Jump to content

In God We Teach - documentary excerpt


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

That's your problem: you assume things instead of thinking about them and examining the evidence.

As if you weren't already wrong about enough things in one day, now you write this. Birth defects are caused by genetic mutations, as well as by drugs and chemicals ingested during or before pregnancy. Genetic causes account for approximately 25-30 percent of birth defects in children who survive until birth. However, genetic wastage accounts for the termination of approximately one-third to one-half of all pregnancies. In those cases, there is a defect in the genes and/or chromosomes. In other words, if you believe in a god, then your god is by far the most notorious abortionist ever, and he has been doing it since the first human appeared on Earth.

How do you explain that?

I can't even explain how you escaped that genetic wastage thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Epilogue: Stupid on steroids.

And no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you that a theory does not mean a guess, you continue to insist on a pre-scientific misunderstanding of science. According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Thus, evolution is both theory and fact.

So is gravity, both theory and fact.

You admit that so-called “intelligent design” is pure speculation. At least you got one thing right.

And you still haven’t answered any of the questions you’ve been asked. If an irreducibly complex object cannot exist without having been created, then how do you explain the existence of your imaginary god? You can’t.

If a conscious and omnipotent being created the universe and everything in it, then how do you explain senseless suffering, such as children born conjoined at the head, or children born with the brain outside the head? You can’t because it doesn’t make sense. Only a sadist would do that. So you define God as a sadist. You had better hope there isn’t one of the kind you imagine, because judgment day might not work out the way you imagine.

More to follow.

With all the long-winded verbage about plants and bugs sensing light, You haven't offered one word of proof for blind evolution or one word disproving ID. I've acknowledged that evolution is valid, that's not in question. What you and other atheists cannot prove is all the life forms on earth evolved BLINDLY. You credit serendipity for all the life on earth, I credit ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Page four: Insects

You can speculate but the scientists are not. They have proved beyond a doubt that simple light-sensing mechanisms are responsible for sight. These light receptors are seen in the cell and in primitive organisms, both plant and animal.

Light receptors have been identified in insects. They range in descending order of complexity from compound eyes to ocelli, stemmata and simple dermal light receptors.

Have you ever turned on an outside light in summertime and watched the bugs gather around the light. This is called phototaxis, a primitive attraction to light. Cockroaches, which avoid light (negative phototaxis), have light receptors all over their bodies. These simple dermal light receptors bear virtually no resemblance to what we know as an eye, except for the feature of sensing light.

So no, calling names doesn't change anything. Facts are facts. You're an idiot whether anyone points it out to you or not.

So moths attracted to light prove blind evolution? Lets cut to the chase; there is NO EVIDENCE for blind evolution. Whatever you can point to as primitive light sensing features, NOTHING indicates anything occured by mere serendipity, happenstance, mother nature, luck of the draw, trial and error or any other way atheists can credit to avoid acknowledging God. Face it, blind evolution is a theory and nothing more. There are no facts to back up the theory and all the name calling won't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

So moths attracted to light prove blind evolution? Lets cut to the chase; there is NO EVIDENCE for blind evolution. Whatever you can point to as primitive light sensing features, NOTHING indicates anything occured by mere serendipity, happenstance, mother nature, luck of the draw, trial and error or any other way atheists can credit to avoid acknowledging God. Face it, blind evolution is a theory and nothing more. There are no facts to back up the theory and all the name calling won't change that.

Dude, you made a claim and you got your ass kicked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So moths attracted to light prove blind evolution? Lets cut to the chase; there is NO EVIDENCE for blind evolution. Whatever you can point to as primitive light sensing features, NOTHING indicates anything occured by mere serendipity, happenstance, mother nature, luck of the draw, trial and error or any other way atheists can credit to avoid acknowledging God. Face it, blind evolution is a theory and nothing more. There are no facts to back up the theory and all the name calling won't change that.

Typical right winger. You're like a two-year-old. You make a statement with absolute assurance and when it gets shot down, you ignore the new information completely. The facts don't matter to you one bit. That's why you have no business judging science. You don't even begin to understand its methods. Yeah, we know, you vote. That's the scary part. It's not just that you're ignorant about facts. You're ignorant about the methods of thought and proud of being ignorant.

