Is Lisa Pezzolla retarded or just stupid?

[Guest Paul]

As I said in another post, science cannot prove how life began. I believe life is far too diverse and vastly complicated to have evolved from pond scum or whatever, therefore I believe it was designed and science can't refute that. Therein lies my freethinking Christian beliefs, based upon logic. No oxymorons here.

You're not listening. The methods of science are proved, over and over again. That's why you have a computer and an Internet. That's why you're likely to live a decade or two longer than was likely a century ago. The proper comparison is between the methods of science versus the methods of theology. One of them, science, has a proven track record of success and advancement; the other, theology, does not. So even the way you're framing the issue isn't logical.

No aspect of your theology has ever been proved. What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why not believe in that? Did you even get the point of the satire?

You can make up or sign onto any answer you like, but that's not logic. Yet that's all you're saying. Science can't answer your question yet, so you just make up and settle on the answer you want. Settling on a "designer" would be logical only if you had some good reason to believe that the only alternative to the questions currently left open by science is a "designer." But you don't know that, and you don't have any reason to think it. When it's pointed out that consciousness is a product of matter, not the other way around, you just ignore the fact. Ignoring everything that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions is not logical either. So on point after point after point, what you're calling logic isn't logical at all.

If you understood social psychology, you would understand that your culture shapes your view of what's likely and even what's possible. People tend to focus on what their culture tells them to focus on. All you're doing is directing your attention where you've been trained to direct it. There isn't a shred of evidence or logic to support any of it. You're just making it up. That's all you've done. I hate to be too aggressive, but it's pretty much all you ever do. Cite me virtually post you've ever made, and I'll show you where you did it.

[Guest Barney from Kearny]

The problem with biblical "logic" is there is nothing new being added to it. Science is always in motion and new things are learned every day. Theories are tested and retested and studies continue and new books are written. Science can admit that it is not perfect and needs to keep an open mind. Christianity only leaves you with one answer to everything-god did it. I find that as illogical as any theory can be.

Another musical theatre anecdote; remember in "The King and I" when the King is pondering all the new ideas that are being thrown at him by Anna and he sings what I believe is the basis of a scientific mind and why it is dangerous to think you have all the answers

There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know

Very often find confusion in conclusion I concluded long ago

In my head are many facts that, As a student, I have studied to procure

In my head are many facts of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!

When my father was a king he was a king who knew exactly what he knew

And his brain was not a thing forever swinging to and fro and fro and to

Shall I, then be like my father

And be willfully unmovable and strong?

Or is it better to be right?

Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?

There are times I almost think noboby sure of what he absolutely know

Everybody find confusion in conclusion he concluded long ago

And it puzzle me to learn that though a man may be in doubt of what he know

Very quickly he will fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

Kris, Not that we mind having you speak your mind on this site but what's the matter...is Sacramento On The Web (SOTW) down or have you been banned?

[Guest Guest]

"Science is always in motion....." Wonderful. So when science proves all life began in pond scum, I'll reconsider my belief in intelligent design. Until that day I'll use my superior intellect and logic and place my bets with God.

Your intellect may be superior to that of a fruit fly, but that's about it. However, your bet is a perfect way of putting it. You have no idea what may be shown and you're making a guess without any basis behind it except that's the guess you decide to make.

[Guest Guest]

"Science is always in motion....." Wonderful. So when science proves all life began in pond scum, I'll reconsider my belief in intelligent design. Until that day I'll use my superior intellect and logic and place my bets with God.

Anyone who smirks at science like that doesn't have a superior intellect.

[Guest Patriot]

You're not listening. The methods of science are proved, over and over again. That's why you have a computer and an Internet. That's why you're likely to live a decade or two longer than was likely a century ago. The proper comparison is between the methods of science versus the methods of theology. One of them, science, has a proven track record of success and advancement; the other, theology, does not. So even the way you're framing the issue isn't logical.

No aspect of your theology has ever been proved. What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why not believe in that? Did you even get the point of the satire?

