Is Atheism the Belief that Species Appeared Spontaneously?
Monday May 26, 2008
I've seen many different sorts of misrepresentations of science, evolution, and atheism from religious conservatives, but Yomin Postelnik's description is in a class by itself. Postelnik is the first and only person I've ever seen claim that scientists in the past century - or indeed of any century - 'came up' with atheism. No one with even a superficial familiarity with atheism could fail to know that atheism existed before 1900 and has been defended by more than just scientists.
Read Article: Is Atheism the Belief that Species Appeared Spontaneously?
Comments
That is an amazing column by Postelnik. Like so many, many others, he accuses liberals of the things liberals accuse conservatives of doing. Then he tries to cover all the bases by stating that liberals will try to turn his accusations around. It’s doublethink.
Also, at the end, he says that liberals will nitpick some little thing and miss the whole point of the column.
I’ll try to find out if he is really interested in logic and reason, heh, heh.
I’d like to challenge both of you to scientific debate on open forum. Austin, your distortions are profound, but that column only points to the problem without much discussion of the issues. Lets debate the science. Interesting that the one part of the column that dealt with the argument itself, the proof of the existence of an intelligent Creator, is something you had nothing to say about.
Also, I didn’t claim that atheism was “invented in the past century” and it’s as clear as day that I was talking about modern liberalism and its worship of Darwinian scientists (or whatever movement it can find to support its beliefs). I guess you need to distort my article because you can’t find an adequate rebuttal. I wish to have more fun with you on open forum. Are you ready?
Is there any reason to think that debating you wouldn’t be a waste of time?
And yet none appear to have been worth mentioning.
For it to not be a waste of time, you’d have to know something about the relevant science.
Well, there was not substantive proof of anything at all, so therefore there was nothing to respond to.
Really? Your exact words were that it was the scientist “who came up with atheism,” and the context was scientists “of the past century.” There’s no reason to think that the scientists “who came up with atheism” were scientists from a pervious century.
No, that’s not clear at all. You are quite specific in saying that scientists “came up with atheism,” period. The most you can claim is that you mean to refer to scientists from some pervious century, but that would be a stretch.
Quoting you saying that scientists “came up with atheism” and objecting that this is a falsehood recognizable to anyone with even a superficial familiarity with atheism is not a distortion of your article. If your method of debate is to say something outrageously false and then turn around to deny that you said it, then it’s impossible that a debate with you wouldn’t be a waste of time.
Ah, so you aren’t interested in a serious debate, just to “have … fun.” Sound more like a request to engage in trolling, not debate. I doubt you’d be able to explain how that wouldn’t be a waste of time.
Paul might be interested, I don’t know, but I have better things to do than “debate” someone who just wants to troll with falsehoods about science, evolution, and atheism. Come back to me when you can demonstrate that you at least know what the definitions of those words are and maybe I’ll think about it. I will not, however, bother “debating” someone who thinks it is intellectual respectable and honest to write a column attacking concepts he can’t define correctly.
Austin,
All you’ve done is lie and distort the column and you’re now running away from a chance to debate because you have little to offer.
First you take an article that has little to do with the case against atheism and portray it as an article about atheism, while it only mentions it in passing. The greater context is the root cause of liberal tactics (which you’ve made a case for with your actions, but I’ll explain that below). If you wanted to debate the actual subject of atheism, I’d have much to offer.
Yet, the one logical argument I did bring against atheism in the column (as a side note) is something you refused to touch, other than offering the bland statement that you need more space than the column takes up to attack a single piece of it. Yet when challenged to provide any logic, you run away!
Then you take my comment that liberals have an illogical and unwavering commitment to their cause that leads them to act as racists do toward their object of prejudice, to mean “[atheists are] racists.” In other words, all you offer are spins and distortions. Likewise with your spin that I claimed that atheists are an advent of the last hundred years, but I called you on that already.
Now you refuse to debate, using semantics as an excuse. I have a file larger than you would ever wish to see. However, when invited to discuss facts, logic and reason all you do is run.
PS Paul hasn’t contacted me either, in spite of his “I’ll try to find out if he is really interested in logic and reason, heh, heh.”
Are spin and distortions all you guys offer? A sad way to philosophize…..
Postelnik, to me and probably to the majority of sane people it really is just you who is lying. You may think your words are impressive, but the only thing that really impresses is your dishonesty, arrogance and stupidity for not acknowledging your wrongs.
“Then you take my comment that liberals have an illogical and unwavering commitment to their cause that leads them to act as racists do toward their object of prejudice, to mean “[atheists are] racists.”
He never actually says that in the article.
Besides, Yomin Postelnik, your “logical argument against atheism” is unconvincing. You cite only two examples (oxygen and food) before claiming that the Earth’s formation requires billions of coincidences, then assume that there’s no possible answer besides a god.
