There are only a handful of books that had a memorable effect on my life.One of them is a Scientific American book on psychology I read in junior college that I mentioned in an earlier post.
Another one is a book on the Pioneer 10/11 space mission that I read during secondary school (which introduced me to the terms "principal investigator", "photopolarimeter and "RS232").
Earlier still is a big picture book on human evolution that I read when I was in primary school. I recall picking it out from the adult section of the Bukit Merah library - I was never content with children's books and often sneaked "upstairs" to where the good stuff was.
It was a big, heavy book with many photos of the original hominid fossils.
By today's standards, the relationship shown in the book is simplistic and too linear (something like Proconsul -> Ramapithecus -> Australopithecus -> Homo habilis -> Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens).
Maybe most of these remains once belonged to simple individuals just trying to eke out a living in a harsh environment. Not all of them are virtuosos who can produce amazing cave art or preside over elaborate funeral rituals.
But without them, we wouldn't be here.
Did they ever look up at the skies in wonder? Could they have ever imagined that their descendants would one day spread out throughout the globe and walk on the Moon?
Looking at the photos of our ancestors gave me a solemn, almost sacred feeling and instilled in me a sense of respect for the past struggles of our forebears.
To appreciate the magnitude of the explanatory and unifying power of the field of knowledge founded by Darwin and Wallace that many years ago, here are some posters that illustrate various aspects of biological evolution.
I'll let the pictures do the talking.
Evolution of plants
Evolution of animals
Evolution of the amphibian skull
Evolution of the bird wing
Evolution of the mammalian jaw
Evolution of the whale
Evolution of the human skull
Would you like to know more?
- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (TalkOrigins)
80 Comments:
Question is, how do you know that evolution indeed was how it happened? The question of origins is really a HISTORY issue rather than a scientific issue. Evolution is simply a BELIEF about the past to explain the present. And the explanatory power of evolution is overstated.
Evolutionary biology is not only about history.
Many phylogenetic relationships have been corroborated with molecular genetics as well, and population genetics studies (eg. evolution of lactose use) indicate that biological evolution is still happening right now.
Also, you sound like you look down on the study of history.
If you believe that any history is inherently untrustworthy then why should we believe in your version of history?
Huh? Why would you conclude that I look down on history? From which part of my post do you get this idea?
Is evolution happening right now? Is it evolution that changes one kind of lifeform into another? Or is it mere variation within a kind aka natural selection? The latter is not really evolution of the pond-scum to man kind, which is what the origins issue is about.
You seem to have a lot of questions but you always dismiss the scientific answers, make up all sorts of claims without evidence and keep changing the topic.
I am especially upset with the fact that you confused salamanders with lizards.
Even if you absolutely refuse to accept biological evolution, you should not so callously disregard the field of taxonomy, which was founded by Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish naturalist and a Christian.
Scientific claims are just that, claims. And the issue of origins is in the category of historical science, where circumstantial evidence are INTERPRETED according to one's worldview and assumptions. Showing relationships and concluding that they are explained by evolutionary processes are but one way of looking at the evidence. It does not prove evolution to be true.
You accused me of making all sorts of claims, what? Yet at the same time you make all sorts of evolutionary claims as well.
Oh and yes, I stand corrected in confusing lizards with salamanders. Didn't know that would cause you so much emotional upheaval. But hey, I can be corrected and accept the correction, can you?
Just because I reject evolution (pondscum to man) means I reject the field of taxanomy? That's your strawman argument because I never make such a rejection. Classification is not the same as accepting evolution. You should not confuse them, and I am especially upset that you did.
You dismiss the field of taxonomy by mixing up salamanders and lizards, and deliberately mischaracterize biological evolution (a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations) by demanding that modern pond scum (which isn't even a single species of organism) evolve into modern human beings before your very eyes.
You dismiss the evidence of biological evolution from the fossil record (showing incremental changes between transitional forms unearthed in chronological order in the geological column, eg. incremental skull shape and fin-forelimb structural changes in early amphibians).
You dismiss the evidence of biological evolution from molecular genetics (showing incremental differences in the genomic sequence between successively divergent modern species and a high degree of similarity in the non-coding DNA of cousin species, eg. endogenous retroviral sites in chimpanzees and human beings).
You dismiss the evidence of biological evolution from population genetics (showing that even in human populations, the gene frequencies of genes under strong selection continue to change eg. lactase, G6PD, CCR5, H2 haplotype).
If you can simply dismiss all that, of course you can say that scientific facts are "just claims". This is not only about biological evolution - you have chosen to dismiss the whole scientific process altogether.
Your comments in my blog constitute a spectacular demonstration of the willful ignorance and obstinance of the creationist position.
I think that my other readers can see the frustration and futility of engaging creationists in a discussion. Creationists are not interested in the truth; they only want to "prove" themselves correct with any means necessary.
It's ludicrous to accuse me of dismissing the field of taxonomy simply because I mistook salamanders for lizards, which BTW is a common mistake many people make. So don't sweat it and use this as a beating stick to try to dismiss my position. I know you are keen to quickly hammer creationist using the common tactic of a smear campaign that creationists reject science. But at least do so with some intellectual honesty.
As for me mischaractering biological evolution, it is another example of your smear campaign. Do you not agree that the evolutionists believe that life evolved over millions of years from some kind of primordial soup that even Darwin spoke about? My point is that this is mere speculation and not science because this has NEVER been observed. Of course you will say that this could not be observed, and that's precisely my point! Which is why it is a BELIEF about what happened in the past.
You accused me of dismissing evidence of the fossil record. Excuse me, the fossil record does not speak for itself, it has to be interpreted. You can either look at it using evolutionary lens and think that the record represents millions of years of evolutionary change, or you can either look at it using Bible lens to see it as a record of living things buried quickly in a global flood. And mind you, the flood presents ideal conditions for fossilisation and also explains why we see fossils in sedimentary rocks all over the earth and even on mountain tops. So no, I am not dismissing the evidence in the fossil record, I am challenging the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.
And no, I am not dismissing population genetics, I am challenging your evolutionary claims that this can account for pondscum to man evolution. Natural selection and mutations CANNOT provide the means by which pondscum to man evolutio can occur, since NS has a conservative effect and mutations are largely harmful and deleterious, but evolution requires NEW genetic information that never existed before. Where does this new genetic information come from? And not to mention that you have yet to answer where does all genetic information comes from in the first place. You evaded the question of origins by somehow taking for granted that the genetic information is there to begin with or talk about chemical evolution but still begs the question of where the basic elements come from in the first place to have any kind of chemistry.
So your accusations are all false. I am not dismissing science. Creationists do not dismiss science, but this is a common smear tactic used by our opponents. I reiterate that we are challenging the evolutionary INTERPRETATION of the evidence, and not the evidence itself. It's not about the evidence, but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence.
You engage in the common tactic of ad hominem arguments, attacking creationists rather than dealing with their arguments, taking the easy way out by shouting loud that we reject science outright, an allegation which is easily refuted by a list of Christians who are well credentialed in science and who believed that God created. Readers can also see how you REPEATEDLY REFUSED to answer the question of origins, EVADING and AVOIDING the issue by going off tangents to talk about effectiveness of prayers and rituals, of regenerating of limbs, of salamanders and lizards, of petunias, of redundancy etc and what not, all the whole not dealing with the issue of origins. Of course you are frustrated, because I am insisting that you deal with an issue which you are trying to evade.
You accused me of not wanting to know the truth. This is again blatantly false. You BELIEVE evolution is true as much as I BELIEVE that creation is true. You are wanting to prove yourself correct by any means necessary, even if it means engaging in smearing your opponent or using dismissive remarks. Perhaps you need to examine yourself and reflect if it is YOU instead who does not want to know the truth.
"Readers can also see how you REPEATEDLY REFUSED to answer the question of origins..."
Well, LH's recent articles never claimed to be addressing the question of origins in the first place, but rather on more specific aspects of evolutionary biology. Whereas you've repeatedly tried to frame it as an origins issue.
If you're going to discuss the fragrance of petunias, don't go around insisting about talking about the colour of the pot instead.
In case you have forgotten, he began his redundancy article by attacking intelligent design, which is really about the creation evolution debate. So I am not going off topic, but rather addressing the underlying issue of this topic, by telling him, and you as well, not to put the cart before the horse.
And in any case, his recent postings are more specific about evolution as it relates to the issue of origins, so again it is wrong to accuse me of going off topic there either.
Of course you can choose to talk about the cart and not the horse if that is more comfortable for you and less stressful. But that would be simply sidestepping the Creation Evolution debate at its most foundational issue.
To: Creationist Anon
Here is a huge mirror. Take a good look at yourself. I saw plenty of "dismissive remarks" from among your posts already.
Scientists perform observations, formulate theories, and then perform experiments to try and DISPROVE the theory. That's the scientific method, not the other way round. No matter how hard its proponents are trying to portray it as one, Creationism is NOT a Science discipline.
I especially like the way creationists keep on insisting that a "designer" exists, while also trying very hard not to use the word "God" as it will immediately mark the whole movement as religious instead of scientific.
