Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Member
- Jan 6, 2005
- 57
- 0
- 0
First, who the fsck is David Nutting? Second, discontinuities or the absence of links of proof do not disprove anything. That is the main reason the theory of evolution is still classified as a theory, not a theorem. You still haven't provided anything that disproves it.Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Here is a more science based response:
.
.
.
So the question remains, can evolution answer these reasons?
I found this pretty entertaining.Originally posted by: Harvey
Google David Nutting, and the only links you'll find for that name and creationsism are to the same religious nutcase sites that promote this fraud for their own reasons.
So today at my school, the "Christian Philosophical Society" - a club headed by a girl I know - had a speaker in. He was Dave Nutting (ahem), who I'd never heard of. He was to give a presentation on "creationism vs. evolution".
I went with a couple of friends. Arriving, there were set out on all the chairs lists of quotations from prominent "evolutionists" - including an out-of-context quotation from Gould making it look like he believed in creation ex nihilo.
It began with the guy putting a newspaper article on the mock-up, from the Denver Post, discussing how the Columbine killers were fervent believers in evolution. "Now I'm not saying all evolutionists believe this," he said, "but under evolution, how do you determine right and wrong?"
On and on he went, blithely misquoting and misconstruing, talking of Lucy and the Piltdown man, the second law of thermodynamics and intelligent design, repeatedly putting pictures of unpleasant-looking beasts up and saying, "Evolutionists say this is your granddaddy." Repeatedly, he said "evolutionists wear rose-colored glasses."
It ended, and he began to field questions. The first was from a girl, near tears saying that she was shocked and disgusted by his having compared believers in evolution to Harris and Klebold. "Well," he said, "I didn't actually say that, I'm just telling you what the story said."
Other people - two different people, actually - asked why, even if he could prove that evolution wasn't true, why they should buy creationism. He said that "the absence of one proves the presence of the other," and inserted Pascal's wager as a back-up device.
Finally he called on me. I asked about Duane Gish, who he'd cited several times...I said something to the effect of, "ICR members are required to sign a pledge saying they'll lose their jobs if they don't subscribe to the bible as literal truth - now who did you say is wearing the rose-coloured glasses?" He told an anecdote about how he'd been fired from a university for teaching creationism. Well, I'd like to hear the rest of the story from the administrators, I thought privately, but I couldn't stay much longer, so I just said "That was one college - doesn't mean it happens at others, or that it's widespread."
I did, however, appreciate the fact that everybody who asked a question criticized some questionable aspect of his presentation. The presentation, I heard from a friend, was more or less seen as a joke in the science department; all I can say is that I hope the teachers got around to asking questions after I left.
Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
As for this evolutionary creationism, please explain more, you have peaked my interest.
Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
As for this evolutionary creationism, please explain more, you have peaked my interest.
Originally posted by: kage69
It all comes down to the typical creationist approach. Start at the conclusion, and work backwards to justify it. Hilarious. :laugh:
Originally posted by: illustri
umm, rip Flew didn't endorse creationism
Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
for a system of belief, known as evolution
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: illustri
umm, rip Flew didn't endorse creationism
"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. "
Link
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Atheist Becomes Theist- Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew
Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.
According to Flew, he has gone where the evidence leads.
HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Atheist Becomes Theist- Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew
Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.
According to Flew, he has gone where the evidence leads.
"He has gone where the evidence leads" you say... I say bullshit. Look at an interview question:
HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
WTF does that mean? I think it means "let's see how impressive and scientific we can make this interview look to the average Joe, who has no idea what 'teleology' means.." Now let's look at the answer:
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Sooo...up until the last sentence, the only meaning that can be derived is that Darwin knew he didn't have all the answers when he published his findings. So what? That's what science is about, making observations and performing experimentation, and to make tangible sense of what you're observing. And the last sentence hints at why this guy changed from an Athiest to a Deist (NOT A CREATIONIST), but essentially goes nowhere, because he doesn't go into any detail.
In other words, HE DOESN'T TELL YOU what this supposed "evidence" is, that leads him in his thinking.
Sorry, Riprorin, you'll have to do better than that.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Go Wildcats?Originally posted by: ELP
It's in Kentucky. What can I say...
Originally posted by: cobalt
Museum of Creation
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."
Couple of notes that struck me on that. If you can prove in your own mind God's existence by simply denying the negative, your reasoning for faith is simply pascal's wager...which is not true belief.Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
To me, Gods' existence can be proved with one question. If he doesn't exist, what is the point to living? If you're into science, you believe everything has a reason that it's the way it is, right?
If you look at this, it seems like I'm the only, believer in an intelligent being around here. My logic in God is fullproof, but I still don't see the logic in atheism and why everyone who doesn't believe that is automatically a cook, which is the feeling I'm getting from the idiot. I still can't believe someone who names themselves the idiot insulted me.