You claimed, with absolute assurance, that scientists had never found "light sensitive patches." In fact, light receptors, or light sensing mechanisms (the terms most scientists use), are present on virtually every organism that exists or ever has existed, from the cell, through the most primitive multi-cellular organisms, through the plants and the insects, to homo sapiens.

If you would actually think for a moment about the processes of life, you would understand why. Most organisms cannot survive for long without light. So virtually every organism is processing light in some way. We see this from simple light receptors to the complex eye. To make your argument, you have to ignore all of that, and of course you do. You select one bit of information out of billions of bits of information and try to make fun of an entire discipline - science - that you know virtually nothing about.

Hey, are you Paszkiewicz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Melanie

So moths attracted to light prove blind evolution? Lets cut to the chase; there is NO EVIDENCE for blind evolution. Whatever you can point to as primitive light sensing features, NOTHING indicates anything occured by mere serendipity, happenstance, mother nature, luck of the draw, trial and error or any other way atheists can credit to avoid acknowledging God. Face it, blind evolution is a theory and nothing more. There are no facts to back up the theory and all the name calling won't change that.

No, not just moths attracted to light. You claimed that there are no primitive light receptors. You're wrong.

It makes no difference to you that you're wrong. You're like a metal can of food in the supermarket, vacuum-sealed so nothing can get in or out. I think I understand why you call yourself 2smart4u now. You think that because no one can change your mind, you're smart. But all it means is that you refuse to accept any information that doesn't support what you already believe. So you try to reduce evolutionary biology to one data point about the behavior of moths, ignoring the fact that the response to light is a basic building block of life.

And any time the facts don't suit you, you need an explanation. But your explanations only make sense if you're inside that hermetically sealed tin can you call your mind. Take your argument about atheists not wanting to "acknowledge God." It begs the question, of course, because you can't acknowledge what doesn't exist. You seem to think that if you cleverly string together a few words, you can change reality - which is exactly what a person like you would think. Meanwhile, your argument about atheists has already been shot down. People don't have a need not to believe in a god. Just the opposite. People think they "need God." They want to believe that they will live forever and will see their grandparents again, etc. So they come up with stories that allow them to believe it. It makes them feel better. People have been coming up with stories like these for thousands of years. If there was a God who wanted us to believe in him, every culture would have the same story. The divinely inspired word would have been given directly to the Chinese and the Native Americans. You're the one whose psychology is at issue.

Of course, you will ignore all of that. You have to, or so you think. If you open the can and let in the light and the air, you'll have to change your mind. You're not willing to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

. . . NOTHING indicates anything occured by mere serendipity, happenstance, mother nature, luck of the draw, trial and error . . .

Yes there is. We know how it happened. We know that genetic changes occur by mutation in asexual species but more often by common variation in sexual species. Sex is amazing thing. Because each new organism is a product of a set of genes and chromosomes that almost certainly have never been combined before, every generation offers a set of opportunities for a variation to produce a trait that is more robust than the old trait. Functionally, we don't see evidence of those changes quickly because the genetic variations from one generation to the next are functionally minor. But over time, as the more robust trait works its way into the population, via natural selection, a new feature begins to take shape to such an extent that it is recognizable.

I would ask you whether you have ever read any of the leading materials currently available on the subject of evolution but I don't have to ask. It's obvious that you haven't read any of them. You know that's true, so you also know that you are arguing from ignorance. A reasonable person would only want to speak the truth. You can't speak the truth from ignorance. You may think you know the limits of the science but you don't. The scientists didn't come up with the current theories on evolution arbitrarily, and contrary to what you insist on thinking - even though you've been told it's not true - in science a theory is not just a guess. It is based on a sufficient body of data to support the theory with reasonable scientific assurance. You don't understand any of this, or if you do, you insist on misrepresenting it. So why express an opinion on something you either know nothing about or have to lie about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I can't even explain how you escaped that genetic wastage thing.

Obviously, you can't explain any of the things you were asked to explain. And weren't you the person who was complaining about being insulted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So moths attracted to light prove blind evolution? Lets cut to the chase; there is NO EVIDENCE for blind evolution. Whatever you can point to as primitive light sensing features, NOTHING indicates anything occured by mere serendipity, happenstance, mother nature, luck of the draw, trial and error or any other way atheists can credit to avoid acknowledging God. Face it, blind evolution is a theory and nothing more. There are no facts to back up the theory and all the name calling won't change that.