You can make up or sign onto any answer you like, but that's not logic. Yet that's all you're saying. Science can't answer your question yet, so you just make up and settle on the answer you want. Settling on a "designer" would be logical only if you had some good reason to believe that the only alternative to the questions currently left open by science is a "designer." But you don't know that, and you don't have any reason to think it. When it's pointed out that consciousness is a product of matter, not the other way around, you just ignore the fact. Ignoring everything that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions is not logical either. So on point after point after point, what you're calling logic isn't logical at all.

If you understood social psychology, you would understand that your culture shapes your view of what's likely and even what's possible. People tend to focus on what their culture tells them to focus on. All you're doing is directing your attention where you've been trained to direct it. There isn't a shred of evidence or logic to support any of it. You're just making it up. That's all you've done. I hate to be too aggressive, but it's pretty much all you ever do. Cite me virtually post you've ever made, and I'll show you where you did it.

No one is disputing the advances of science, you're trying to cloud the issue. The invention of the computer is unrelated to the existance of God. And please spare me your condescending attitude, I don't need a lecture from you on any subject. I'm still waiting for science to advance to the point where it can prove how life began, "there isn't a shred of evidence or logic to support" any theory or postulation your science can come up with.

My intelligence and logic tells me life is far to varied and complex to be attributable to pond scum.

[Kris]

Kris, Not that we mind having you speak your mind on this site but what's the matter...is Sacramento On The Web (SOTW) down or have you been banned?

I belong to many websites and post on them regularly. If speaking my mind gets me banned from any website, then that is somewhere I do not wish to post. I have not so far, been banned from any place. I do not post on this website on topics that are exclusive to Kearny. I do not, however, see that where I come from has anything to do with the subject at hand. I live in America. These are issues facing all Americans

[Kris]

"Science is always in motion....." Wonderful. So when science proves all life began in pond scum, I'll reconsider my belief in intelligent design. Until that day I'll use my superior intellect and logic and place my bets with God.

Is the possibility that life may have originated from some kind of "pond scum" as you say, make you that fearful? The problem I have encountered with so many believers is that they confuse what may be their origin with their value as a human being. They want to believe with all the arrogance that applies that they are somehow special among living things and the idea that someday they will cease to exist is something their egos just can't stand. Don't confuse your possible origin with your present worth. Make a difference-make the world a better place. That's the way to achieve that immortality we all desire.

[Guest Bible Bob]

The problem with biblical "logic" is there is nothing new being added to it. Science is always in motion and new things are learned every day. Theories are tested and retested and studies continue and new books are written. Science can admit that it is not perfect and needs to keep an open mind. Christianity only leaves you with one answer to everything-god did it. I find that as illogical as any theory can be.

I think here within lies the problem. There are those who think they are too smart (I really don't intend to mean in a bad way) for the Bible and the existance of a God or Creator. Your intellect tells you that that such beliefs don't make sense and therefore are illogical. You need to be able to prove things and in the absense of such black and white evidence to justify these "old myths" you opt to choose science to explain creation and thus choose to dismiss religion as poppycock. On the other hand , Christians like myself as well as people of all other religions for that matter simply call it "having faith" and choose to believe what we believe blindly without such evidence or proof.

Are either of us right or wrong? Better or worse? good or bad? These are issues that have been debated, argued and fought over for many thousand of years. I don't think we are going to answer or solve anything here on good ol' Kearny On The Web in 2009 or even 2010! There is always going to be people for or against religion that go overboard...that want it their way or no way. It's difficult to reason with these types. All I know is that I was raised Catholic and have raised my children in the Catholic faith. I am a decent guy and have a good loving family. I try to go church most Sunday mornings and always feel better when I do. I try to treat everyone with respect and expect the same in return. I hope everyone reading this (including myself) whether you are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, nontheist, free-thinking whatever etc...tries a little harder to accept his fellow man no matter what he/she believes or doesn't believe in. It's not always easy to do but let's always try. Sorry if this was a bit rambling. I seem to have a lot on my mind and may not have expressed it as appropriately as I would have liked.

[Guest Paul]

No one is disputing the advances of science, you're trying to cloud the issue. The invention of the computer is unrelated to the existance of God. And please spare me your condescending attitude, I don't need a lecture from you on any subject. I'm still waiting for science to advance to the point where it can prove how life began, "there isn't a shred of evidence or logic to support" any theory or postulation your science can come up with.

