Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[stremba]

No scientist has ever taken the basic elements and made a human being.

That's probably because scientists don't believe that what you suggest is possible. Scientists actually believe that humans arose from genetic modification of previously existing organisms

Manipulating genes to make something 'new' isn't new at all.

Actually if you manipulate the genes to such an extent that the new organism can't reproduce with the old one, then by definition, you have produced a new species. To suggest otherwise is simply begging the question of whether or not the formation of new species is possible. How else would you propose forming new species? If you're not going to count a genetically modified organism as a new species, then you have simply assumed at the outset that evolution is impossible rather than considering the evidence and concluding from the evidence that evolution is impossible. That might fly in religion, but never in science.

[cyborg]

so? I'm not convinced enough to believe it but thanks anyway.

[rollo tomasi]

The 24,000 copies of ancient New Testaments manuscripts.

1 Cor 15:3-6 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep".

"I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . ."
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University, after 14 years of doing research on the Gospel of Luke

Jewish Persecutions began first then under Emperors Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Maximus the Thracian, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian/Galerius.

'44.2. Yet no human effort, no princely largess nor offerings to the gods could make that infamous rumor disappear that Nero had somehow ordered the fire. Therefore, in order to abolish that rumor, Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians, who were infamous for their abominations.

44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated.

44.4. Therefore, first those were seized who admitted their faith, and then, using the information they provided, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race. And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps.

44.5. Nero gave his own gardens for this spectacle and performed a Circus game, in the habit of a charioteer mixing with the plebs or driving about the race-course. Even though they were clearly guilty and merited being made the most recent example of the consequences of crime, people began to pity these sufferers, because they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.'

Tacitus, The Annals 44.2-44.5


Witnesses were stoned and some probably ended up being light fixures.

I was rushed on posting this, going away for a week, by the way this thread is going it might be at 4,000 when I get back.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I think I'll stick with "dextr-" and "alate" giving "dexralate" (accent on the first syllable) for right-wing.

[Right Wing Professor]

This is a list of at least 513 scientists and researchers named Steve that signed on to the following statement.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

Note that, unlike the other list, the Project Steve list carries full current titles, and includes only scientists; I suspect some of the Ph.D.s on the other list are bagging groceries. On the other hand, Project Steve has 8 (count 'em!) members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Even despite the decision to restrict the list to a very tiny subset of scientists, I do believe Project Steve's lead over the creationists is now unbeatable.

[stremba]

Only in your own mind, where apparently you think that evolution = atheism. One can choose to believe in God AND consider the vast mountain of evidence out there that suggests that evolution was the process by which He created the different species of life.

[AntiGuv]

Fortunately my local library has a copy of the text cited at the above reference to this G.A. Magnini. I've made a note to myself to check into it when I return some books next week, and I'll get back to you on whether it provides any further insight on his character and rationale.

[furball4paws]

Well, we've pretty much gone through the Boeing series. I wonder what's next?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I'm impressed you can see anything from your vantage point. Isn't it dark in there? :-)

Excuse me professor, but it is you who wander the dark halls of academia surrounded by Liberal Atheists, not I. I'm not restricted by those walls. Furthermore, I am free to express how I feel without fear of being ridiculed and shunned by my peers.

Actually, 'any serious thinker' knows trilobite eyes evolved;

Didn't you mean to say "every Atheist/Materialist knows how trilobite eyes evolved?"

15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #14

According to evolutionists, the eye has evolved to the pinnacle at which we now find it. Yet, the trilobite, an index fossil that evolutionists claim is 450 million years old, possessed an even more complex eye (with a dual lens system) than anything seen in nature today. And even the evolutionists know this to be true. Writing in Science News, Lisa Shawver wrote that trilobites possessed “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature” (1974, 105:72, emp. added). Indeed they did! Trilobites possessed a lens system known in ophthalmology as an “optical doublet.” But in order to make such a lens system function properly, it is necessary to have what is known as a “refracting interface” between the two lenses. And that is exactly what the trilobites—which evolutionists believe is one of the first living things on the Earth, and which is an index fossil for the Cambrian period)—do indeed possess! The acknowledged worldwide expert on the trilobites, Riccardo Levi-Setti of the University of Chicago, literally “wrote the book” on these creatures. In his volume, Trilobites, he said:

In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction…. The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure (1993, pp. 57,58, emp. added).

Niles Eldredge, paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History (and a scientist who devoted a portion of his doctoral dissertation to the trilobite’s eye), remarked:

These lenses—technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses—optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate (as quoted in Ellis, 2001, p. 49, emp. added).

“Justifiably amazed?” What an understatement! Darwin once said that it made him turn “cold” to think of something as complex as an eye evolving. With that in mind, Ian Taylor observed: “If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?” (1984, p. 169, emp. added).

Yes, one does “wonder,” doesn’t one, Mr. Rennie?

------------------

Me: What do you make of these two letters?

You: If creationists didn't talk nonsense, they'd have nothing at all to say?

You think those scientists are creationists?

[edsheppa]

I thought so. Just another creationist lie.

[chronic_loser]

Admittedly this thread is about science, and you are not claiming to be a theologian, so I would not flame you over something like this.