John Scalzi's visit to the Creation Museum
To Creationist Anon:
As far as real scientists and those educated in science goes, there is NO Creation-Evolution debate. To us, it is all about correcting the misconceptions of creationists.
You harp on belief. That is an issue that irks me the most. The difference between your beliefs and LH's beliefs is that his beliefs are based on scientific merit and evidence while the creationist's are not.
Amused, perhaps you are unaware that regarding origins we are dealing with historical science, which is like forensic science. You cannot do experiments about the past. So creation and evolution are on the same footing, like it or not. It's a belief about the past to explain the present. You can't deny that.
Edgar, your reply is a common tactic used by evolutionists in the CE debate. You define real scientists as evolutionists, but is such a definition true, absolutely NOT! By your definition of course there is no debate, because you have apriori written off your challengers. But since your definition is wrong to begin with, the debate still EXISTS, and you are just in DENIAL. Evolution thus becomes dogma, defended religiously from any form of questioning and castigating or suppressing any who dares dissent.
I do not apologise the least bit for irking you by saying that evolution is a belief. Evolution (pondscum to man) is a BELIEF, like it or not. Is it supported by experimental and observable science? YEs and No, depending on what you mean by evolution. In your scheme of origins, evolution took place from a big bang 15bya and life on earth came only after the earth supposedly form 4.5bya. Then somehow nonliving things evolved into living things, and add more time, tada! here we are. Where's your scientific evidence for all these? None directly observed, it's all INTERPRETATION and STORY TELLING based on SPECULATION and GUESTIMATES. You should not confuse historical science with operational science, and it is such obsfucation of these two types of science that allows you to say that evolution is science when in fact it is not. Like I said earlier, even Dawkins remarked that evolution has been observed, just not while it was happening!
So bear this well, the Creation Evolution debate is not about science versus religion, it is religion vs religion, it is the science of one religion versus the science of another religion. Even Michael Ruse concedes that evolution is religion. You do well to see evolution for what it is and what it is not.
Amused, I have no difficulty in using the word God, in fact I have used the word "Creator" if you have noted in my postings. The argument from design points to a designer, which is God Himself. The moment you concede that there is intelligent design, that a designer exists, it is not difficult to acknowledge that this is no other than God. You see, the problem lies not with the creationists who wishes to hide God from the debate, but that of evolutionists who don't want to include God in the debate. So to talk about designer is really just to accommodate closed and narrow minds, the way I see it.
Amused, about your John Scalzi's report on the Creation Museum, it is IMO, a really good example of BAD and biased reporting. If I were to rate his report, I'll rate it "HorseShit" standard, using John's own preferred term.
John began his report by poisoning the well, with his choice of words designed to emote feelings of disgust and displeasure. Did it work? Probably, since fellow evolutionists enjoyed his report. But is it objective and fair, not by a long shot!
Of course he doesn't let off the fact that to him, it is not Creationism that is horseshit, it's the Bible. It's God. He said it clearly here and I quote,
"So that is the key to understanding the Creation Museum. But what is the enormous load of horseshit that sits, squat yet moundy, at its very center? It’s simple: That the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God. If the Creation Museum doesn’t have that, it doesn’t have anything."
So note it well, John is not attacking the museum, he is attacking the Bible and God Himself. And John doesn't pull back punches to tell us what or who he thinks the horseshit is. His hatred for God and all things Christian is here expressed in deriding, mocking and scoffing at the museum. And of course he does the same of those who walked the halls and believe it.
But what about evolution, oh no, it can't be horseshit, right? Look at all the evidence and all the real scientists who prop it up, surely it can't be horseshit? Well, maybe bullshit sounds better and more palatable? See the following quotes below which I am sure will make Edgar fume:
"Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.
"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.
Anon, please stop spamming my blog with quote mines.
If you persist in posting more spam I will delete all of your comments on sight until you learn some basic integrity and respect for the truth.
For other readers who would like to learn more about those quotes in context, check out these links below:
1. Michael Denton (PhD Biochemistry) was a proponent of Intelligent Design and former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. His views on biological evolution has changed and he is no longer associated with the institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
2. Søren Løvtrup is a Swedish embryologist and a macromutationist who argues that natural selection plays an insignificant role in evolution.
He is not a creationist and does not dispute common descent, but he thinks that Lamarck should be credited with the discovery of evolution rather than Darwin, hence the controversial title of his book.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho28.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/16034.htm
3. Louis C. Birch and Paul R. Ehrlich are ecologists and proponents of natural selection!
Here we have a classic example of a creationist quote mine.
This is the quote in context:
"While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions...Our theory of evolution ... cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have obtained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html
http://ncseweb.org/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
Lim, I see that you are using threats again, a typical hallmark of evolutionists suppressing those who disagree with them. But it's your blog, and if you want to delete all my posts so that no one will ever see how you have evaded my questions, you can easily do it, without resorting to the lame tactic of calling my posts or quotes spam.
Has Denton now changed his view to think that evolution is no longer in crisis?
By those quotes I am not even suggesting that these people have renounced evolution to embraced Creationism, but at least they are honest enough to admit that evolution is not really as well supported by the evidence as many make it to be and that it is based on many assumptions that are untested and unproven. Bottom line: to believe in evolution requires FAITH.
"Has Denton now changed his view to think that evolution is no longer in crisis?"
Denton is now a theistic evolutionist. He accepts common descent.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm
"By those quotes I am not even suggesting that these people have renounced evolution to embraced Creationism, but at least they are honest enough to admit that evolution is not really as well supported by the evidence as many make it to be and that it is based on many assumptions that are untested and unproven. Bottom line: to believe in evolution requires FAITH."
Anon, you are impossible. This is what you wrote before -
"But what about evolution, oh no, it can't be horseshit, right? Look at all the evidence and all the real scientists who prop it up, surely it can't be horseshit? Well, maybe bullshit sounds better and more palatable? See the following quotes below which I am sure will make Edgar fume:"
So is it "horseshit" or "not really as well supported by the evidence as many make it to be"?
Enough word twisting already.
To: Creationist Anon
Firstly, the blog owner is not threatening you. He's just stating what he can and will do. It's his blog and he is entitled to do his own housekeeping. Meanwhile, you're free to create your own blog and gather people who support your ideas. Rest assured that I won't soil its pristine pages with my presence.
Secondly, what those guys you have mentioned did, is science. They tested the hypothesis, found it wanting, and is willing to formulate an improved hypothesis.
Do creationists test their hypothesis? No. They just kept on harping: "there is a creator!" "evolution is wrong!". Well, even if the evolution theory at its current iteration happens to be "false", that does not automatically make creationism "true". This is a false dilemma.
Even if there is a "creator", "designer", "great poo-bah", whatsoever, that entity need not be "god". Heck, he/she/it can be one of the numerous Q for all we know.
How many creationists out there are, using a slightly modified prose from you, "at least honest enough to admit that creationism is not really as well supported by the evidence as many make it to be and that it is based on many assumptions that are untested and unproven"?
If you're going to boil it down to faith, well then, all arguments are moot. You can keep your faith. I have my own.
Theories about Creation are not Science. They cannot be tested. They cannot be falsified.
The theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. It cannot be proven true but it can be shown be be more reliable than other theories.
But Evolution or any other Physical theory has not satisfactorily answered the Ultimate Question of our Origin, be it Life's origin or the origin of the Universe. Whether it can or cannot remains to be seen. So in this light, there should be a healthy skepticism about the theories. But there is faith in its method as well as an awareness of its limitations.
On the other hand, Creationists never need to prove anything. It is not science. It is a faith. It cannot be proven. But when they say scientific evidence is to be reinterpreted, they cannot do so convincingly. So what if the Biblical flood provides favourable conditions for fossil formation in sedimentary rocks? What about fossils found not in sedimentary rock, like tar pits, amber, etc? What about the age of the rocks, fossils, as compared with when the flood occurred? Who wrote the Bible? When was it written and when did the flood occur? Were there records of observations of dinosaurs at the time of the observation of the flood? They then have to create more ad-hoc hypotheses to corroborate their theory. (Perhaps they'll be right, but the principle of occam's razor demands that we seek out alternative, simpler explanations. Again, that is a faith that occam's razor works. But it has shown to be a reliable way for us to think about how the world works. It's because Science seeks general principles -- perhaps there are none in the universe and we are misled. But it has worked well so far. )
Anyway, bottom line is:
Creationist theory is not Science. It can't argue with Science because it relies on Faith. It is a tautology.
Science has not been able to explain everything. But it is the best we have at probing into the true picture of reality. And so far, evolution has been a successful theory.
Even more Amused,
I am amused that you fail to recognise a threat as a threat. I have long alluded to the fact that Lim can do anything he wants on the blog. He doesn't need to resort to labelling my postings as spam, if he or you knows what spam is. Disagreeing with him and citing a few quotes is considered spamming????
You said the evolutionists are doing science. By that definition even creationists are doing science. But you FAIL to see the distinction between HISTORICAL science and OPERATIONAL science. The issue of origins is HISTORICAL science. There are NO experiments you can do about the past to test the theory. There is NOTHING you can observe because it's already PAST! If you cannot see this distinction then you will not progress in your understanding of this issue.