My intelligence and logic tells me life is far to varied and complex to be attributable to pond scum.

Wow, I must actually have penetrated that thick skull after two years. The master of condescension is mad.

If you're going to address my argument, address the whole thing. You can't just look for a distinction from an example and call it good, when you don't even understand the point of the example. Science has a track record of progress, while theology does not. That's the only relevance my reference to the computer has to this discussion. But because you don't think logically, you can't figure that out. I've been reading your nonsense for two years, wondering where the hell you were on those days when you were supposed to have been in school. Did you hear a single thing you were told, or did you just assume you already knew everything so you didn't have to listen?

Deal with the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a god. Deal with the complete absence of logic in making up the answer you want to arrive at. Deal with the rather obvious problem of infinite regression. Deal with the obvious problem of consciousness creating matter from nothing. Deal with the fact that you're not equipped to evaluate how life began because you're woefully ignorant on the key subject of evolution. "Deal with" means thinking it through from beginning to end and front to back. You must consider all the angles and all the possibilities. Obviously you haven't. Obviously you can't. You can't even get your arms around one of my posts.

So good for you, you're not disputing the advances of science. Problem is, you don't understand science, or the crucial and fundamental differences between the methods of science and the methods of theology. So to you, there's no problem with a hypothetical designer creating the universe, even though you couldn't begin to explain how the designer got there, and never mind that your hypothesis is completely contrary to everything we know about reality. Hey, it's the answer you want, so everyone else should just realize how logical you are; only you're not. When you don't understand those things, you shouldn't blame someone like me for getting upset with you when you try to act as though you do.

You want it both ways. You're savvy enough to realize that science's track record is undeniable, but you don't have a clue where science fits into the intellectual landscape, or even what science is. You have enough sense to know that logic matters, but not enough to know when you're not being logical. So in the end, you're judging things you don't understand. How do I know? I've been reading your ridiculous and often childish posts for the past two years.

So all you have left is to assume that I'm trying to cloud the issue. No, I'm not. You just don't understand most of what I'm trying to tell you. I've known that for the entire two years I've been posting here. Call it condescending if you want. The fact is, your posts consistently betray a woeful ignorance. It's not logical just because you say it is. A designer doesn't exist just because you imagine one. You can't reasonably judge something you don't understand. A reasonable person doesn't cast aside the studied opinion of the vast majority of the world's scientists based on your say-so.

Hold yourself to your own standard. You think you're smarter than the rest of us. You aspire to it. So start small. Use your brain. Subject your ideas to rigid scrutiny. Don't smugly assume that conclusions make sense just because they're the ones you wish to draw. You can't just tell us how smart you are and expect us to be persuaded. If you really think you have a solid argument, then make it, but I suggest that first you read a whole lot more about science and intellectual history. Because I tell you, if you think I don't see how thoroughly deficient you are in these areas, you're wrong.

[Guest Paul]

As I said in another post, science cannot prove how life began. I believe life is far too diverse and vastly complicated to have evolved from pond scum or whatever, therefore I believe it was designed and science can't refute that. Therein lies my freethinking Christian beliefs, based upon logic. No oxymorons here.

Sorry to respond again to this post, but you’re raising an important argument in ways you don’t seem to begin to understand.

Your argument is called “God in the gaps,” meaning that whenever you don’t have an answer for how something happened, you say “God did it.” There’s no logic behind that, it’s just your all-purpose fill-in for things you don’t understand. As many Christian scholars have noted, be very careful about God-in-the-gaps arguments because science has been filling the gaps rapidly When you have to keep backtracking on your argument all the time, people start to realize it was never a good argument in the first place. Then they stop taking you seriously. Case in point:

Is your use of the term “pond scum” logical, or is it a rhetorical flourish?

Do you think it betrays any bias you may hold?

Is that bias logical or is it based on a wish?

When scientists resolve the remaining questions about how this occurs, will you then abandon your belief in an intelligent designer, or just come up with another excuse to believe what you wish to believe?

