Monday, April 25, 2005

Creationist Rant 1.02

Hey all. well, i've been havin' somekind of discussion with this Umpire person in the section of Mynyms blog where you post comments, and here is what i have said so far. in here i raise a bit of points that i will probably comment on later on. im having a hard time getting a drive, so if one of you guys from my class could tick me off, that would be great.

ok, i guess this is a final comment for me.

so basicaly, you, mynym, has gone around looking for people who have posted "anti creationist" points of view, correct? and to each of them you sent a message, the same message, pointing to this post, correct?

well, i must say, that you are wrong in sending anything whatsoever to me, unless it be to let me have a link to some very interesting reading for my friends, because i agree with you.
im completely creationist and anti darwinian notions of macro evolution. i completely agree with what those 50 scientists have said on the subject of birds pointing towards intelligent design, because i believe God created us, and i would call his design intelligent.

therefore, i took offence that you point me to a pat on the back that you give people you are "beating" in logical debates, because, you haven't had one with me, you are preaching to the choir. so whatever, i thank you for pointing out your blog, that i must say is a very good read, but your indirect relations with whoever you send the message you sent me to is stupid, since you don't remember who and why you sent it, and you tick people off who agree with you.

so whatever dude, peace.

and for the guy who posted this to you: "There is no credible scientific movement questioning whether or not evolution happens.". what do you mean? do they say it all heppended 100% the way darwin says, or 100% that it didn't happen? i don't think you are right about this.

anyway.
peace dude.
Patrick Webster | Homepage | 04.25.05 - 11:50 am | #


and for the guy who posted this to you: "There is no credible scientific movement questioning whether or not evolution happens.". what do you mean? do they say it all heppended 100% the way darwin says, or 100% that it didn't happen? i don't think you are right about this.

No, that is the point. Science is constantly revising. Science has moved far beyond Darwin's original work, just as physics has moved far beyond Newton and Einstein. But the question of whether or not species evolve from ancestors is not scientifically controversial--it is a matter of refining our understanding of the mechanisms.

Again, Creationsim is psuedo-science. You can argue against evolution all you want, but it is as widely accepted in science as is gravitation. Does this mean it can't be challenged should something come along that radically changes our scientific understanding? No. But that challenge will come from experts working in the scientific fields, not in the Vatican. Sorry. That is just the way it is. Scientists approach the world as skeptics and evidence and hypothesis testing is the name of the game. There is no evidence of creation the way you describe, especially because the mechanism of "intelligent design"--some God--has not been discovered nor are the psuedo-scientist "creationists" willing to discard that belief in the face of evidence. So read all you want about it, but you are barking up the wrong tree if you want to understand the way the world is.
Umpire | Homepage | 04.25.05 - 12:57 pm | #


i don't take orders from the vatican, im protestant. almost everything that comes from the vatican, i disregard, they are just a farce now.

also, i believe in evolution to a certain degree, but that term is misleading, i would call what i believe in, and what is scientifically proven , is adaptation of species.

Macro evolution, the amoeba-fish-reptile-bird-apes-monkeys thing, is completely unscientific, unproven and illogical. sorry, it is.

and i do believe there quite a few christian scientists, and not Vatican "specialists", and im pretty sure they don't accept evolution like you say they do gravitation. Read Creation Magazine, its pretty interesting.

so there is no evidence of intelligent design? what? did you read mynyms post, the quote from the book? the fact that chance evolution could not have produced the birds feather structure points to a design.
the fact that animals need to have been a certain way from the start to be viable is proof for design.

Who else but God could have designed it? unless you count little green men, no one. Oh, maybe Nature? right.

what is this evidence that disproves us "psuedo" scientists in our belief in a God? not to include myself on purpose.

that some animals "evolved" from ancestors i don't deny, but they have remained the same animal: the 3 finches Darwin based his premise on were still birds, just with different beaks.

i don't know if mynym wanted a debate or whatever in his comments, but anyways.

im not barking up the wrong tree, im peeing on the established, planted one, to kill it off and give my beliefs a bit of light.

i think that i shouldn't have to argue all i want, like you say, that means you REAL scientists aren't listening.

and its "pseudo"


peace dude.
Patrick Webster | Homepage | 04.25.05 - 1:17 pm | #


Ha ha, Creation Magazine?

From that rag:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a "millions of years old" earth (and even older universe).



Are you serious? They think "millions of years old" is the scientific claim? They aren't even up to speed on the age of the earth (4 billion years) according to their "opponents" who supposedly won't give them the time of day. Gee, maybe they would have more of a clue if they had read a scientific journal during the last century. That is not science, my friend; that is Gospel. Where are the experiments? Where is the analysis?

Look, the problem with creationism is that it sees science as being impermiable because it doesn't understand what science is. Scientific inquiry, in fact, subsumes all of these arguments and encourages dissent--something creationism quite freely admits it cannot tolerate. Creationists are committed to a belief in God and that is the basis for their "inquiry" even though it is only even relevent to the question of evolution because some fundamentalist Christians can't tolerate the possibility that Genesis was not literal. Science requires repeatable experiments and then rigorous peer review.

