. Like all ignorant Christians, you would have us believe that tentativeness and changing ideas are weaknesses of secular discipline, but in doing so, you implicitly reject science. You have no choice but to do so, even if you deny it.

 

Science is not weakened by tentativeness; it thrives on it! Even the most successful theory in science, which is quantum mechanics, has its problems. But having problems is not the same as being refuted, because sometimes the problem is only that a phenomenon remains unexplained. This is often the type of problem that gets exploited by apologists, because they want the "evolutionist" to admit that no explanation exists. It's what you're doing right now with your agriculture nonsense. As soon as you come to realize the fact that all theories in science have things that they can't explain, then you will understand why your childish hole-punching doesn't work.

 

No theory in science is proven true, and all theories are continuously tested, except for those theories that are proven false. If you find this not to your liking, then it must be with great cognitive dissonance that you sit at a computer reading my response, because computer technology itself is a field of science. I would dare to call you a hypocrit if you were to or go to the hospital or get a flu shot, because medicine is science. The latter is even a form of viral provention that is based on an application of the theory of evolution. I'd even go as far as to say that you have no business driving a car or living in a house, for even mechanics and architecture are sciences.

 

All sciences have to develope, and to develope is to rely on tentativeness. If you reject that, then you reject science and are thus anti-learning.

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

"I don't "follow Dawkins"."

 

How many of his books do you have? I hope you realize he'd be dissappointed in you if he found out you'd fallen in with the PE crowd.

 

 

"First of all, knock it off with the "evolutionist" label. I'm no more an evolutionist than I am a gravityist. Evolution just happens to be a theory of science, like general relativity, that I accept."

 

Labels just define, which is no problem as long as they are accurate. Most everyone who has drawn conclusions can well wear descriptive labels. I'm a conservative, orthodox, pre-trib rapture, millenialist, dispensationalist, literalist, sola-scriptura, trinitarian, supra-lapsarian, zionist, y-e creationist, evangelical, regenerate Christian.

 

 

"I mean, honestly! The moon as a light?! I don't know if you're hip on your scientific history there, pally, but we've been to the moon. It's not a light, nor does it give off any light. It simply reflects the light from the sun. The Genesis author, astonishingly, doesn't seem to realize this. It's almost as if it was written by some Bronze Age buffoon who didn't know anything about astronomy!"

 

In function, as it relates to humans, the moon is a light. The Genesis description is about illumination.

But actually, since you brought it up, are you familiar with the various explanations concerning the origin of the moon? Which one of these sophisticated theories do you accept, along with gravity and evolution?

[crazy-tiger]

"First of all, knock it off with the "evolutionist" label. I'm no more an evolutionist than I am a gravityist. Evolution just happens to be a theory of science, like general relativity, that I accept."

 

Labels just define, which is no problem as long as they are accurate. Most everyone who has drawn conclusions can well wear descriptive labels. I'm a conservative, orthodox, pre-trib rapture, millenialist, dispensationalist, literalist, sola-scriptura, trinitarian, supra-lapsarian, zionist, y-e creationist, evangelical, regenerate Christian.

What is an "evolutionist"? Someone who believes in the theory of evolution...

What is Neil? Someone who accepts the theory of evolution as true based on current evidence.

 

The label is inaccurate...

"I mean, honestly! The moon as a light?! I don't know if you're hip on your scientific history there, pally, but we've been to the moon. It's not a light, nor does it give off any light. It simply reflects the light from the sun. The Genesis author, astonishingly, doesn't seem to realize this. It's almost as if it was written by some Bronze Age buffoon who didn't know anything about astronomy!"

 

In function, as it relates to humans, the moon is a light. The Genesis description is about illumination.

As someone who labels themself as a "Literalist", don't you think it's a bit strange for you to interpret the Bible in any way? Isn't a Literalist supposed to take it as is, without any kind of interpretation?

Could it be that you're not actually a Literalist after all?

But actually, since you brought it up, are you familiar with the various explanations concerning the origin of the moon? Which one of these sophisticated theories do you accept, along with gravity and evolution?

Stay on topic, rather than trying to change the subject...

[Mr. Neil]

"I don't "follow Dawkins"."

 

How many of his books do you have? I hope you realize he'd be dissappointed in you if he found out you'd fallen in with the PE crowd.

Viper, I am astonished that you have not yet figured out that scientific reason does not rely on authoritative appeal. Science relies on fuctionality. As such, it is only via the litmus test of peer review and falsifiability that any scientist's work is valid. It's not the man that makes the science but the work.