When do you begin realize that your beliefs are products of your wishes, not products of reality?

http://biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/ho...of_biochemicals

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...4a0e2383e46fff7

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12204

If you read creationist literature on this subject, you see all kinds of devices used to sway the reader on completely illogical grounds. For example, “Now even atheists are bailing out.” No they’re not. There’s no citation for this claim, but the authors make it seem as though a scientific explanation for the origins of life is rapidly losing favor. It’s just not true. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4862] These arguments are made not to enlighten anyone but to give moral support to a particular belief system. The nature of the argument reveals that the belief system isn’t based on logic; it’s based on a wish to believe. Beliefs so derived are properly called illusions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_an_Illusion http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/argum...ish-fulfilment/]

So the main problem with your argument is that you’re on the wrong side methodologically. The only reason for accepting a designer as the originator of life is your wish that it be so. That’s not logical. That’s just your projection of your own ego onto nature.

Now of course, that’s far too complicated for you to want to deal with and it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas, so you’ll probably ignore it. But maybe, just maybe, someone will have the curiosity and sense of integrity to check it out and truly think about it.

[WilliamK]

"Science is always in motion....." Wonderful. So when science proves all life began in pond scum, I'll reconsider my belief in intelligent design. Until that day I'll use my superior intellect and logic and place my bets with God.

Proclaiming your "superior intellect and logic" immediately after presenting an argument from ignorance fallacy does not create the image of intelligence that you're trying to project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

And even if you did actually possess superior intellect and logic in general, it would not make this specific argument any better. You are using an implicit argument from authority to bolster an argument from ignorance. So much for your superior logic.

It would be a good idea to learn at least a little bit about a topic before declaring yourself a master of it.

[Guest Guest]

Proclaiming your "superior intellect and logic" immediately after presenting an argument from ignorance fallacy does not create the image of intelligence that you're trying to project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

And even if you did actually possess superior intellect and logic in general, it would not make this specific argument any better. You are using an implicit argument from authority to bolster an argument from ignorance. So much for your superior logic.

It would be a good idea to learn at least a little bit about a topic before declaring yourself a master of it.

I'm on Patriots side on this one. Science cannot offer any proof as to the origins of life. There are a few suppositions among scientists but in reality, they have no idea. So in the absense of conflicting evidence, the vast majority of many brilliant people believe in God.

[Guest Paul]

I think here within lies the problem. There are those who think they are too smart (I really don't intend to mean in a bad way) for the Bible and the existance of a God or Creator. Your intellect tells you that that such beliefs don't make sense and therefore are illogical. You need to be able to prove things and in the absense of such black and white evidence to justify these "old myths" you opt to choose science to explain creation and thus choose to dismiss religion as poppycock. On the other hand , Christians like myself as well as people of all other religions for that matter simply call it "having faith" and choose to believe what we believe blindly without such evidence or proof.

Are either of us right or wrong? Better or worse? good or bad? These are issues that have been debated, argued and fought over for many thousand of years. I don't think we are going to answer or solve anything here on good ol' Kearny On The Web in 2009 or even 2010! There is always going to be people for or against religion that go overboard...that want it their way or no way. It's difficult to reason with these types. All I know is that I was raised Catholic and have raised my children in the Catholic faith. I am a decent guy and have a good loving family. I try to go church most Sunday mornings and always feel better when I do. I try to treat everyone with respect and expect the same in return. I hope everyone reading this (including myself) whether you are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, nontheist, free-thinking whatever etc...tries a little harder to accept his fellow man no matter what he/she believes or doesn't believe in. It's not always easy to do but let's always try. Sorry if this was a bit rambling. I seem to have a lot on my mind and may not have expressed it as appropriately as I would have liked.

Bob, I think you expressed yourself pretty well. Let’s discuss this subject. Most respectfully, I think you’re overlooking some important points.