BTW, evolutionists keep on harping "Evolution is fact fact fact!", no different from creationists harping that there is a Creator. And there is no false dilemma. The fact is that there are ONLY TWO VIEWS on the issue of origins, if you think you can think of a third different view, let me know. Otherwise, if creation is true then evolution is false, and vice versa.
We can settle the identity of the Creator once we have agreed that the universe was a result of intelligent design, and not chance random processes that just poofed into existence without any adequate prior cause.
The fact is that there are many scientists (including non-creationists) who are questioning evolution from a scientific angle. And while they might not be willing to abandon the whole theory of evolution since the idea of "God did it" is repulsive to them, at least they are objective enough to voice their criticism. Creationists do not reject creation but we do caution against the use of bad arguments for creation and against evolution.
Truth is, the CE debate is ultimately a matter of faith and it is good that you recognise it for that. It boils down to who you are going to trust, the fallible opinions of man who talked about millions of years but who were never there as eyewitnesses, or the Word of God who was there, and giving us an eyewitness account of how He created and when.
Lim,
Yes I know Denton went from agnostic to theistic evolutionist. But he is still a creationist! He at least sees the problem with evolution, do you?
And BTW, your accusation that I am twisting words is WRONG. I was pointing out the fact that there are evolutionists who are saying that the evidence for evolution is not as formidable as claimed. I am not contradicting myself in anyway. I still believe that evolution (pondscum to man) is one big HOAX. Please read clearly what I wrote.
Bystander,
You make the common mistake of not differentiating between HISTORICAL science and OPERATIONAL science.
Yes, Creation is a theory of origins and so is Evolution. Both are theories. Both CANNOT be tested because both are supposed to be PAST events, and are thus historical issues. Either it happened as claimed or it did not. You cannot test the past but you can collect all the circumstantial evidence to try your best to explain them.
BTW, Occam's Razor is not designed to exclude God as a possible explanation. There is nothing inherently antisupernatural about Occam's Razor. As it stands now, evolutionists have NO ANSWER as to how life evolved from nonlife. The field of abiogenesis is giving no light on this, simply because they have boxed themselves into a materialistic/naturalistic paradigm.
"Yes, Creation is a theory of origins and so is Evolution. Both are theories. Both CANNOT be tested because both are supposed to be PAST events, and are thus historical issues."
One of the criteria for a good scientific theory is its predictive power. How about comparing both Creation and Evolution theories on this ground?
Wolf,
I think you are confusing OPERATION SCIENCE (which makes predictions) with HISTORICAL SCIENCE (which makes conclusions about the past)
IMO it is not so much prediction but rather whether the evidence we have on hand is BETTER EXPLAINED by Creation or Evolution. In the field of forensic science no predictions are made, but deductions are made, and these deductions are only as good as the initial assumptions one take to the table.
So do creationists make "predictions"? sure we do. See for example here http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_prediction
and also here http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/760
You grossly misunderstand how science works.
Because of the "historical science" of Galileo, Kepler and Einstein, we've been able to predict how to maintain satellites in orbit.
Wolf,
The misunderstanding is yours. Galileo was doing OPERATIONAL science. And Operational Science is the kind of science that sends rockets into space.
See also http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891
and
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/645/
Studying stars and planets that are billions of years old is "operational science", but studying fossils that are millions of years old is "historical science"?
C'mon, a bit of consistency here! :)
Wolf,
I think the problem is on your end, not mine. If you are looking through the telescope into the stars, you are doing science in the PRESENT, regardless of how old you think the stars are.
And if you are trying to explain how stars today came into existence in the past it is still HISTORICAL SCIENCE. I don't see how your charge of inconsistency stands.
"If you are looking through the telescope into the stars, you are doing science in the PRESENT, regardless of how old you think the stars are."
You do know that it can take millions of years for the light of distant stars to reach us, yes?
Hi,
There's no need to argue with Creationist Anon. It's like talking in a different language.
Historical and operational science are fallacies Creationists cook up to shift the domain of the argument. Scientific theories have so much supporting evidence that Creationists cannot refute, so they lure people with the fallacy that what is past cannot be examined or interpreted scientifically. It's appealing in a way because to the common person, "seeing is believing", ie. seeing with the human senses.
But that would mean we would have to restrict science to the domain of our senses. We cannot see an atom directly, but there is enough evidence for its existence. Or at least, all the evidence points to its existence.
If you read the links that Creationist Anon provided, the theories that are proposed are really laughable. Young earth theory, magnetic field reversal theories..
Ok, so if they are right and god created the earth with the spins pointing in one direction and thermal motion caused them to move and create a current thereby creating the earth's field.. Question is then, can all spins point in one direction? How much energy does that need? Does it violate the Pauli exclusion principle? Does the same theory work for other planets? Why does the moon not have a magnetic field? Did it start out differently? (It's here. Provided by Creationist Anon.)
The thing is, Creationists need to have a different theory for a different phenomenon. That's why I talked about occam's razor.
My earlier questions about the flood -- can the creationist theory of the biblical flood accounting for fossils explain related phenomena or are more ad hoc theories required?
The theory of the Biblical flood causing fossil formation cannot explain fossils in amber, tar or ice. Only sedimentary rock. It cannot explain why the Bible talks about the flood but does not fill it with descriptions of drowning dinosaurs. It cannot explain how the earth is supposedly so young according to the bible but carbon dating of rocks show an older age. Sure, there are assumptions used in carbon dating. But the margin of error is not millions of years. How many theories need to be cooked up to explain all of that?
It cannot do all that because it is a Faith. It is not Science. And there is no historical or operational distinction in science.
Anon said that,"You BELIEVE evolution is true as much as I BELIEVE that creation is true. "
That is where he is mistaken. Based on all evidence so far, we believe evolution to be the most reliable theory we have to explain the natural world.
How did life begin? That's one of the most enduring questions we have yet to be able to answer satisfatorily. It is tempting to propose a theory. But for a theory to be a good one, it has to be testable and consistent with what we know to be reliable and true today.
Saying that there is a Creator is fine and dandy. But it cannot be tested or falsified. Appealing to the supernatural obscures the truth and creates fear, ignorance and superstition. And ultimately followers of blind faith get oppressed by those who wield the authority of such falsehood. (Think cults and cult leaders.)
Creationist Anon, you are free to believe in your theories. Perhaps you can tell us more when you meet your Creator. That why you'll be able to verify what you said.
This will be my last post here. I find it not meaningful to read anymore arguments.
To LH: Keep up the fun, quirky but always informative science posts! Dun let a creationist or two get you down!
Ah the issue of starlight and time. How can we see light from millions of years ago (supposedly), so the question go.
First, let's get some perspective right. The Big Bang Theory suffers from no less a problem here. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6184/
The point is this, creationists know this is an area for research and are working on a plausible model to answer this question. No creationist is trying to bury this topic or evade it just because they believe the Bible.
Oh BTW, Dr John Hartnett has been in Singapore a few times in the past few years to talk on his research into the starlight and time issue. Perhaps when he comes again you can try and stump him with your question ya?
sorry, about the earth's magnetic field and young earth theory, it's here. (wrong link in previous post).
ta ta everyone..
Bystander,
Running away from the debate isn't going to resolve the issue. It is noteworthy that it is almost always the evolutionists that employ the condescending remarks that creationists are not worth debating with.
You said historical and operational science are fallacious domains we cooked up. This simply reveals your ignorance of science. Are you telling me that this http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/facilities/allisonctr/ is a creationist organisation? Will you denounce this organisation? See also http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.Geology.pdf for further proof that there is such a thing as historical science and it is not made up by creationists.
If science is based on observation and experimentation, then it is OBVIOUS that this cannot be applied to the past. Like it or not, science can only deal with our senses, what we see, hear, touch etc. The rest are all inferences, no matter how scientifically dressed up. What we cannot see we can "observe" by the effects they have on other matter. So the scientific method is limited to our senses, but that should not limit our conclusion to only what our senses can detect.
You laugh at creationists' writings. Scorning and scoffing is easy to do, in fact it is often used to hide one's deficiency to project a false confidence. Until you interact with the contents themselves you have done NOTHING to refute them. All you have will be empty claims about creationists writings.
Your understanding of carbon dating betrays your lack of knowledge. Carbon dating CANNOT be used to date rocks! And certainly does not give millions of years!
Evolutionists have no answer to the question of the origin of life, but they rest the entire edifice of evolution on this unknown! Of course we cannot test for a Creator since we cannot put Him in a lab and make tests. But just because you cannot see a painter does not mean you cannot deduce certain things about him from the painting.
All of us will meet our Creator one day. Question is, will you be ready to meet Him when your time comes?
"All of us will meet our Creator one day. Question is, will you be ready to meet Him when your time comes?"
Valhalla sounds like a cool place to be - free beer, free food, what more could you want?
The Happy Hunting Ground might not be a bad place either. Wonder if I can bring my fishing rod.