Feel free to provide evidence supporting this accusation.
First I’d have to have a good reason to even consider the possibility of a debate before I can be accused of running away from a debate. I currently have no interest in taking a trip to Brazil, but it saying so a sign that I’m running away from travel to Brazil? Of course not, that’s absurd.
No, I never say or even suggest that the article is about atheism. In fact, I state at the beginning what the overall topic of your column is. I simply address all the obvious errors you make about atheism. The fact that you commit so many basic errors of fact and logic while lambasting liberals for ignoring facts and logic simply makes it more curious.
That there was an argument against atheism is incorrect. You can’t even define atheism correctly, so how can you be expected to construct an argument against it?
I never say any such thing. I never mention race or racism.
Let’s see… I quote your false definition of atheism, and you accuse me of distorting your view. I tell readers what the topic of your essay is before I turn my attention to one particular facet of it then you accuse me of giving a false portrayal of what the article is about. Then you accuse me of saying that you accuse of atheists of racists when I never wrote any such thing and according to you, I’m guilty of distortions.
How exactly does that work, because I can’t follow a clear path through that.
Your unambiguous claim is that it was “the scientist” who “came up with atheism.” It seems clear to me that the only scientists under discussion are those of “the past century.” Feel free to explain how your words can reasonably be interpreted to have a meaning other than what I have attributed to them.
A person’s inability to define and understand basic definitions isn’t a question of semantics. If you do not or cannot understand the basic terms that are at issue in a debate, then there is no argument you can offer that will be true and no argument that anyone (not just I) can offer that you will be able to rebut.
So long as you cannot correctly define the key terms, no invitation you offer can be an invitation to discuss facts, logic, and reason.
When you can identify actual ’spin and distortion’ in my article, please do so. Try to provide direct quotes of material I have actually written in order to back up claims.
“That there was an argument against atheism is merely a figment of your imagination. You can’t even define atheism correctly, so how can you be expected to construct a coherent argument against it?”
I think Postelnik is reffering to this:
“When faced with the fact that were all aspects of the world to have miraculously joined forces, leaving out just one component in a million, that being oxygen, life would have never taken root. And were a world, even one with oxygen, to have been created without food, life would have lasted a few days and then died out. The miraculous ability to adapt did not come from nowhere and the world wasn’t an accident any more than the pages of an encyclopedia set can be formed from a random ink spill (except that a randomly formed encyclopedia set would only take hundreds of thousands of simultaneous coincidences, while the creation of just this planet alone would take many billions, and of a much higher quality).”
Still running from debate?
The column only referrenced atheism in passing yet the proof it does bring was enough to get you to write a whole page misconstruing it and you still have yet to provide any coherent response to it because you can’t, and that’s just one argument made in passing in a column not meant to discuss atheism.
When challenged to actually debate atheism you run from debate with a whole load of excuses (I don’t know what atheism is because I didn’t discuss its details in a column that had little to do with it, I said atheism is only 100 years old even though I never did and that statement’s ridiculous, etc.)
You and your fellow ilk here must be really scared to debate the truth.
You atheists just proved yourselves to be liars and buffoons. I know atheists who are a lot smarter than you but in the end they believe in the same nonsense. We see your tricks for what they are. Anyone who doesn’t should just read through all this.
Really?? You didn’t say that he said you’re racists?? “According to Postelnik, liberals are bigots.” He said you act like bigots. Not the way you wrote. But all you can is twist his words. You should work for CNN.
Oh, I know what he was referring to. He starts out by assuming the existence of miracles and then proceeds to conclude that there exists some sort of god, but that’s not an argument. It’s simply circular reasoning: a miracle occurred, therefore a miracle-creating being exists.
This sort of passive-aggressive tactic won’t work here. There’s nothing to run from, as far as I can tell.
There was no “proof,” and the passage you think qualifies as a “proof” wasn’t even worth addressing. I focused on your failure to define or represent key concepts correctly even while attacking others for their alleged failure to adhere to basic standards of logic and facts.
There can be no “debate” about atheism with a person who knows so little that they can’t define it correctly.
That didn’t stop you from offering a definition of it in your column.
Regardless, you now admit that you want to debate something which you don’t know anything about. Please explain to me why I should want to debate atheism with a person who knows nothing about atheism. Please explain why I shouldn’t insist that you educate yourself about what atheism is before I even consider the possibility of a debate.
Feel free to show how.
Tricks? Feel free to point to one.
Please quote where he merely says that they act like bigots.
I’ll quote where he explicitly calls liberals bigots:
There are also numerous times where the accusation is less direct, but clearly implied. They all follow the same format as the title line: “Liberal bigots, biased mindsets.” Note that he doesn’t refer to “liberals acting like bigots,” just “liberal bigots.”