1. I don’t know anyone who thinks she or he is “too smart for the Bible and the existence of a God or Creator.” Honestly, have you ever actually heard anyone say that, or is that just your interpretation? I don’t believe in any god precisely because I know that there are many things we don’t know. I don’t choose to guess. That said, there are significant differences between various ideas about God. None of them is supported by any evidence. Some of them have a pretty good internal logic, others don’t. Some of them are just horrid. For example, the idea of hell (eternal torment with no hope of redemption) is so abhorrent (so completely at odds with any defensible conception of the good) that anything but vehement opposition would be wrong. By analogy, if I told you that God creates little girls so he can have them sold as sex slaves to please the men who have won his favor, you would immediately revolt against such an idea. You would probably be deeply offended by it. Hell is worse, so why are so many people willing to accept the idea? It tells me is that they’re so consumed with their own egos (they don’t want to die, ever) that they’re willing to accept any story that promises them eternal life, even if that story has other people suffering forever (for not agreeing with their conception of God in many cases). That tells us quite a lot about what their values really are and what they really worship (their own egos and their own opinions). That doesn’t mean there is no God, but as with anything else I choose to evaluate things as I see them. I’m not wrong just because I disagree with the most widely held view.

2. You’re making an implicit assumption that faith-based belief about what is factually true is good. I think it does tremendous harm. If you look at history, or at society today or at your community or your family or yourself, you will see examples every day where people damage themselves and others by believing things because they wish them to be true instead of believing what they have good reason to believe. When we teach children to believe things because they want them to be true, we are conditioning them to be irresponsible. If you really think about it, that explains how entire nations walk straight into trouble, usually after they’ve been sitting on top of the world long enough to think they’re entitled to be there. It’s a big part of the explanation for the trouble the United States is in right now. Unfortunately, faith-based religions are partly to blame for this in my opinion.

3. There is no basis to believe in any theology. You’ve essentially admitted that you believe it on “faith.” I understand that your point is: it might be true. Well OK, but there might be a tiny, invisible green unicorn sitting on my desk smiling at me as I’m typing this. I can’t prove there isn’t one. I could run my hand over the spot on the desk where the unicorn is supposed to be, but that wouldn’t prove anything because he can’t be felt either. So he could be there. The point is, you wouldn’t take that seriously. So why take the idea of a god seriously? People are conditioned to do that, but if you look past social conditioning, believing in a god has no more merit than believing in an invisible green unicorn or a Flying Spaghetti Monster; the reasoning behind the hypotheses is exactly the same. The point isn’t whether something might hypothetically be true; it’s about the basis for belief, thereby invoking all the points made in the previous paragraph. This is a critical mistake that people have been making for centuries in my opinion. With all our knowledge, it’s time to get past it. Some people think I'm a horrible person for saying that, but that’s my view. I'm no worse a person for expressing my view than you are for expressing yours. The test is what you wrote last.

4. I appreciate the good things that happen in church, recently wrote of my own experience growing up Catholic on this forum. But that doesn’t mean that the theology doesn’t have its effects, both good and bad. There's a difference between a religious community and its theology, just like there's a difference between you and your opinions. You are more than just your opinions. People seem to forget that.

I agree wholeheartedly with your call to greater civility, though. Maybe you’re more nearly a Humanist. Come on, man, register, take on a screen name and let's talk. Life is full of opportunities. This forum probably won't change the world, but so what? Let's get something really good started here.

[Guest Guest]

Your logic is flawed. Science cannot say how life began, that's a fact. Because of the vast complexity of the various life forms, I opt for an intelligent designer. As a freethinker, therein lies my religion.

So you just make up your own definition of "freethinker" and completely ignore the fact that theology can't say how life began either, that's a fact. You don't believe in evolution and haven't studied it, so you're not qualified to comment on these issues. I opt for the knowledge of scientists as opposed to your wishful thinking.

[Guest Guest]

No one is disputing the advances of science, you're trying to cloud the issue. The invention of the computer is unrelated to the existance of God. And please spare me your condescending attitude, I don't need a lecture from you on any subject. I'm still waiting for science to advance to the point where it can prove how life began, "there isn't a shred of evidence or logic to support" any theory or postulation your science can come up with.

My intelligence and logic tells me life is far to varied and complex to be attributable to pond scum.

Sounds like you need a lot of lectures on a lot of subjects. You're an ignorant person.

I'm still waiting for science to advance to the point where it can prove how life began, "there isn't a shred of evidence or logic to support" any theory or postulation your science can come up with.

What a stupid remark. The sentence structure doesn't even make sense.