To Wolf, Edgar, Amused and Bystander:
Thanks for stopping by and posting insightful counterpoints to Anon's claims and ramblings.
A commenter at Pharyngula blog (Optimus Primate) once summed up the evolution-creation culture war with this quote:
"You can't just mop up a floor when the tub is overflowing; you have to work at shutting off the tap, too."
Scientists can work hard at uncovering more fossils, they can sequence more genomes and do more multispecies alignments, they can do more comprehensive mutation studies, they can do larger scale and longer term population genetics studies.
They can work hard at refining evolutionary theory and test other potentially important mechanisms aside from natural selection (eg. mutationism, neutral drift, epigenetics, structuralism, neo-Lamarckism...).
They can work hard at communicating both the theory and facts of biological evolution in the simplest, clearest and most engaging format possible.
But all this painstaking effort is really only a futile attempt at "mopping the floor" while the tub continues to overflow with the tap turned on at full blast.
And that tap is supplied by an apparently limitless pool of social power, driven by faith, social consensus and a mindboggling amount of material wealth.
A social dispute is best resolved via social means. No amount of evidence, clarification or reasoned argument can truly resolve this issue. Changing the entrenched mindset of such massive and powerful social groups can only proceed at a glacial pace, if it even proceeds at all.
To Anon:
No one is threatening you - the beauty of the Internet is such that nobody can curb your freedom of expression. If you have strong opinions, just set up your own blog and type away. Or join an online forum. If people are interested in what you have to say then they will drop in and chat with you.
However, I hope that you will reflect upon your own comments and recognize that having a strong faith in your religion does not entitle you to dismiss scientific knowledge, to engage in word twisting and to persist in switching topics as you please.
Lim,
That's strange, if there is no threat, then why are you threatening to delete my postings and resorting to calling it spam to justify deleting them? You mean that does not qualify as a threat?
You engage in falsehood to accuse me of dismissing scientific knowledge. The founders of modern science were mostly Christians who championed science. Does disagreeing with evolutionists means dismissing science? Does challenging evolutionary BELIEFS means dismissing science? If that is so, then evolution becomes dogma and cannot be challenged.
As to word twisting, I have done none of that and I have explained myself clearly what I meant. As for switching topics, I have always talked about the issue of ORIGINS, the starting point, a topic that you have refused to engage but instead threw red herrings.
Wolf wrote in part:The Happy Hunting Ground might not be a bad place either. Wonder if I can bring my fishing rod.
How dare you! No Entry for non-believers! :-)
God Loves You - Not!
The Incredible Shrinking God at Skeptico's is a nice reply to Anon's Creationist codswallop.
It boggles the mind why people still believe in creation myths like the creator and inventor of the laws of physics and the Programmer of the DNA code decided to zip into the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself reborn, tortured and executed because his omnipotent mind couldn't think of a better way to forgive the theft of an apple, committed at the instigation of a talking snake.
Seriously people.
PZ
PZ,
Since you do not believe that there is a Creator, can you provide an adequate cause for why the universe exist? It had a beginning so it must have a Cause. What is it?
It could well be that evolution is the myth!
Oops. Malformed Video Id. Hope it's ok this time - God loves You - Not!
PZ
Lim, well, I said my piece.
From experience, sections of my internal mind frame can change upon hearing/experiencing something that makes sense to me.
While I am not totally averse to believing in the existence of an "extra-being" out there that may have "flicked a finger and caused everything to be as it is", I just can't fathom why it has to be just *one* particular being, and that it has to be male. Why not two or more?
Is the cat dead, or is it alive?
I will now reinstate my policy of non-engagement. All this mopping is exhausting.
Why one God and not many gods? Well, that's not because some bloke decided it should be one or many. Christians believe that God has revealed Himself to us. That there is one God. God has no sex because He is Spirit, so the use of the masculine form has no connotation of human sexuality but speaks of God as a Person. God relates to us as a father relates to his children. Jesus even liken God to a mother hen that gathers her chicks to protect them.
If you have a case for many gods, then I leave it to you to make that case.
Anon said:"Will you denounce this organisation? See also http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.Geology.pdf"
If I read it correctly the article tries to argue that studying evidence from historical events is in accordance with the scientific method. "Historical Science" is a science. So what is your point?
Anon said,"Carbon dating CANNOT be used to date rocks! And certainly does not give millions of years!"
Carbon dating is good for dating living organisms which died fairly recently. Carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years, so we can't use it to date dead creatures millions of years old. It's reliable to 50000yrs. Instead isotopes of uranium 238,235 or potassium 40 which have half lives of millions of years are used. Scientists date dinosaur fossils in sedimentary rock (both of which do not contain these isotopes) by dating neighbouring igneous rock layers. Evidence does not point to the age of earth as 6000 years old according to Creationists, rather it is much older, at around 4.5 billion years old.
Anon said,"But just because you cannot see a painter does not mean you cannot deduce certain things about him from the painting."
That's true. So the question is how reliable and accurate are the inferences? But that isn't what the argument here is about. If you believe in a God, then there is no need to prove it. Did you ask to prove that he exists before you believed? And while your faith is certainly respected and respectable, denouncing scientific evidence without a valid alternative or reliable way to verify it is not.
Anon said,"The Big Bang Theory suffers from no less a problem here. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6184/"
I don't understand that article and the alternative physics. Care to explain it? If you don't understand it either, you're taking it on faith. Hardly a recipe for gathering evidence.
PZ said,"The Incredible Shrinking God at Skeptico's is a nice reply to Anon's Creationist codswallop."
Sweet! Well written! :)
Bystander said,"The theory of the Biblical flood causing fossil formation cannot explain fossils in amber, tar or ice. Only sedimentary rock. It cannot explain why the Bible talks about the flood but does not fill it with descriptions of drowning dinosaurs."
Why no rebuttal from Creationist Anon? As I see it, these are valid questions.
Anon said,"Christians believe that God has revealed Himself to us. That there is one God. "
Fair enough. And you are entitled to your belief. But science doesn't work that way.
Bystander said,"Creationist theory is not Science. It can't argue with Science because it relies on Faith. "
And I'll like to add, Science can't argue with Creationists because it relies on evidence.
LH quoted,"You can't just mop up a floor when the tub is overflowing; you have to work at shutting off the tap, too."
Well said.
Since you do not believe that there is a Creator, can you provide an adequate cause for why the universe exist? It had a beginning so it must have a Cause. What is it?
This is great mystery and no one knows. Evidently you and your ilk do. Your imaginary Juju man in the sky did it. Case closed.
It could well be that evolution is the myth!
You are right! Darwin's On The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man are really mythical books. The Bible is a science text. And somewhere in the Bible it says that the Devil causes disease. So it must be true!
The next time I am sick I'll just go visit your church and pray to your Juju man to exorcise and deliver me from the Devil.
Delusionally yours,
PZ
Me,
Please read what Bystander wrote. He accused creationists of creating the false distinction of historical science and operational science. My point was to tell him that this distinction was no fallacious concoction on our part. His failure to recognise this is entirely his own ignorance of what science is.
You are right about Carbon dating. But any age of the universe has to be inferred and not directly measured, which depends on the assumptions one has. And the evidence does not point to 4.5 billion years. It points to a much younger earth. See also http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
Like Lim, you falsely accuse me of denouncing scientific evidence. This is patently and blatantly false. I have repeatedly mentioned that creationists do not deny scientific evidence, the evidence is NOT the issue, the issue is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence, and our worldview and beliefs influence the interpretation of the evidence. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/240
You said you did not understand the article on Big Bang problem. Most of CMI's articles are written for laymen so most people should not have any problem understanding most of it. Anyway please see http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167
Responding to your applause for the shrinking God article, neither creationists nor ID supporters advocate a ‘God of the Gaps’ approach. The fallacy of this objection is that it presumes that the design argument is an appeal to ignorance. The inference of design is based on an analogy of what we do know scientifically, not what we don’t. Also, if we do not know, why are evolutionists so dogmatic that they do know that evolution is responsible for the origin and development of life? And they are very keen on natural-selection-of-the-gaps–type arguments.
Concerning insects caught in amber. It's not that I have no response but I think you missed one important thing. Insects caught in amber supposedly millions of years old looked identical to current day insects. Why is that so? Did evolution stop for them? See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/162
Yes I believe there is a God. And contrary to what you think, science does work with beliefs. Most scientific literature are peppered with "scientists believe this or that" especially when talking about the alleged distant evolutionary past.
You are wrong to think that creationists have only faith to go on while evolutionists have the evidence. You are still confused about what the debate is all about. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5722
As to mopping up the floor when tap not closed. It is easily applied to evolutionists like you too. The evolutionary paradigm is driven by social power, faith and wealth too. See the docu-movie "Expelled" for a good expose of the forces at work to propagate the continued indoctrination of people's minds in evolution.
PZ,
Just because you don't know the cause does not mean I don't know. You call it a mystery because you are DRIVEN by your apriori BELIEFS that there is no God. You ruled out God and thus say it is a mystery. It is only a mystery because of your naturalistic paradigm. It's metaphysical beliefs that drives your conclusion, and mine. Unfortunately you are not willing to recognise that.