I will just ask you this: what do you think science is?
Umpire | Homepage | 04.25.05 - 1:51 pm | #


i said to read the magazine, not the site.
and, um, they are right, 4000 miilion years is, in fact, 4 billion years. i agree that they aren't up to date there, but read the magazine.

but whatever.

honestly, do you think that the main theories, evolutionnary and a big bang, are really questionned as much as you would have it? why is it then that we (that is the masses) have only ever heard about these 2? its because you can't have religion in school, and you can have "science", so what is indoctrinated is accepted, and the scientific community embraces that and keeps the same appelations and theories.

creationism sees it as impermiable, because, in this case, it is. the major theories haven't really been changed, and the scientific community has failed to give any sort of experimentation proving its basic premises.

In the national geographic special about evolution, it entirely avoided main topics of debate, brought nothing new to the floor, and completely disregarded flaws in the theory. all it did was proclaim it as fact.

as for the genesis being taken literally, you could say that the stroy of creation must be taken literally, as there is a time line, dictated by God to Moses. that there are metaphors, of course, like God walking through the garden, his voice etc.

is science really submitted to rigorous peer review? it would seem to me that the reason you don't hear any good light about any challengers is proof of quite to opposite.

also, do you think scientists would be willing to lose their funding and their jobs to challenge the religion imposed upon the community? has any experiment proven the basic premises of the theory that us creationist deem unacceptable? Has there really been any open challenging of this theory, non censored by the community?
i do not think so. science isn't that pure. so many parts of the main theories are assumptions, and fact is interpreted through an evolutionnary lens, and is not objective at all.

draw a circle, but omit a section of it. an evolutionnist will say it was once a full circle, when actually it was drawn this way, and there is no way for the circle to have been a full one and lose the right parts to make the design. thats somethjing i cannot understand. the leaps of faith evolutionnary scientists do.

what is science? Its observation.

man cannot create anything, except out of already present materials. science is observation of the world by man, of how it works. man can only observe, and deduce. when you do an experiment, all you are doing is recreating results to observe further. only when something is observed enough does it become "proven". i can prove Gods, or at least an intelligent designs, existence by observing nature. if something isn't observed, like macro evolution, it isn't scientific. if it hasn't been observed in a controlled experiment, it hasn't been "proven". keep that in mind: man can only observe. science is just observation, deduction, guesses, and then more observation. often the guesses are so far from the truth, it cannot be proven, so it hangs in the air. the evolution theory is just hanging, and everyone wants it to be observed, but it cannot, as it is impossible.

so then i leave you with these questions which i don't think you need to answer to me: does it not bug you, the fact that you know that science can't prove everything? that at some point spirituality takes place? that you are really if you believe in evolution just some randomly assembled chemicals, given enough time to use freak chance to become cognisant enought to realise you are part of the equation time+chance+nothing=everything?

if we are just animals, then we should only have the basic instincts intrinsic in our survival, right? so, we would have no reason to come up with some God. but, the fact that you can comprehend a being superior to yourslef and think about this, proves it exists, right? how would you answer this question: are you a body or do you HAVE a body? if you answer the first one, then respect to you, you actually believe what you say about evolution. if you answer the second one, you are admitting that God exists.

anyways.
peace dude.

mynym, please explain to me why you wrote please!
Patrick Webster | Homepage | 04.25.05 - 4:26 pm | #


Umm no, I can certainly envision a unicorn and an enormous mosquito dressed like Mrs. Doubtfire, but that does not prove that either exist.

Really, Creation Mag is a rag. And I am calling bullshit on your description of the scientific community. You seem to mistake "scientific community" for "what I know after being introduced to material in freshman biology class." Scientists are specialists. They constantly refine theories. You are just flat incorrect about this. Factually incorrect.
Umpire | Homepage | 04.25.05 - 6:23 pm | #


oh, wow. that really proved me wrong right there. call a bullshit all you want, if the theory is so refined, you would think more people would have seen any kind of flaw in it, or at least have disproved my point of view since then, if it is sooooo widely accepted as you say.

and for any future reference, as im not gonna respond here anymore, its PSEUDO, not "psuedo".

peace dude.
Patrick Webster | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 10:09 am | #


well, that will be it. he completely disproved me man, like completely! i have no more leg to stand on! all structure for my arguments was completely destroyed!!

wait...

peace dudes.

1 Comments:

Blogger Benny Strength said...

I'm impressed with how you handled this bro. I am glad to see that you are thinking. It is sadly rare to find guys your age that challenge the "norm" and stand up for your faith.
I laughed a bit inside when that guy said something about your info being "bs" because i realized in my head how 'seventh grade' that sounded.
Good response.
Proud of you man...
keep up the good fight.

9:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home