[Guest Guest]

I'm on Patriots side on this one. Science cannot offer any proof as to the origins of life. There are a few suppositions among scientists but in reality, they have no idea. So in the absense of conflicting evidence, the vast majority of many brilliant people believe in God.

They're not suppositions. Scientists are working on this question and they are making progress. "They haven't answered the question and it has been a whole 40 years." Are you freaking kidding me?! Forty years in science is nothing. Meanwhile, they know more than they did forty years ago. Everything you say, you just prove that you don't understand science.

[Guest Patriot]

Wow, I must actually have penetrated that thick skull after two years. The master of condescension is mad.

If you're going to address my argument, address the whole thing. You can't just look for a distinction from an example and call it good, when you don't even understand the point of the example. Science has a track record of progress, while theology does not. That's the only relevance my reference to the computer has to this discussion. But because you don't think logically, you can't figure that out. I've been reading your nonsense for two years, wondering where the hell you were on those days when you were supposed to have been in school. Did you hear a single thing you were told, or did you just assume you already knew everything so you didn't have to listen?

Deal with the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a god. Deal with the complete absence of logic in making up the answer you want to arrive at. Deal with the rather obvious problem of infinite regression. Deal with the obvious problem of consciousness creating matter from nothing. Deal with the fact that you're not equipped to evaluate how life began because you're woefully ignorant on the key subject of evolution. "Deal with" means thinking it through from beginning to end and front to back. You must consider all the angles and all the possibilities. Obviously you haven't. Obviously you can't. You can't even get your arms around one of my posts.

So good for you, you're not disputing the advances of science. Problem is, you don't understand science, or the crucial and fundamental differences between the methods of science and the methods of theology. So to you, there's no problem with a hypothetical designer creating the universe, even though you couldn't begin to explain how the designer got there, and never mind that your hypothesis is completely contrary to everything we know about reality. Hey, it's the answer you want, so everyone else should just realize how logical you are; only you're not. When you don't understand those things, you shouldn't blame someone like me for getting upset with you when you try to act as though you do.

You want it both ways. You're savvy enough to realize that science's track record is undeniable, but you don't have a clue where science fits into the intellectual landscape, or even what science is. You have enough sense to know that logic matters, but not enough to know when you're not being logical. So in the end, you're judging things you don't understand. How do I know? I've been reading your ridiculous and often childish posts for the past two years.

So all you have left is to assume that I'm trying to cloud the issue. No, I'm not. You just don't understand most of what I'm trying to tell you. I've known that for the entire two years I've been posting here. Call it condescending if you want. The fact is, your posts consistently betray a woeful ignorance. It's not logical just because you say it is. A designer doesn't exist just because you imagine one. You can't reasonably judge something you don't understand. A reasonable person doesn't cast aside the studied opinion of the vast majority of the world's scientists based on your say-so.

Hold yourself to your own standard. You think you're smarter than the rest of us. You aspire to it. So start small. Use your brain. Subject your ideas to rigid scrutiny. Don't smugly assume that conclusions make sense just because they're the ones you wish to draw. You can't just tell us how smart you are and expect us to be persuaded. If you really think you have a solid argument, then make it, but I suggest that first you read a whole lot more about science and intellectual history. Because I tell you, if you think I don't see how thoroughly deficient you are in these areas, you're wrong.

I have to say, I've never talked with anyone with your level of smugness and condescendence before. How do you keep your head warm in this weather, they certainly don't make hats so large as to fit your huge head.

But anyway, your words "science has a history of progress while theology does not" is nonsensical. There is no "progress" to be made concerning God. God is real, end of story.

But you keep hoping that science will discover how life began.

[Guest Patriot]

Sorry to respond again to this post, but you’re raising an important argument in ways you don’t seem to begin to understand.

Your argument is called “God in the gaps,” meaning that whenever you don’t have an answer for how something happened, you say “God did it.” There’s no logic behind that, it’s just your all-purpose fill-in for things you don’t understand. As many Christian scholars have noted, be very careful about God-in-the-gaps arguments because science has been filling the gaps rapidly When you have to keep backtracking on your argument all the time, people start to realize it was never a good argument in the first place. Then they stop taking you seriously. Case in point:

Is your use of the term “pond scum” logical, or is it a rhetorical flourish?