And please, I never said the Bible is a science textbook so that is your strawman argument. But since you are in agreement that evolution is myth, I believe you are closer to the truth compared to others who are still sold out to the evolution delusion.
Oh BTW, the next time you are sick, go to the doctor, AND pray for quick recovery too. The Bible never tell believers to avoid doctors and just pray. But then again, atheists' caricatures of the Christian faith always abound.
Just because you don't know the cause does not mean I don't know.
It's clear you believe you know with absolute certainty what no one can. That is a delusion.
You call it a mystery because you are DRIVEN by your apriori BELIEFS that there is no God.
No. I am DRIVEN by rational thinking and an evidence based belief system. I have said no one knows.
*You* are driven by your apriori beliefs that there is an imaginary sky fairy. You claim to know and with absolute certainty what no one CAN know. That's your belief and it is a delusion.
As for superstitious beliefs in imaginary sky fairies like Zeus, Juju of the Mountain or the sort of personal god who listens to your prayers, forgives your sins, cares about your diet and sex life and worries about sins and such superstitious nonsense, then no.
You ruled out God and thus say it is a mystery. It is only a mystery because of your naturalistic paradigm.
Absolutely.
It's metaphysical beliefs that drives your conclusion, and mine. Unfortunately you are not willing to recognise that.
Faith-based believers trot this out every time because the evidence they seek to back their supernatural claims are non-existent. If there is real evidence for his existence you can bet you will be the first to jump back in the "naturalistic paradigm". See! The evidence!
And please, I never said the Bible is a science textbook so that is your strawman argument.
No, that was sarcasm.
But since you are in agreement that evolution is myth, I believe you are closer to the truth
That was sarcasm too.
The Bible never tell believers to avoid doctors and just pray.
The Bible says the Devil is the cause of diseases. It doesn't mention bacteria or viruses. Why not equally disclaim this scientific claim as a myth too? Understand the sarcasm now?
But then again, atheists' caricatures of the Christian faith always abound.
Sometimes caricatures and even comedy help better to drive the message home. Enjoy the following George Carlin video clip - Religion is Bullshit. :-)
PZ
watch this video:
http://xml.truveo.com/rd?i=3926583588&a=af6f670b39b1121cf54358467c12e869&p=1&q=id%3A3928433036&vl=3928433036%20
It's a podcast by The Royal Society on Evolution and Creationism. You might need iTunes.
Another interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXvnz-p6Lm8
"Oh BTW, the next time you are sick, go to the doctor, AND pray for quick recovery too."
And if you get well, then it's evidence that God exists!
And if you don't get well, it's because it's God's will and ultimately for the better, so it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
God works in mysterious ways, you see.
Anon said,"He accused creationists of creating the false distinction of historical science and operational science."
So historical science is an experimental science as argued in the article. So is any of the physical sciences. Which means the distinction is in name only.
Anon said,"And the evidence does not point to 4.5 billion years. It points to a much younger earth."
Your link contains many articles of which I only read one I suppose is relevant. It's arguments are that the half life of radioactive isotopes may have been different half lives at different points of time. In that case, you will have to have rewrite the laws governing the weak and strong nuclear forces. The article does not address the consequences of their alternative claims.
I'm not saying that it is wrong. But if you offer an alternative hypothesis, be prepared to explain the consequences. i.e., prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.
Anon said,"Like Lim, you falsely accuse me of denouncing scientific evidence. .. the issue is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence.."
I'll give you that. But answer the questions that arise as a result of your alternative interpretation. Like how you'll rewrite the theory of weak and strong nuclear forces. Like how you'll explain why your bible from which you base your interpretations does not mention dinosaurs at the time of flood.
Anon said,"You said you did not understand the article on Big Bang problem. Most of CMI's articles are written for laymen so most people should not have any problem understanding most of it. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167 "
So if you understood, what's the problem with explaining it to me. I can only surmise that you do not understand it either. In that link above, the article cites difficulties with the big bang theory and observations. A possible hypothesis is that the speed of light might have been faster in the past. Sure, there are problems with existing theories. So what's your point? That because scientific theories have got flaws therefore creationist theories are right by default?
Anon said,"why are evolutionists so dogmatic that they do know that evolution is responsible for the origin and development of life?"
It's the best and most consistent theory so far, based on evidence. Creationist theories are based on a book which they claim to be true with tenets that cannot be tested or falsified, as what angry doc illustrated.
Anon said,"..t I think you missed one important thing. Insects caught in amber supposedly millions of years old looked identical to current day insects. Why is that so? Did evolution stop for them? See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/162"
My questions are: To what extent are they similar to present day insects? Are all insects or pollen, in amber similar or identical to present day insects, pollen? Does evolution require species to change until they are significantly different? If evidence is contrary to the theory of evolution, are you suggesting that creationist theory is right by default?
Anon said,"Yes I believe there is a God. And contrary to what you think, science does work with beliefs. Most scientific literature are peppered with "scientists believe this or that""
You are free to believe in a God. No one is suggesting otherwise.
When scientific literature claim that scientists believe certain things, you should try to read whether such beliefs are supported with evidence or not. Generally, it is clear when a claim is put forth without evidence.
Anon,"You are wrong to think that creationists have only faith to go on while evolutionists have the evidence.... See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5722"
No I am not confused. In your article, the argument is that the bible requires faith, and does not discriminate against those who doubt. A brief comment on "dinosaur engravings" suggesting that dinosaurs lived alongside men is stated.
How similar are the engravings to what we know of dinosaurs? How many kinds of dinosaurs are engraved? Where was the evidence collected and what is the date? Is it the only evidence? Are there other evidence to corroborate with this claim?
As I see it, the claim suffers from a lack of evidence. But that wasn't the point of the article. It is basically an article that says it is all right for a Christian to doubt.
Anon said," forces at work to propagate the continued indoctrination of people's minds in evolution."
I agree that indoctrination is bad. It stops people from questioning or being sceptical. It stops the process of science. It's just like believing in God. Those who say evolution is right without ever questioning the evidence for themselves are as good as those who say creationism is right just because the bible is right. God said so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww
Creation / Evolution debate on Michael Coren Show
A more civiliised debate.
A more civiliised debate compared to the many others in youtube.
PZ,
Why do you say that no one knows how the universe came to be? Do you just simply write off those who said they know simply because it's not from a naturalistic paradigm that rules out God? But that would mean you have evidence that there is no God. Do you?
What makes you think my belief in God is imaginary? You claim with absolute certainty that it must be an imaginary thing, how do you know that? You claim with absolute certainty that it must be a delusion on my part, how do you know that? Or is it you have absolute certainty but deny that of others? That's being inconsistent.
You admitted that you hold to a naturalistic paradigm which rules out God. How do you know for absolutely certain that your naturalistic paradigm is true? Your belief is as much faith-based as mine. You are simply in denial. The delusion is yours.
The evidence for God is there, and you are confused that somehow faith must be opposed to evidence. This means you define faith as believing things without evidence, a usual atheist definition but not one used by the Christian. Had Jesus been opposed to evidence He wouldn't have provided evidence that He rose from the dead to many others.
Being sarcastic often just reveal the kind of person you are, not your ability to give good arguments. Caricatures and comedies are just that, the only messages they drive are false messages and misrepresentations. It just makes you a liar in the arena of truth.
Angry doc,
You said God works in mysterious ways. Indeed He does, and He already told us that His ways are higher than ours.
But apparently you forgot to see that evolution works in mysterious ways too. If something has changed, it is evolution. If something has not changed (like the coelacanth fish) it is also evolution.
Since Anon left many links for us to read about creationism and its evidence here:
http://creationontheweb.com/
It's better if there's the other side of the argument to read and judge for ourselves:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Me,
You read wrongly. The article did not say that historical science is experimental science. It is arguing that it is not inferior to experimental science. In any case, the point is that there is such a distinction and Bystander is WRONG.
You only read one article on the link I gave and you castigate it for not addressing all your other concerns? The author has to balance between depth and scope and just because the article does not address your concerns does not mean there are no answers. Doing a little more browsing may help.
If you know the history of the Bible and the history of when the word "dinosaur" was invented you would not be asking why dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible. The word "dinosaur" was invented in 1841 and the KJV Bible was made in 1611. The Bible uses other words, like behemoth, a creature with a tail like a cedar tree.
I have no problem explaining it to you, but I gave you the weblink so you get a better treatment of the issue. If I told you, the BB suffers from a light-travel issue because the universe is much larger and there is not enough for time to have traveled that distance because the temperature is the same, how much can you believe? Don't give excuses or surmise that I don't understand when you do not want to do some reading on your own.
It's good that you recognise that there are existing problems with BB theory or naturalistic explanations for origins of life. The point is that atheists are not willing to cut creationists the same slack they cut for themselves. It's double standards. BTW I think it was the creationists who first suggested that speed of light was faster in the past and the evolution camp blasted the idea. Are you saying that the evolution camp are now looking at it differently?