Your argument is ridiculous. You're saying that scientists have to prove that things happen according to natural processes. That's nonsense. Scientists don't have to prove that there are no fairies or green unicorns or sky-gods. The burden of proof is on you to show that natural processes cannot explain evolution. That was your original argument, only now that even you realize your point has been shot down and totally dismantled, your only resort is to say "Oh yeah?!"

There are billions of facts to back up the theory of evolution, including the evolution of the eye. Those facts are found in the light-sensing properties found in every living organism that exists or ever has existed. You claimed those mechanisms were never shown to exist, but then you were shown the evidence and even you recognize that you were wrong - but being wrong on the key point makes no difference to you. You seem to think this point about how every living organism can sense light isn't worth commenting on but in fact, it fully answers your question.

You're right about one thing. The name-calling won't change the fact that you're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gadfly

So moths attracted to light prove blind evolution? Lets cut to the chase; there is NO EVIDENCE for blind evolution.

You are correct-there is no evidence for blind evolution. However, since blind evolution is only your misrepresentation of the actual theory that is irrelevant.

Whatever you can point to as primitive light sensing features, NOTHING indicates anything occured by mere serendipity, happenstance, mother nature, luck of the draw, trial and error or any other way atheists can credit to avoid acknowledging God.

True, nothing indicates that serendipity, etc. had anything to do with it. However, since the theory includes a negative selection mechanism that is irrelevant. Again. Btw-I am not an atheist and you are a hypocrite more concerned with being right than righteous. There are far fewer believers in ID than there are Christians and far more believers in evolution than atheists.

Face it, blind evolution is a theory and nothing more.

Actually it isn't. It is what you THINK the theory says. It isn't.

There are no facts to back up the theory and all the name calling won't change that.

You have spent the vast majority of your time on this site insulting others. You are being called stupid because you are being willfully ignorant. This is not only the most dangerous type of stupidity, but unchristian as well. The very basis of Christianity is humility and we are NOT called to turn our brains off-we are called to "work out our faith with fear and trembling."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gadfly

With all the long-winded verbage about plants and bugs sensing light, You haven't offered one word of proof for blind evolution or one word disproving ID. I've acknowledged that evolution is valid, that's not in question. What you and other atheists cannot prove is all the life forms on earth evolved BLINDLY. You credit serendipity for all the life on earth, I credit ID.

Alright, I will disprove ID for you. It is difficult, because the ID propentists (I have the feeling some of the people on this thread will get that joke) rarely say anything that they can get pinned down on. There is no actual theory of ID. There is the idea of Irreducible Complexity. This is the idea that there are features that cannot broken down into constituent parts, therefore they must have been created that way. Since evolution cannot explain this, an external force or process must have been involved.

The first problem is that they have utterly failed time after time after time to produce a single example of Irreducible Complexity. They had an entire trial to come up with one and utterly failed. The second problem is that this would not prove an Intelligent Designer. If an example of IC were to come to light it would show that some force acted upon the evolution of life on Earth that we do not know of and have no evidence for. This is not an either/or situation-proving that evolution could not do it alone would not prove that your specific idea has any validity. It would just prove that evolution alone does not sufficiently explain things.

That is the ultimate weakness of EVERY Creationist movement-they are based on the either/or logical fallacy. They never actually argue for their own position, only against strawmen of the scientific position. Here's a challenge-show ANY evidence of a Intelligent Designer's hand in anything whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Yes there is. We know how it happened. We know that genetic changes occur by mutation in asexual species but more often by common variation in sexual species. Sex is amazing thing. Because each new organism is a product of a set of genes and chromosomes that almost certainly have never been combined before, every generation offers a set of opportunities for a variation to produce a trait that is more robust than the old trait. Functionally, we don't see evidence of those changes quickly because the genetic variations from one generation to the next are functionally minor. But over time, as the more robust trait works its way into the population, via natural selection, a new feature begins to take shape to such an extent that it is recognizable.