Do you think it betrays any bias you may hold?

Is that bias logical or is it based on a wish?

When scientists resolve the remaining questions about how this occurs, will you then abandon your belief in an intelligent designer, or just come up with another excuse to believe what you wish to believe?

When do you begin realize that your beliefs are products of your wishes, not products of reality?

http://biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/ho...of_biochemicals

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...4a0e2383e46fff7

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12204

If you read creationist literature on this subject, you see all kinds of devices used to sway the reader on completely illogical grounds. For example, “Now even atheists are bailing out.” No they’re not. There’s no citation for this claim, but the authors make it seem as though a scientific explanation for the origins of life is rapidly losing favor. It’s just not true. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4862] These arguments are made not to enlighten anyone but to give moral support to a particular belief system. The nature of the argument reveals that the belief system isn’t based on logic; it’s based on a wish to believe. Beliefs so derived are properly called illusions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_an_Illusion http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/argum...ish-fulfilment/]

So the main problem with your argument is that you’re on the wrong side methodologically. The only reason for accepting a designer as the originator of life is your wish that it be so. That’s not logical. That’s just your projection of your own ego onto nature.

Now of course, that’s far too complicated for you to want to deal with and it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas, so you’ll probably ignore it. But maybe, just maybe, someone will have the curiosity and sense of integrity to check it out and truly think about it.

Science does continue to make new discoveries. An example is the modern microscope that allows scientists to uncover the incredibly complicated make-up of the human cell , DNA, cilium propellers, etc. Funny thing about these discoveries, many scientists are beginning to doubt how simple evolution can account for their existence.

So if some scientists are beginning to have doubts perhaps you should re-examine your "humanism", you may be on the wrong track.

[Guest Paul]

Science does continue to make new discoveries. An example is the modern microscope that allows scientists to uncover the incredibly complicated make-up of the human cell , DNA, cilium propellers, etc. Funny thing about these discoveries, many scientists are beginning to doubt how simple evolution can account for their existence.

So if some scientists are beginning to have doubts perhaps you should re-examine your "humanism", you may be on the wrong track.

Scientists always doubt. It's of the essence of the scientific discipline. Yet they keep studying cells, proteins, amino acids and all the various building blocks of life because they believe they may yet discover when life begins. So you're incorrect if you think that their doubts are growing. And of course, you don't cite any source. You just expect us to take your word for it.

There's no good reason to believe scientists and we who support them are on the wrong track. This particular inquiry may yield a major discovery tomorrow, or maybe not for a decade or a century or maybe never. But scientists apply the scientific method, and that is what generates progress. Considerable progress has already been made on this subject matter. I think you're confusing your inability to refute the obvious with arrogance on my part. The arrogance is yours, in berating people who don't draw your chosen conclusion, just because science still has questions to answer. That doesn't establish any merit in your theology. You just assume you're right. That's arrogant.

You can claim that there is a god all you like, but there's no evidence of it, and as you admit, theology does not yield progress. Science does. The methods are completely different and the results are completely different. I'm not just talking out of my hat. All the evidence supports what I'm trying to tell you.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Science does continue to make new discoveries. An example is the modern microscope that allows scientists to uncover the incredibly complicated make-up of the human cell , DNA, cilium propellers, etc. Funny thing about these discoveries, many scientists are beginning to doubt how simple evolution can account for their existence.

So if some scientists are beginning to have doubts perhaps you should re-examine your "humanism", you may be on the wrong track.

Creationists have been saying this since I was a kid. The fact is that your hypothesis requires a Designer that has to be orders of magnitude more complex than what you claim cannot come about without said Designer. Therefore to anyone that does not already believe in a supernatural being your hypothesis fails several of the basic rules of logic and science. That is why it is considered (legally, no less) to be religion and not science at all.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

I have to say, I've never talked with anyone with your level of smugness and condescendence before. How do you keep your head warm in this weather, they certainly don't make hats so large as to fit your huge head.

But anyway, your words "science has a history of progress while theology does not" is nonsensical. There is no "progress" to be made concerning God. God is real, end of story.