You said that evolution is the best and consistent theory based on the evidence. Creation is also a consistent theory and better explain the evidence than evolution. You cannot test or falsify the past. The issue of origins is a historical issue, not a science issue per se. How do you test that millions of years ago life evolved from pondscum?
For more info on Living Fossils do a Google or see also http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/livingfossils.htm
And yes, if evolution is false, then creation is true, and vice versa. There is no third alternative, as I have already mentioned in past postings.
Of course I am free to believe in God. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider that origins can have a divine cause.
As to the dinosaur engravings, cut it some slack! Today we only have fossils of dinosaurs and no modern paleo scientist can tell you how the dinosaurs exactly look like with flesh and bones. But if it looks like a dinosaur with features like a dinosaur, at least be more objective to consider it. See also http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6015/
Has belief in God impeded scientific progress? This allegation is IMO the most easily deflated argument. As I have said many times, the founding fathers of modern science were mainly Christians and Bible believers. In fact, belief in evolution has impeded science. The belief in junk DNA has caused many evolutionists to neglect this area until recently. See also http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5063
The Christian starts with what the Bible says and looks at the world to see if it agrees with the Bible, and it does!
Me,
A counter site to TalkOrigins is http://www.trueorigin.org/
Anon said,"The Bible uses other words, like behemoth, a creature with a tail like a cedar tree."
Do all dinosaurs have a cedar tree tail? What about those flying ones? I'm sure they were huge too. But they probably couldn't fly very well with a tree as a tail. What were they called? And for that matter, those that swim? I wonder how Noah picked them all up on his boat huh?
Anon said,"I have no problem explaining it to you"
You do. You refuse to. And have been evading it.
Anon said,"Don't give excuses or surmise that I don't understand when you do not want to do some reading on your own."
I did. And I don't understand the physicists' physics, or the creationists' physics. You saying I'm a LIAR?
Anon said,"It's good that you recognise that there are existing problems with BB theory"
I am a total ignoramus who only knows scientists at the LHC want to find the GOD particle. What a huge waste of money! Those must be creationist physicists! How can they build God into Physics? Or is God really a Particle?
Anon said," the creationists who first suggested that speed of light was faster in the past and the evolution camp blasted the idea. Are you saying that the evolution camp are now looking at it differently?"
I am not the evolution camp, neither am I the creationist camp. I am just ME, in case you didn't notice. The problem is that you creationists keep changing your mind. First speed of light slows down. Now you say you were incompetent and your analysis was flawed. Make up your mind before you claim anything will you? You want proof? Here, on your damn creationist website:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283
Anon said,"How do you test that millions of years ago life evolved from pondscum?"
And how do you test that God created the earth in six days huh?
Anon said,"And yes, if evolution is false, then creation is true, and vice versa."
And if today is not Sunday it must be Monday.
Anon said," evolutionists refuse to consider that origins can have a divine cause."
I say we are descended from the lice on Pan Gu's body. Prove me wrong.
Anon said,"As to the dinosaur engravings, cut it some slack!"
So now I need to give you benefit of doubt just because you cannot prove your claim?
Anon said,"if it looks like a dinosaur with features like a dinosaur, at least be more objective to consider it."
There are many UFO engravings too. And if it looks like a UFO with features like a UFO, do be objective enough to believe that the Bible proves UFOs too.
The Christian starts with what the Bible says and looks at the world to see if it agrees with the Bible, and it does!
The Bible also tells you to kill your son and sell your daughter into prostitution if you hear voices in your head telling you to do so.
Dear Creationist Anon, with regards to:
"But apparently you forgot to see that evolution works in mysterious ways too. If something has changed, it is evolution. If something has not changed (like the coelacanth fish) it is also evolution."
It is "mysterious" to you due to your lack of knowledge in the process. There are good reasons why some things have changed little over the millions of years while others have evolved more rapidly.
However, the mysterious ways "God" works is beyond logical comprehension of anyone. You are befuddling the issue with a very silly example.
Why do you say that no one knows how the universe came to be?
So please explain how anyone CAN know this for a fact.
Do you just simply write off those who said they know simply because it's not from a naturalistic paradigm that rules out God? But that would mean you have evidence that there is no God. Do you?
Atheists are not defining God and claiming "he" doesn't exist. We are responding to claims that God does exist. What the faithful have offered are non-existent evidence and theological arguments for "his" existence that are terrible and flawed.
Of course we can't disprove the existence of pink unicorns, Zeus and other imaginary sky fairies. However, this does not mean that they therefore have an equal probability of existing. We cannot know this with absolute certainty. Perhaps leprechauns and other mythological creatures do exist in an alternate universe but until faith-based believers offer real evidence, such beliefs are nothing but mere wishful thinking and self-delusion.
What makes you think my belief in God is imaginary? You claim with absolute certainty that it must be an imaginary thing, how do you know that? You claim with absolute certainty that it must be a delusion on my part, how do you know that? Or is it you have absolute certainty but deny that of others? That's being inconsistent.
I am not being inconsistent. What absolute certainty? Where have I said this?
I am prepared to change my mind that invisible pink unicorns and your invisible sky fairy do exist. Until you can provide the evidence it's perfectly rational to dismiss such claims as mythological nonsense.
How do you know for absolutely certain that your naturalistic paradigm is true? Your belief is as much faith-based as mine.
Absolute certainty is only invoked amongst the faithful. Rationalists don't make such claims.
If you really believe that evidence-based medicine is on par with faith-based beliefs please pray to your sky fairy for a miracle when your loved one is dying of cancer and don't visit an oncologist.
You are simply in denial. The delusion is yours.
I am not. You are confused. See above.
This means you define faith as believing things without evidence, a usual atheist definition but not one used by the Christian.
You are indeed confused. Apparently you have never heard the parable of doubting Thomas? We made it up?
John 20: 27-29 - "Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe". This is a warrant from Jesus to believe with evidence?
I Had Jesus been opposed to evidence He wouldn't have provided evidence that He rose from the dead to many others.
So the Bible is full of contradictions. Gee. Go figure.
Caricatures and comedies are just that, the only messages they drive are false messages and misrepresentations.
No. Caricatures can be insulting or complimentary. They make you laugh because you immediately recognise the exaggerated features displayed.
It just makes you a liar in the arena of truth.
How does caricaturing facts of the virgin birth, eating the forbidden fruit and a talking snake make me liar? Are these not stated in your bronze-age magic book?
PZ
Me,
I never said all dinosaurs have tails like a cedar tree. I am saying that the Bible mentioned a creature called behemoth that have a tail like a cedar tree. A sauropod dinosaur will fit such a description.
As for dinosaurs on the ark, see http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/
I already explained it briefly what the problem is regarding the Big Bang article, so your charge of me evading falls. In any case I have given you another website to read up, stop giving lame excuses for yourself by blaming me. If you don't understand the science of it then why blame it on me? You may not be lying but you could well be lazy to do some thinking.
You are either in the evolution camp or creation camp. ME is just your ID here. And since you are obviously anti-creation you are in the evolution camp, unless you reject evolution, which does not seem to be the case.
Creationists keep changing our minds about what? Models of science? That should happen since scientific models are not cast in stone. But no creationist will change their mind to think that God was not the creator.
I can't test that God created in 6 days. I never said I could. I kept saying that it cannot be tested which is why it is a BELIEF about the past. The same with your inability to prove pondscum evolved into man over long periods of time.
If today is not Sunday it could be another other days of the week because there are 7 days. But in the creation evolution debate there are only two views. I challenge you to come up with a third view that excludes creation or evolution.
If you want me to believe your claim that you came from lie you are the one who needs to support your claim.
As for the dinosaur engraving, you did not even get the point I was making. Let me ask you, do you know EXACTLY how a dinosaur look like in flesh and skin? We only have their bones and try to reconstruct their look and it's still a best guess. But a stegosaur or brachiosaur has certain shape and features that cannot be denied. So if an engraving look like either one of it, and you refuse to think that it could be referring to it, then you have to come up with a better alternative.
I talk about dinosaur engravings and you talk about UFOs. If you want to believe in UFOs and aliens then you have to make your case and don't confuse the two. I am not making such claims that the Bible speaks about UFOs so I have nothing to defend on this. BTW, CMI has another speaker coming in April who is an authority in the UFO-alien issue. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3131
You said, "The Bible also tells you to kill your son and sell your daughter into prostitution if you hear voices in your head telling you to do so." Where's your chapter and verse? If you are making this up then you really are a bare face LIAR!
Edgar,
So can you indulge us as to what good reasons that creatures like the coelacanth, or the horseshoe crab, remained unchanged over supposedly 65 million years or more? And how do you know those reasons are true?
You are the one fudging the issue here. Yes, God sometimes work in mysterious ways. But in the area of origins He has told us how He did it, there is no mystery here so don't muddy the waters.
PZ,
Either one knows how the universe come to be or one does not know. The only way to know for sure is for someone who was there to tell you. God was there, He made everything and told us so. You don't believe it is your problem, but that is no basis for saying that I don't know.
Don't fudge the issue about what atheists deny or define. Atheism is a parasitic belief system. It simply declares that God does not exist, however defined. Believers have explained that there is a God who has left evidence of His existence. Creation points to a Creator just as a painting points to a painter. The logic is not hard to follow.
