Deputy Dog
It seems he would rather insult us poor, dumb creationists.
Oh, don't blame me for what you bring on yourselves. The people who resisted what was obviously and demonstrably scientific fact and carried on insisting the Earth was at the Centre of the Universe or was flat were stupid, not through any problem with their brain but because they simply weren;t willing to accept change or even examine the evidence against old 'theories' with an open mind.
Why should Creationists who resist equivalently demonstrable scientific fact be different to those who did it in the past? Evolution is a fact, get over it. Either god used natural means to shape 'creation', so it LOOKS like it evolved, or it evolved without any 'help' from god. Science education is so poor, especially the history of science, that few realise Darwin's theory filled a vacuum, as geology had already advanced to a point where it was realised the Earth was far older than any literal interpretation of the Binble would allow. Creationism wasn't even credible BEFORE evolution, that's how obviously wrong it is!
Still won't admit you start with your own presupposition, oh well.
Why do you make yourself look like someone who didn't have the courtesy or wit to read what I wrote?
I effectively say I'll listen to Creationists et.al. acting like the lack of a definative theory of abiogenesis means that there must be a god when they can explain the origin of god without invoking special pleading. Where's the presuppostion? Are you using school-ground tactics of taking a phrase applied to you and throwing it back without any real consideration of its appropriateness? Or being misleading about what I say to make your argument more credible?
It's also rather simplistic to think that life can come from nonlife when you can't define life in the first place.
Man, I took WAY too much drugs at University. I could have sworn that my Biology lecturer started the first lecture with a definition of life that works quite satisfactorily until you get to Prions. Funny how when discussing such topics with Creationists and ID-ots, defintions of 'evolution' and 'life' are where they try and make some ground as they have so little else to play with; like not ONE fact pointing to the existence of a paranormal entity that instigated or shaped the Universe.
So maybe you would like to tell us what you think the reason for the universe is.
A true presuppostionalist; you assume there is a reason; why?
Instead of trying to insult us all the time, why don't you help us dummies understand why they would want to keep this quiet?
Actually, you seem to miss the blithe assumptions of a generally hidiously informed group of people are what is insulting...
Maybe while you're at it, you could help out your friends at The Origin of Life Foundation (who think at least a couple of creationists have good questions), and answer some of the problems.
Ah, okay then... but hang on, every single one of those is an 'argument from ignorance' ... they say "that the Intelligent Design arguments are compelling and must be answered", yet what you've posted are just bland statements of fact (with the exception of Behe who I deal with momentarily) imlying there must be a magic sky man in there somewhere as it's complicated. They are not testable theories or even hypothesis that would indicate ID is true.
"ooooo... how did that happen, it's complicated, godidit"
... is not a scientific argument, it is a logical fallacies.
the seemingly "irreducible complexity" argued by Michael Behe (see suggested readings below)
Sorry DD, the inclusion of Behe and an oft refuted theory of his shows just how little research you have personally done on this isuse, plumping instead for a nice easily digestable website that suits your preconceptions. He's been proven wrong, down to the specific examples he gives. If you had tried you could find falsifiactions of his hypothesis online. I guess you have also missed him admitting under oath in Australia that his definiton of a theory would allow astrology to be taught alongside ID in schools? Do you see why posts like yours get laughed at? Both the above facts are easily found online - but you and other defenders of primative belief systems don;t look long or hard enough to see the leading lights of the ID community are empty vessels, as are their hypothosis. You just look for what you agree with and act like your opinion is as valid as someone who'se explore both sides of the argument.
Doesn't the fact that defenders of Creationism and supporters of ID-otism chiefly use cut and paste to make their argument give you a fricking HINT about how much they personally know?
You have found a website that defends something you want defended, you are impressed by its presentation and can't see the smoke and mirrors as you simply don;t have suffiient backgroun in the biological sciences do do anything other than taking things on faith.
AH... but then isn't that what you want to do? Take things on faith? Go ahead! Have the courage to admit to it; stop pretending there's a scientific basis for what you would LIKE to be true; no one's going to stop you having your own opinion, it's just when you start trying to have your own facts that people shout 'foul'!
ellderwho
I guess the "tongue and cheek" manner of my sentence was lost.
You can't even say, "whoops, typo" can you? First rule of the Creationist supporter; never admit error. How credible is that?
"or, are not qualified to handle the question of how life started."
Who said anyone was? Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated yet, although there are promising leads. That doesn't mean evolution is wrong, or that abiogenesis is impossible.
But you ignore the point your alternative theory doesn't even HAVE promising leads, it's just the same assumption primative cultures made when they couldn't understand something dressed up in new clothes that have no substance whatsoever.
jstalin
Ah, I know that... it's not for them, it's for the people who didn't know either way and can see the Creationists and ID-ots are the ones full of hot air by the way they respond to discussions such as this. I regard ID-ots and Creationists as teaching aids, like an over-head projector or white-board.
Though it does humor me that creationists like to try and say that a lack of evidence for abiogenisis or evolution disprove evolution, a complete and total lack of evidence of theism is perfectly acceptable to them. In addition, their argument that something as complex as life must have a creator falsifies their own argument because a god would be required to have a creator too.
Very clearly put, not that those its directed at generally have the intellectual honesty to see what they do for what it is. They try to rubbish the qualified opinion of 99.9% of the International scientific community and get all sniffy when they're lampooned for their lack of knowledge and arrogance.