But you keep hoping that science will discover how life began.

Acting like an idiot and then complaining that someone thinks that they are smarter than you is rather silly, don't you think? Pretty much all of us are smarter than you-that's why you are incapable of answering our questions.

[Guest Guest]

Acting like an idiot and then complaining that someone thinks that they are smarter than you is rather silly, don't you think? Pretty much all of us are smarter than you-that's why you are incapable of answering our questions.

Where was the word "smarter" used in his post? Moron.

[WilliamK]

Science does continue to make new discoveries. An example is the modern microscope that allows scientists to uncover the incredibly complicated make-up of the human cell , DNA, cilium propellers, etc. Funny thing about these discoveries, many scientists are beginning to doubt how simple evolution can account for their existence.

So if some scientists are beginning to have doubts perhaps you should re-examine your "humanism", you may be on the wrong track.

The idea that evolution is somehow "in trouble" is a fantasy perpetuated by creationists. A fabrication that ministers and other charlatans pass on to the willfully gullible, who maintain that belief only by avoiding any honest investigation into what the scientific consensus actually is.

If you value your belief in falsehoods over the truth, and it is readily apparent that you do, then I recommend that you cover your eyes and ears in the presence of any information from legitimate and respected sources. Any reduction in your ignorance could be devastating to your beliefs. Luckily for you, there are many disreputable sources that will provide a wealth of information filtered and/or fabricated especially for sustaining your beliefs. These will allow you to maintain and cultivate your ignorance, while simultaneously providing a means for deluding yourself into thinking that you are knowledgeable and well-read. Some of these, most famously "Dr." Kent Hovind (currently in prison for tax fraud), have fake credentials to help bolster your faith that they are actual, credible, experts. Better yet, a few (Dr's Michael Behe and Duane Gish, for example) have genuine credentials, which will allow you to pull the blinders in close and pretend that they are representative of scientists in general, rather than as the discredited fringe element that they actually are. Sounds blissful, doesn't it? Religious charlatans are a dime-a-dozen, so there are many such resources available. Here are a few of the better known ones to get you stared:

Web:

Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org

Creation Science Evangelism http://www.drdino.com

The Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org

Creation Research Society http://www.creationresearch.org

Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org

Jack Chick http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp (just for grins)

Books:

Anything by Duane Gish http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=s...amp;x=0&y=0

Anything by Michael Behe http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=se...amp;x=0&y=0

These great sources will tell you things you want to hear, unmolested by any of that pesky "intellectual honesty" and "scientific integrity" crap. Your precious ignorance will not be threatened. Go on. Read up. You'll love it.

[Guest Patriot]

Scientists always doubt. It's of the essence of the scientific discipline. Yet they keep studying cells, proteins, amino acids and all the various building blocks of life because they believe they may yet discover when life begins. So you're incorrect if you think that their doubts are growing. And of course, you don't cite any source. You just expect us to take your word for it.

There's no good reason to believe scientists and we who support them are on the wrong track. This particular inquiry may yield a major discovery tomorrow, or maybe not for a decade or a century or maybe never. But scientists apply the scientific method, and that is what generates progress. Considerable progress has already been made on this subject matter. I think you're confusing your inability to refute the obvious with arrogance on my part. The arrogance is yours, in berating people who don't draw your chosen conclusion, just because science still has questions to answer. That doesn't establish any merit in your theology. You just assume you're right. That's arrogant.

You can claim that there is a god all you like, but there's no evidence of it, and as you admit, theology does not yield progress. Science does. The methods are completely different and the results are completely different. I'm not just talking out of my hat. All the evidence supports what I'm trying to tell you.

Wrong. There is no evidence supporting life began as a matter of serendipity. "You just assume you're right. That's arrogant". As I said before , the complexity of life leads me to believe it couldn't have all happened as a matter of happenstance and serendipity. In the absense of any proof to the

contrary, my freethinking mind tells me God did it.

[Guest Guest]

Acting like an idiot and then complaining that someone thinks that they are smarter than you is rather silly, don't you think? Pretty much all of us are smarter than you-that's why you are incapable of answering our questions.

Whatttt ?????