Sure we cannot disprove pink unicorns or Zeus, but proponents of such things have not given us reasons to believe that they exist, so why bring up this red herring and irrelevant issue? I am not defending such things and neither is belief in God on the same footing as these things.
You said, "I am DRIVEN by rational thinking and an evidence based belief system. I have said no one knows." Here you made an absolute certain statement that no one knows. Still deny?
I am not defending pink unicorns so why ask me to provide evidence for them? Duh!
You said, "Absolute certainty is only invoked amongst the faithful. Rationalists don't make such claims." Really? Tell us, do you believe that evolution is a fact, and that there is absolutely no God and no creation because it's all superstition? Are you absolutely sure or are you not sure?
I see no contradiction with having faith in God and seeing a doctor when I am sick. God can use doctors too. Nothing in the Bible goes against the medical profession. It is your ignorance of the Bible that causes you to think otherwise.
The confusion is yours. Of course I have heard of Thomas who doubted, and that was no parable. Thomas really doubted. But you missed the point of Jesus' words about blessed are those who did not see but yet believe. Jesus was not asking people to disregard the evidence, He was asking people to believe what He said. Not everyone gets to see Jesus in the flesh, and if someone believes in Jesus on the testimony of those who witnessed Him, then Jesus says that such are more blessed than those who have seen Him in the flesh.
So no, the Bible is not full of contradictions, but it is people like you who are full of wrong ideas about what the Bible says and teaches.
Yes, caricatures can make one laugh, but caricatures are INTENTIONAL DISTORTION of the truth. And so if you are in a habit of doing that then that makes you a bare face LIAR.
Either one knows how the universe come to be or one does not know. The only way to know for sure is for someone who was there to tell you. God was there, He made everything and told us so. You don't believe it is your problem, but that is no basis for saying that I don't know.
To claim to know the origins of the universe on the basis of what is written in a bronze-age magic book is irrational and deluded thinking. The problem is really *yours*.
Don't fudge the issue...
You are turning the meaning of the parable of doubting Thomas on its head and I am fudging the issue? Wow!
Atheism is a parasitic belief system. It simply declares that God does not exist, however defined.
Speaking of strawman arguments...
A Rationalist/Atheist is simply someone who has considered the claims of various religions, critically examined the evidence and found them wanting if not ridiculous and rejected them. If I don't share in your delusions for very good reasons, it is isn't parasitic. If you wish to be irrational and believe in the great Juju under the sea or in the sky go ahead.
Sure we cannot disprove pink unicorns or Zeus, but proponents of such things have not given us reasons to believe that they exist,
And you have? My bronze-age magic book says so! It must be true! Yay!
I am not defending such things and neither is belief in God on the same footing as these things.
A faith-based belief system can lead you to believe all manner of nonsensical things. There is no filter to weed out illusion from reality, fiction from fact. It is on an equal footing with believing in invisible pink unicorns or Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods we have buried in that mass grave of mythology.
You said, "I am DRIVEN by rational thinking and an evidence based belief system. I have said no one knows." Here you made an absolute certain statement that no one knows. Still deny?
I don't understand how you can interpret this as meaning I am "absolutely certain" there is no god. It means I believe in the scientific method in determining truth or falsity of claims. That is all. As for "no one knows" I should have added "yet." There. Better now?
I am not defending pink unicorns so why ask me to provide evidence for them? Duh!
Did I really ask you that? You have a tendency to misread and misunderstand things.Or is it deliberate?
I see no contradiction with having faith in God and seeing a doctor when I am sick. God can use doctors too. Nothing in the Bible goes against the medical profession. It is your ignorance of the Bible that causes you to think otherwise.
Do you believe in germ theory? Or do believe that the Devil causes disease like it says in your magic book? Which is it? Please answer.
I brought this up because you wrote: Your belief is as much faith-based as mine.
If you REALLY think the evidence-based system is on an equal footing with a faith-based one, put your money where your mouth is.
So no, the Bible is not full of contradictions, but it is people like you who are full of wrong ideas about what the Bible says and teaches.
You clearly have not read your magic book have you? Shame on you.:-)
Can god be seen?
- Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....
- Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
- John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time.
- John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father.
Does God have a body?
- Luke 24:39 For a spirit hath not flesh and bones.
John 4:24 God is a spirit.
Exodus 3:16 The LORD God ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you.
- Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
The list of contradictions is really long from who was to blame for original sin, the 2 different creation accounts to the five different resurrection accounts of Jesus. Go look it up.
Yes, caricatures can make one laugh, but caricatures are INTENTIONAL DISTORTION of the truth.
A caricature is a *portrait* that exaggerates the essence to create an easily identifiable picture. One highlights AND exaggerates the facts.
And so if you are in a habit of doing that then that makes you a bare face LIAR.
Wow! I earlier stated:
It boggles the mind why people still believe in creation myths like the creator and inventor of the laws of physics and the Programmer of the DNA code decided to zip into the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself reborn, tortured and executed because his omnipotent mind couldn't think of a better way to forgive the theft of an apple, committed at the instigation of a talking snake.
Again, where EXACTLY have I lied?
Not very Christian of you to bear false witness...;-p
PZ
PZ,
To claim that the Bible is a bronze age magic book is simply an empty allegation without any iota of evidence in support. That's just the usual anti-god atheistic polemic with no basis except pure hatred for God, Christianity, and all things relating to it. The problem is YOURS.
Tell me, which reputable Bible commentary can you point to me that says that the doubting Thomas issue was one that teaches that Christians need no evidence but just mere belief?
You are wrong in your definition of atheism. An atheist does not even bother to examine the claims of various religions. To him there is no God, so those who claim to be religious are deluded, just like what Dawkins believe. A true atheist will not even bother to examine religious claims. The only "examination" he engages in is to read about the claims and then to scoff, ridicule and mock the religious beliefs of others. A true atheist will not even want to admit that there is any possibility of truth in a religious claim about God or the supernatural. The moment he admits it he stops being an atheist and becomes an agnostic.
I don't believe in the great Juju so I am not irrational. That is your strawman argument if you fail to see it.
Yes, I have given you much evidence that what we see points to there being a Creator. Things don't just create themselves or pop into existence without a cause. The universe had a beginning and thus a Cause. And the only adequate cause is God. And because God said it, it must be true. Similarly for you, you believe evolution is true, why? Because the evolutionists said so, not because you have seen it so. So it boils down to who you believe is telling the truth. For me it is God, for you it is fallible men whose opinions change all the time.
You said "A faith-based belief system can lead you to believe all manner of nonsensical things. There is no filter to weed out illusion from reality, fiction from fact. It is on an equal footing with believing in invisible pink unicorns or Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods we have buried in that mass grave of mythology." I agree. Consider what your fellow evolutionist Richard Lewontin said below and CHEW ON IT!
"We take the side of science in spite of the PATENT ABSURDITY of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
You need to put science in its proper domain. Science is not the final arbiter or determinant of what's true because science is limited only to our senses. You may end up with the religion of scientism if you fail to see this.
Saying "no one knows yet" is not any better because you are still limiting the answer to the naturalistic worldview, which is also a metaphysical assumption that the material universe is all there is and that there is nothing beyond it.
BTW, please don't deny that you wrote this, "I am prepared to change my mind that invisible pink unicorns and your invisible sky fairy do exist. Until you can provide the evidence it's perfectly rational to dismiss such claims as mythological nonsense." To which I reply why you ask me to defend this. What have I misread?
Of course I believe in germ theory, it was Louis Pasteur who came up with this theory to refute spontaneous generation. And you will probably hate to know that Pasteur was a creationist. And please, why make a false dilemma that it's either the devil or germs? See also http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5821
What I said was that contrary to what you keep saying, your belief in origins by evolutionary means rests on faith. You BELIEVE that there is no supernatural forces at work. You believe by faith that the material universe is all there is. You BELIEVE by faith that there are only naturalistic assumptions. I am not saying that faith and evidence are the same, I am asking you to recognise your own faith and stop being in denial.
The Bible is not a magic book, so no I have not read any magic book so no shame to apologise for. If you think the Bible is a magic book, then shame on you for not being able to tell the difference.
As for the usual Bible contradictions canards, shame on you for being so ignorant of the many websites which have answered those EASY to answer questions like "Can God be seen?" I little Googling will give you plenty of answers. See http://www.tektonics.org/uz/visiblegod.html
Just be honest about it, a caricature is designed to DISTORT the truth. To exaggerate is to distort the facts. Are you prone to exaggeration? If so, then you are hardly reliable as a source of information.
As to your lies, who told you God judged Adam for eating an apple? You show me a Bible that says Adam ate an apple and I will show you a bare faced liar. Game?
Anon,
As to your lies, who told you God judged Adam for eating an apple? You show me a Bible that says Adam ate an apple and I will show you a bare faced liar. Game?
Apple, forbidden fruit or durian doesn't change the price of pork. How does "apple" fundamentally change the Garden of Eden and Fall from Grace myth? You are now nit-picking.
