hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  33

  Darwin in Context

  by hamilcarr in

  1. social
  2. current

  why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

  many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

  it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming Darwin anniversaries.

  The problem is that a person can have a religious view that is compatible with dawinian evolution only if the religious view (as to biological history) is indistinguishable from atheism's naturalist viewpoint. Any, and all others, (such as straight forward history as recorded Bible, any ID theory, etc, etc.) are directly challenged by neo-darwinism.

  Likewise, neo-darwinism is directly challenged by all the other viewpoints , hense atheists have been afraid of any upcoming alternatives, or even evidence against evolution.

  http://www.creationresearch.org
• 
  15

  The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens

  by portcontrol7 in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.

  most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.

  this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I'd have to agree to an extent with Burn the Ships regarding God is Not Great, although I found it extremely entertaining. Hitchens is a contrarian. If you want a more precise and cutting polemical essays on religion you'd do better to read the Portable Atheist by far. Particularly fun for me was to notice how so many of the arguments made by some of the leading figures in the "new atheism" are really old arguments that have yet to be refuted by the religious, and they are often more eloquently stated in that compendium.

  I'm sorry, but according to the reasoning in the "new atheist" book The God Delusion Christopher Hitchens "almost certainly does not exist".
• 
  11

  The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

  by Homerovah the Almighty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

  don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Here is the precise science that the Creationists support themselves with in their side of the argument and reason.

  Before you post again why don't you read an actual book such as the one referenced earlier.

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
• 
  11

  The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

  by Homerovah the Almighty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

  don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  It really comes down to subjective reasoning on practical evidence without a prejudicial mindset and an open evaluation, something that lacks greatly in this debate.

  Mostly so on the part of the anti-creationists, who openly attempt to censor (by any means necessary)not only any alternative to evolutionary naturalism, but even mere evidence against evolution.
• 
  11

  The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

  by Homerovah the Almighty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

  don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  One thing that can be confirmed and acknowledged is that most religionists/creationists haven't really consumed or studied the science of evolution to any length

  Nor have most professed evolutionists either.

  Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.

  Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.

  Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues. http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
• 
  11

  The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

  by Homerovah the Almighty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

  don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Speaking of "deception", the video says early on that:

  "99.98% of Scientists Accept Evolution." and that "By conservative estimates, there are four times more historians who believe the hollocaust never existed, than there are scientists who reject evolution."

  Yet no references are given. Indeed the closest thing that one finds on the internet for such claims is a brief reference from a 1987 Newsweek article which refers to "one count" of scientists who support creationism. "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz & Mc Daniel 1987, p. 23

  Evolutionists seem to take this "one count" [possibly taken from just the membership of the C.R.S.which alone has around 700 members with advanced degress http://www.creationresearch.org ] of openly acknowledged creationist scientists from this old survey and then by default assign all the other scientists as "believers in evolution". Such a method obviously could grossly over-estimates the percentile of scientists who "accept evolution".

  One noted creationist researcher states that he was "able to, with little difficulty, assemble a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject evolutionary naturalism, most of whom hold a Ph.D. degree in some field of science." he then went on to say: " This is but a small percentage of the estimated 113,000 Darwin skeptics academics and scientists in the United States alone accordingly to a Harvard researcher (Gross and Simmons, 2006)." see (http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html)

  However, even if the number was only 700 scientists are we to then believe that there are conservatively "four times" [2,800 !] more historians who believe the holocaust never existed ?
• 
  11

  The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

  by Homerovah the Almighty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

  don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  It should also be noted that creationists themselves have published articles such as "Arguments we think creationists should not use" (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/) which caution against the use of arguments such as "all mutations are bad" etc. see also "Who's really pushing 'bad science'?" (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891)
• 
  11

  The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

  by Homerovah the Almighty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

  don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  First of all what is wrong with "immorality" and dishonesty to begin with?

  After all according to leading evolutionists evolutionary naturalism provides no objective basis for such things as morality.

  ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ Provine, W.B., Origins Research16(1), p.9, 1994.

  What if being "dishonest" helps a person to reproduce more offspring, then their more honest rivals? After all, according to evolutionists we are merely the result of differential reproduction acting on variance.
• 
  23

  Noah and the flood

  by Iwonder17 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.

  is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?

  also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  And thank you hoobrus, and BA, for your drive by posting.

  And, thank you for yours.

  Touche.

  Seriously though, when you post links to videos or webpages of the Kent Hovind sort, and then
  watch the rebuttal videos showing just how massively (and demonstratively) wrong many of his
  specific claims are, what is your reaction?

  [inkling]

  The only thing I posted was a link to the Creation Research Society.

  http://www.creationresearch.org
• 
  23

  Noah and the flood

  by Iwonder17 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.

  is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?

  also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.creationresearch.org

  And thank you hoobrus, and BA, for your drive by posting.

  And, thank you for yours.