I would ask you whether you have ever read any of the leading materials currently available on the subject of evolution but I don't have to ask. It's obvious that you haven't read any of them. You know that's true, so you also know that you are arguing from ignorance. A reasonable person would only want to speak the truth. You can't speak the truth from ignorance. You may think you know the limits of the science but you don't. The scientists didn't come up with the current theories on evolution arbitrarily, and contrary to what you insist on thinking - even though you've been told it's not true - in science a theory is not just a guess. It is based on a sufficient body of data to support the theory with reasonable scientific assurance. You don't understand any of this, or if you do, you insist on misrepresenting it. So why express an opinion on something you either know nothing about or have to lie about?

Bottom line, when you atheists come up with something more than THEORIES about blind evolution, then I'll listen. Until then I'm going with ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Bottom line, when you atheists come up with something more than THEORIES about blind evolution, then I'll listen. Until then I'm going with ID.

Please apply the same principle to the THEORY of gravity.

In other words, go jump off a cliff, and then report back to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Bottom line, when you atheists come up with something more than THEORIES about blind evolution, then I'll listen. Until then I'm going with ID.

Let’s put your statement into the language of the United States National Academy of Sciences and apply your admission that ID is just speculation. We'll omit your mischaracterization of scientists as atheists and your meaningful perjorative, "blind." Here’s what you really said:

Bottom line, when you atheists come up with something more than a comprehensive explanation of evolution that is supported by a vast body of evidence, then I'll listen. Until then I'm going with pure speculation.

Bottom line, we can't open your mind from out here, or give you a brain to fill what appears to be a lot of dead space. On the other hand, if you give me a can opener . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gadfly

Bottom line, when you atheists come up with something more than THEORIES about blind evolution, then I'll listen. Until then I'm going with ID.

There aren't any theories about "blind" evolution. What does Jesus say about lying again?

The thing is, we all know that you are too old and close-minded to ever change your mind. I used to be like you-when I was in Junior High. By the time I was in High School I was participating in debates like this online on your side and I realized how weak the position was-which is why I participate now. Not for your good but for anyone else reading this. The people just like you in my church tried to convince me that I had to believe something (ID) that my brain knew was nonsense and that internal conflict nearly led to me leaving the church. Fortunately I had supportive parents and last year when I graduated and started college I discovered that campus churches are already rejecting that foolishness. That is the future-leaving the ideas of the past behind. It is a glorious world that God has given us to discover-why shutter your eyes to it? You can still believe that God set things in motion-I do. Just don't try to pretend that science can prove it. Evolution works without needing intervention from God. I believe that it is because God designed the universe incredibly well. You apparently think that God has to keep fine-tuning His creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Bottom line, when you atheists come up with something more than THEORIES about blind evolution, then I'll listen. Until then I'm going with ID.

No you won't. You'll do what you always do and ignore everything that you think you're not going to agree with. And since you're not listening until you think you're going to agree with it, you can't learn anything, so naturally people will call you stupid - because you choose to be stupid. And of course you'll distort everything you don't like, such as calling scientists atheists. Maybe you don't realize it but you just admitted all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Alright, I will disprove ID for you. It is difficult, because the ID propentists (I have the feeling some of the people on this thread will get that joke) rarely say anything that they can get pinned down on. There is no actual theory of ID. There is the idea of Irreducible Complexity. This is the idea that there are features that cannot broken down into constituent parts, therefore they must have been created that way. Since evolution cannot explain this, an external force or process must have been involved.

The first problem is that they have utterly failed time after time after time to produce a single example of Irreducible Complexity. They had an entire trial to come up with one and utterly failed. The second problem is that this would not prove an Intelligent Designer. If an example of IC were to come to light it would show that some force acted upon the evolution of life on Earth that we do not know of and have no evidence for. This is not an either/or situation-proving that evolution could not do it alone would not prove that your specific idea has any validity. It would just prove that evolution alone does not sufficiently explain things.

That is the ultimate weakness of EVERY Creationist movement-they are based on the either/or logical fallacy. They never actually argue for their own position, only against strawmen of the scientific position. Here's a challenge-show ANY evidence of a Intelligent Designer's hand in anything whatsoever.