It may be, as well, that you are just pissed over the creationist stuff I have heard many guys rant about here, and I don't have a horse running in that race, although the issue does have some wider implications. Nevertheless....

Anyone who claims to be unaware of the historical resurrection (or are you simply asking him if HE knows how to document his claime?) is a person who is woefully unlearned. That is not intended as an insult, there are lots of areas in which I am woefully unlearned, myself. However, there are scores of persons who have gone out looking to "debunk" the resurrection of Christ who have wound up becoming Christians in the process. Two of the more famous examples are Lew Wallace (who then wrote the script for BEN HUR after his conversion), and the brit journalist Frank Morison's "Who Moved the Stone." If you respond, I will do likewise. Otherwise, I will just let this one go.

[chronic_loser]

first sentence should read "historical EVIDENCE for the resurrection....."

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Lyin' Placemarker

[furball4paws]

"And that is exactly what the trilobites—which evolutionists believe is one of the first living things on the Earth, and which is an index fossil for the Cambrian period)—..."

FIRST Living things on Earth? Maybe you should read what you post before you post it. What about the 3 billion years of life preceeding Trilobites? Do you feel no shame when you say something so wrong and so patently absurd?

I can categorically assure you that there is no evolutionist that thinks that trilobites were one of the first living things on Earth. When you spout this stuff the whole rest of your post will be ignored, even if there is something that is true in it.

It's called credibility - get some.

[anguish]

513 scientists and researchers named Steve

Actually 570 Steve's (as of 5/23/05). Click the Steve-o-meter link at this page. ;)

[Bernard Marx]

Actually, I tend to believe in evolution, and that it is all part of God's plan.

Yes. My personal philosophy has room for both though I must admit I have serious problems with orthodox religion and True Believers in general whether sacred or secular.

Dawkins himself is a perfect example of the latter. Read his "The Selfish Gene" sometime and tell me whether it requires more faith to believe his version of human "creation" or that in the Bible. To me they are indistinguishable.

[Right Wing Professor]

Excuse me professor, but it is you who wander the dark halls of academia surrounded by Liberal Atheists, not I. I'm not restricted by those walls. Furthermore, I am free to express how I feel without fear of being ridiculed and shunned by my peers.

I am free to express myself, and I do so, frequently and loudly. It's easy to be brave when there is nothing to be afraid of.

According to evolutionists, the eye has evolved to the pinnacle at which we now find it. Yet, the trilobite, an index fossil that evolutionists claim is 450 million years old, possessed an even more complex eye (with a dual lens system) than anything seen in nature today. And even the evolutionists know this to be true. Writing in Science News, Lisa Shawver wrote that trilobites possessed “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature” (1974, 105:72, emp. added). Indeed they did! Trilobites possessed a lens system known in ophthalmology as an “optical doublet.” But in order to make such a lens system function properly, it is necessary to have what is known as a “refracting interface” between the two lenses. And that is exactly what the trilobites—which evolutionists believe is one of the first living things on the Earth, and which is an index fossil for the Cambrian period)—do indeed possess

The double-lensed schizochroal eyes you cite did not appear in the Cambrian, but in the Ordovician, long after first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record. McIntosh, who makes himself an arbiter of what 'every thinking person' knows, has his facts wrong. Trilobite eyes in the Cambrian were holochroal.

Another error in what you posted. Evolutionists certainly do not believe trilobites were on of the first living things on earth. The first life on earth is currently dated at 3.8 By before present; trilobites appeared circa 450 million years before present.

As I wrote; nonsense, or nothing at all.

Justifiably amazed?” What an understatement! Darwin once said that it made him turn “cold” to think of something as complex as an eye evolving.

Did you read the Dawkins article? How many times has this particular piece of quote mining been debunked? How many times has it been reposted?

You think those scientists are creationists?

McIntosh is.

[edsheppa]

...unjustifiable bias ...

I am a conservative who thinks history has something to teach us. The restriction to naturalistic explanations is amply justified - they are the only kind that have worked. Even the ones that we know are false in some fundamental way are better than ID which explains nothing.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks for the opportunity to correct some creationist misstatements in a rather prominent place. I've no doubt there are a score of evolutionary biologists in the UK who will be writing the same thing, but maybe they'll publish mine out of novelty.

Sent to the TImes Online

Lincoln, Nebraska, May 26, 2005.

Sir:

Professor Andy McIntosh, in yesterday's letters, appoints himself arbiter what 'any serious thinker' knows. If he wishes to include himself among that august tribe, he should get his facts straight. While trilobites did indeed first appear in the fossil record at the base of the Cambrian, the first trilobites had simple, holochroal eyes. The complex, double-lensed schizochroal eyes which he claims 'have no precursor in the rocks' are in fact derived from these simpler eyes, and appeared much later, in the Ordovician. A convincing account of their evolution has been given by Levi -Setti (2002).

Yours Faithfully
Gerard S. Harbison, Professor of Chemistry
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304
USA.

[Paige]

It is you who seems confused. The Bible was the work of men but the difference in the Bible and a regular book is the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit...the Spirit of G-d. Telling a Christian the Bible is not factual or true is like telling someone in Islam the Quran is not true. So, if you are a Christian then you believe in the written word. Oh and one other thing, don't try to talk down to me again. If you can't discuss a topic or subject without being condescending then do not address me.

Thanks!