I think we have presented both sides of the argument fairly extensively and have a reached a stage where I feel there is little merit in carrying on.
Thanks for the discussion.
Of course feel free to continue your discussion with others.
PZ
PZ,
I showed you that were wrong in saying that the forbidden fruit was an apple and and you said I am nitpicking? Your ego is too big to be corrected by a creationist? Did you know in the first place that the Bible never mentioned it was an apple? Or did you in fact knew it wasn't but still went ahead with your caricature? The former would simply reflect your ignorance of the Bible and the latter reflects your desire to mislead and distort things. I will not embarass you further but ask that at the least you do some examination of yourself.
I feel there is much to discuss on the issue of creation evolution but little progress will be made so long as the evolution camp does not see the point that it is not about the evidence, but about the interpretation of the evidence, and that the interpretation is influenced or driven by one's presuppositions or beliefs or worldviews. It is really a battle of worldviews, not evidence. The evolution camp must also learn to do away with trying to scoff and mock the creation camp. Such does not add to the debate and only fosters more animosity and poisoning of the well.
Bystander,
If you are still here and interested in reading more about insects in amber and how they argue for recent creation, please see http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilizeddna.html
Anon,
I showed you that were wrong in saying that the forbidden fruit was an apple and and you said I am nitpicking? Your ego is too big to be corrected by a creationist? Did you know in the first place that the Bible never mentioned it was an apple? Or did you in fact knew it wasn't but still went ahead with your caricature?
Anon, dear oh dear.
You are totally clueless what caricature is. That is the nature of caricature - to exaggerate the facts with humour.
In hindsight I really should have used durian instead of apple. It would have been funnier I think.
Whether I wrote durian or apple or forbidden fruit I would not have fundamentally changed or distort what is written in the bible about the Garden of Eden and Fall from grace myth.
It's exasperating to have to explain simple things like this.
Goodbye.
PZ
PZ,
I know what caricatures are. And I am pretty sure that had creationists caricatured evolution you will cry to high heaven over our distortions and made it criminal.
You said, "In hindsight I really should have used durian instead of apple. It would have been funnier I think." Funny maybe, but still wrong.
Whether durian or apple or rambutan, it is about being reliable and correct in your assertions and allegations. In any case, I don't agree that Genesis is myth. You will have to prove your case rather than just assert it. Calling it myth does not make it so.
You find it exasperating because I'm not playing your game of being an object of your ridicule and scoffing. Instead I sense that you are uncomfortable with defending your own beliefs rationally, preferring instead to scoff and mock and engage in caricatures and laughing it off.
Anon,
You said I was a liar and that I was either evolutionist or creationist. That was so hurtful. It showed that you have no idea what I believe in. But I'll explain it and forgive you.
Well, here's what I believe in:
"In the beginning there was darkness everywhere, and Chaos ruled. Within the darkness there formed an egg, and inside the egg the giant Pangu came into being. For aeons, safely inside the egg, Pangu slept and grew. When he had grown to gigantic size he stretched his huge limbs and in so doing broke the egg. The lighter parts of the egg floated upwards to form the heavens and the denser parts sank downwards, to become the earth. And so was formed earth and sky, Yin and Yang.
Pangu saw what had happened and he was pleased. But he feared that heaven and earth might meld together again, so he placed himself between them, his head holding up the sky and his feet firmly upon the earth. Pangu continued to grow at a rate of ten feet a day for 18,000 years, so increasing the distance between heaven and earth, until they seemed fixed and secure, 30,000 miles apart. Now exhausted, Pangu went back to sleep and never woke up.
Pangu died, and his body went to make the world and all its elements. The wind and clouds were formed from his breath, his voice was thunder and lightning, his eyes became the sun and moon, his arms and his legs became the four directions of the compass and his trunk became the mountains. His flesh turned into the soil and the trees that grow on it, his blood into the rivers that flow and his veins into paths men travel. His body hair became the grass and herbs, and his skin the same, while precious stones and minerals were formed from his bones and teeth. His sweat became the dew and the hair of his head became the stars that trail throughout heaven. As for the parasites on his body, these became the diverse races of humankind.
Although Pangu is dead, some say he is still responsible for the weather, which fluctuates according to his moods."
We who believe in this are not called evolutionists or creationists. We are called Pangu-ists, although some call themselves other names.
So, there was creation in a sense.. but it is from the big bang as what physicists tell us. So it is not creation from a creator but something just sprang from nothing. Yes, it's mysterious, even paradoxical or illogical. But have you questioned where logic came from?
And the Pangu theory is physical as well-- it speaks of the density of matter and how they behave under the influence of gravity. See, it suggests that there ought to be gravity and we do see evidence of it today.
And basically, Pangu went on to become all aspects of nature. Tell me which part of nature you see and I'll tell you from which part of Pangu's body it came from.
It's true because it has been recorded and passed from aeons of years until now (longer than your magic book, the bible!). It is therefore recorded closer to when the heavens and earth were formed than your bible and hence more accurate. Since we can see evidence of mountains, wind, clouds, diverse animals (and even lice on animals!), isn't it stronger evidence that Pangu existed? You can't see god anywhere, can you?
As for other aspects of the theory, just search for "pangu" online -- don't be lazy there! -- and read them for yourself! Most of it is written for laymen, so don't tell me you don't understand them. It's really complicated so I can't explain anything to you on this blog -- which really belongs to Mr Lim, a really knowledgeable and humorous gentleman -- whose humour seems to have been hijacked by this rather silly debate. (Really, why was there a need for this debate in the first place? Pangu will tell you when you die and are ready to meet him.)
So with lots of respect and many apologies to Mr Lim for using so much of his blog to expound our Pangu theory, I shall round up my point with this last (really last) point.
That Pangu formed from the void which was beginningless and endless and that He created the Heavens and Earth and that all men and animals are formed from lice on his body is an IRREFUTABLE FACT. Because the first lice (erm, people) recorded it. Why did they know? Because they were on Pangu'd body when he did all that he did.
My advice to you, Mr Anonymous, whoever you may be is this: Be kind, even when you are wrong.
Pangu bless you, my fellow cosmic lice.
Pangu bless you, Mr Lim and all other commentators too.. It's been fun! Good bye! *wink* :)
Me,
Just the facts m'am! I said IF you cannot back up your assertions that the Bible tells us to sell our daughters to prostitution then that makes you a BARE FACE LIAR. As it is now, I think my conclusion still stands!
You said that this blog has been hijacked by a silly debate. Well, if the CE debate was a silly one, then why are evolutionists engaging in debates? No, this blog is not hijacked by a silly debate, but by the likes of you who says silly things like "pangu creation story" with the intention to mock and scoff, and in turns reveals that the one being playing the fool and looking silly is you yourself.
I first posted a comment on this blog about a week or so ago to engage in a genuine and sincere discussion because I found Lim's post interesting to respond to after chancing upon it. Unfortunately as it turns out, my sincere intentions were reciprocated with threats to delete my posts by falsely labelling them as spam, and scoffing and ridicule and mocking from those whom I disagree with.
I have an advice for you too, Be kind, even when you think you are right. To engage in scoffing and mocking only shows you to be a scoffer and mocker, hardly a person who is able to hold a civil debate.
"I first posted a comment on this blog about a week or so ago to engage in a genuine and sincere discussion because I found Lim's post interesting to respond to after chancing upon it. Unfortunately as it turns out, my sincere intentions were reciprocated with threats to delete my posts by falsely labelling them as spam, and scoffing and ridicule and mocking from those whom I disagree with."
Actually you went off topic a long time ago, constantly evading the main topics of my posts, which were focused on redundancy and modularity, the issue of omnibenevolence and limb regeneration, and the issue of the rejection of common descent in the definition of a "creationist".
Up till now I decided not to delete your comments so that other readers can continue their discussion with you.
If none of them wish to continue, then we will suspend this discussion until such time when I write a blog article about the origins of the Universe, which is the focus of your interest. You can pick up your discussion from there.
Anon, please wait for a response from my other readers. Thank you.
Thanks Mr Lim, but I wish to focus my energies on connecting with the supreme Pan Gu.
No disrespect to evolutionists like you or creationists like Anon, but I think I'm right because I can't be proven wrong. So there's nothing to discuss.
Good bye and I look forward to your origin of universe post! (I hope you convert to the Pan Gu theory soon, but even if you don't, the Big Bang theory is still cool -- it's consistent with Panguism. ;-)
Hi Lim,
Now that I recall there was a similar debate over at Angrydoc's last year where a Sprachen sie English persona started an ID is not Creationistdebate.
It was later revealed that he was a creationist troll. See last few comments.
I now remember reading at Dawkin's website Why I Won't Debate Creationists.
Just for your info.
Best regards,
PZ
Lim, I hung up my mop about 20 posts back :D
Though I could not resist poking fun at statements like: "Either one knows how the universe come to be or one does not know."
A perfectly true statement, that says nothing. Might as well say: "Either one has had breakfast, or one has not."
Does he even notice how empty this kind of logic is? Man, the creationists are welcome to this character. I don't think I want him on the side of evolution.
Post a Comment