The eye is a perfect example of IC. Believing an eye can evolve from a light sensitive patch is akin to believing a rubber band can evolve into a V-8 engine. Of course I can't prove how or why God has worked his plans for the planet, any more than you can prove your THEORY of blind evoution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

The eye is a perfect example of IC. Believing an eye can evolve from a light sensitive patch is akin to believing a rubber band can evolve into a V-8 engine. Of course I can't prove how or why God has worked his plans for the planet, any more than you can prove your THEORY of blind evoution.

Stupid,

Evolution only applies to dynamic systems.

You ignored all the data that prove that the eye did evolve. All you did was repeat the same claim, with no data at all to back it up.

Anybody got a can opener?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The eye is a perfect example of IC.

No it's not. You were given dozens of links to the scholarly works and supporting data that prove that the eye did not just appear from nowhere, which is the claim of irreducible complexity. The claim is that the eye would have no function except sight, therefore its components would have had no functional basis for evolving. The claim is false. We know that the eye evolved from simpler mechanisms. We can see them all the way along the evolutionary chain, and we see their progression very clearly. You can only keep making the statement you're making because you are ignorant of the facts.

Believing an eye can evolve from a light sensitive patch is akin to believing a rubber band can evolve into a V-8 engine.

No it's not. There is no similarity. A rubber band has no living cells and does not reproduce. (Ever seen a baby rubber band?) It carries none of the mechanisms of evolution.

I can't prove how or why God has worked his plans for the planet

No, you can't. You can't prove that it happened at all.

. . . any more than you can prove your THEORY of blind evoution.

You keep saying that but you got your ass kicked on this point two pages ago. And you still don't understand what a theory is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gadfly

The eye is a perfect example of IC. Believing an eye can evolve from a light sensitive patch is akin to believing a rubber band can evolve into a V-8 engine. Of course I can't prove how or why God has worked his plans for the planet, any more than you can prove your THEORY of blind evoution.

That is certainly a pithy saying about rubber bands and V-8s, but you have to back it up. WHY is it so? What exactly makes the possible evolutionary path given earlier false? "I don't understand it" does not make it false. Without specifics, pith sayings are all you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

hahahahahahahahhaha

2SMART4U, YOU ARE SO F**KING STUPID. IT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY.

Another atheist raises his head out of the primordial soup and declares: Mother Nature, don't forget about me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

That is certainly a pithy saying about rubber bands and V-8s, but you have to back it up. WHY is it so? What exactly makes the possible evolutionary path given earlier false? "I don't understand it" does not make it false. Without specifics, pith sayings are all you have.

I do agree with you on one point: "Without specifics, pithy sayings are all you have".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

There aren't any theories about "blind" evolution. What does Jesus say about lying again?

The thing is, we all know that you are too old and close-minded to ever change your mind. I used to be like you-when I was in Junior High. By the time I was in High School I was participating in debates like this online on your side and I realized how weak the position was-which is why I participate now. Not for your good but for anyone else reading this. The people just like you in my church tried to convince me that I had to believe something (ID) that my brain knew was nonsense and that internal conflict nearly led to me leaving the church. Fortunately I had supportive parents and last year when I graduated and started college I discovered that campus churches are already rejecting that foolishness. That is the future-leaving the ideas of the past behind. It is a glorious world that God has given us to discover-why shutter your eyes to it? You can still believe that God set things in motion-I do. Just don't try to pretend that science can prove it. Evolution works without needing intervention from God. I believe that it is because God designed the universe incredibly well. You apparently think that God has to keep fine-tuning His creation.

You contadict yourself. You say "It is a glorious world that God has given us", "You can still believe that God set things in motion-I do". FYI, what you're describing is ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

You contadict yourself. You say "It is a glorious world that God has given us", "You can still believe that God set things in motion-I do". FYI, what you're describing is ID.

Stupid,

You deny the steps that took place along the evolutionary path, which science has proven. That's the difference between you and Gadfly. You claimed, for example, that complex eyes did not evolve from simpler eyes. The data prove that you are wrong.

The very important point that Gadfly is trying to get through your hermetically sealed skull is that you can't just stick your fingers in your ears, yell "LALALA, I'm not listening" and ignore the science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...