 

Yet you are so engrossed in your own primative religious cult mentality, which surrenders itself to the authority of scripture, that you cannot help but to assume that science works in the same way. It is by this erroneous assumption that you keep blundering your way into a strawman fallacy of calling people "evolutionists" and accusing me of "following" Richard Dawkins as though he was the messiah of scientific inquiry.

 

"First of all, knock it off with the "evolutionist" label. I'm no more an evolutionist than I am a gravityist. Evolution just happens to be a theory of science, like general relativity, that I accept."

 

Labels just define, which is no problem as long as they are accurate. Most everyone who has drawn conclusions can well wear descriptive labels. I'm a conservative, orthodox, pre-trib rapture, millenialist, dispensationalist, literalist, sola-scriptura, trinitarian, supra-lapsarian, zionist, y-e creationist, evangelical, regenerate Christian.

So anyone who draws a conclusion earns a label, is that how it works? Then it becomes meaningless to call me an evolutionist, because then I would also be a gravityist in the same vane. If all you mean to say is that I accept this postulations, then you are conceding my point that there is nothing inherently negative about it.

 

However, that's not the way you were using the term "evolutionist". Your whole argument has been based on accusing me of being a dogmatic evolutionist, which I am not. I accept evolution tentatively, and thus your accusations are not sound. Your attempt to slip by my point about labels has failed, since you obviously have been using the term within a very specific context, which actually turns out to be a strawman.

 

If you must burden me with a label, then I would like my frame of reference to be the dominant characteristic of my label. Call me a pro-realityist.

 

"I mean, honestly! The moon as a light?! I don't know if you're hip on your scientific history there, pally, but we've been to the moon. It's not a light, nor does it give off any light. It simply reflects the light from the sun. The Genesis author, astonishingly, doesn't seem to realize this. It's almost as if it was written by some Bronze Age buffoon who didn't know anything about astronomy!"

 

In function, as it relates to humans, the moon is a light. The Genesis description is about illumination.

As I assumed you would, you read an interpretation into the scripture that you cannot account for. The Bible says nothing of functionality. It incorrectly identifies the moon as light. The moon is not a light. The only light we get from the moon is reflected sunlight.

 

But actually, since you brought it up, are you familiar with the various explanations concerning the origin of the moon? Which one of these sophisticated theories do you accept, along with gravity and evolution?

I find various different theories of moon origin intriguing. Although I am not invested in any of them, the double-impact theory seems most plausible, barring further examination.

 

It seems that once again, you are waiting to attack me on my conclusion, as though I hold my conclusions authoritatively. But I do not. I hold my conclusions tentatively. You keep confusing my worldview with yours. My attack on the Bible's description of the moon is not based on a need to validate any preconceived notion of my own.

 

However, since you've elected to bring my own suppositions into question, I have no choice but to assume that this is the type of logic you wish to employ, as if attacking any beliefs I may hold about the moon will somehow validate yours. You wish to defeat a theory I might have so you can slip your creation myth into place by default. This is what is known as the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. This fallacy is easy to anticipate, as creationists use it by default. It's the only weapon they have.

 

About moon theories, I would gladly hear a comparison between different theories of the moon's formation to further my understanding and allow myself to make a better conclusion. Since I lack omnipotence or access to a time machine, the only tool I have available to determine the moon's origin is trial-and-error reduction.

 

Since the Bible tells me that the moon is a light, I have no choice but to render that interpretation invalid, as the Earth casts its shadow upon the moon, thus proving that it is not a light. We've also sent people to the moon and returned with pictures and video. Since the characteristics of the moon footage is unlike any on Earth (i.e., without an atmosphere, moon dust does not billow when kicked up), I have no choice but to conclude tentatively that man walked on the moon, and thus the moon cannot be a light.

 

Falsified!

 

But then again, you have denied the Bible's own revelation, which says that the moon is a light, and you've invented your own interpretation, which you cannot support. Thus, you are only reinterpreting the Bible on the assumption that the Bible cannot be wrong, which is question-begging.

 

You have no alternative now but to concede. I have shown your representations of my position to be nothing more than strawman arguments, as you have attempted unsuccessfully to brand me as someone who appeals to dogmatism, and yet the whole time, I have been appealing to functionality and tentativism. I've disassembled all of your attempts to attack evolution, modern astronomy, and the scientific method.

 

You lose.