Now, all that aside, how does your claim — even if true — support Postelnik’s accusation? Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that all the direct accusations that liberals are bigots didn’t exist and I simply misread him. Let’s assume that he only made the much more careful claim that some liberals act like bigots, but I made a serious error in misrepresenting that.
How would that qualify as saying that he said that atheists are racists? First, “liberals” and “atheists” are not the same. If I misrepresent what he says about liberals, that’s not the same as misrepresenting what he says about atheists. Second, “bigot” is not the same as “racist” — racism is a special subset of bigotry. If I mistakenly say he accuses liberals of being bigots, that’s not the same as mistakenly saying that he accuses liberals of being racists (much less saying that he accuses atheists of being racists, as per point #1).
I think that I’ve demonstrated that I haven’t twisted his words in the manner you claim. Even worse, if the claim you are making is what Postelnik was thinking, then I think he’s the one twisting words. I have trouble believing that a person can honestly mistake “he wrongly accuses Postelnik of saying liberals are bigots” for “he wrongly accuses Postelnik of saying atheists are racists.”
I’m not referring to miracles, I’m referring to the act of Creation. That’s clear. But keep twisting, spinning and so forth. I offered you a chance to debate and you’re running from it.
Austin,
I’m going to buy you a Hooked on Phonics set for atheist new years. That way when I say that all you say is that you won’t debate me because I supposedly “don’t know anything about atheism,” you won’t take it as an admission to same.
Is twisting words all you can do? I’m making a fool out of myself even speaking with someone who engages in such childish spinning. I guess you’re really bothered by the one proof in the column that you still have no answer for “because there’s no need to answer it,” (just a need to write thousands of words of spin to get around it.
Anyway, if you actually want to debate atheism, which again, was not the subject of the column, I’ll be happy to educate you. That way you can talk substance and stop spinning. It should be a new experience for you.
Looks Austin’s like he’s kicking your arse in this here debate right now.
Actually, Austin is kicking your arse in this debate right now.
Feel free to point out where I have done so. While you’re at it, perhaps you can explain why you think debating atheism with a person who doesn’t even know what it is would be a valuable use of my time. This would be a more substantive and serious response than the passive-aggressive tactic of accusing someone of “running” from a “debate” for which no good reason to participate has even been offered.
Unless I have a reason to participate, no “running” is going on.
Sorry, but no such proof appears in your column.
Educate me on what… a concept you admit you don’t know the definition of?
You’re the one who tried to construct something like an argument on the back of statements about “miracles.”
On account of you ain’t provided no evidence to back up your positions that Austin has presented nothing but ’spin’, and you ain’t made no attempt to clarify your understanding of the definition of Atheism.
Jinx!
Funny that Postelnik keeps accusing Austin of “dodging debate” when he has yet to make any real response to anything Austin has said. He keeps on throwing accusations of “spin” and “twisting words” yet makes no quotations supporting his claim. Ad hominem ahoy!
Yomin Postelnik–
“I’d like to challenge both of you to scientific debate on open forum.”
Yes. Some Christians may be able to argue and debate over scientific subjects. However, it is obvious that you cannot.
If you’re one of the more dogmatic Christians who uses your bible as a reference book rather than a parable you may go so far with your as to argue against and even ignore what’s now considered to be hard science.
What’s the point to studying geology as a dogmatic Christian?
You obviously can’t study it if you’re one of the dogmatic Christians I know of who still computes the age of the earth from the creation date of Adam and Eve– even if its been proven that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
Why dispute proven things?
I just went through this, reading it with an open mind. Cline does spin and twist the meaning of his words and it’s interesting that after accusing Postelnik of knowing nothing about atheism, he repeatedly refuses to hold a serious debate. And yes, his spin is rather childish, though not as much as that of his supporters.
Postelnik seems to have offered a chance to debate science and the Cline, who opened the discussion and his first supporter, who all but challenged Postelnik to debate, seem no where to be found.
I’m not taking sides on this issue but it seems that all Cline’s supporters have to offer is conjecture. That said, this whole board seems rather testy and ready to explode.
What really strikes me is how Cline (C) keeps putting words into P’s mouth. P says that C accuses him of not knowing what atheism is. C turns that into P saying that he himself doesn’t know the definition of atheism. That’s just one example. It’s really quite sick and I’d generally side with the scientist.
To: Yomin Postelnik
This is Paul Buchman. I’m not unwilling to debate. It’s just that I’ve been a little busy until now.
I’m not a dogmatic liberal and I am willing to discuss issues of importance. For example, global warming. In your column that Austin wrote about, you wrote:
I’ve been searching the web for corroboration for your statements that global temps. have been cooling since 1998 and that 3 or 4 ice caps are solidifying. So far I have found none. Would you please tell me your sources for that info.?
The sources I found all say that global temps. are rising, that the 2 polar ice caps are melting and that other glaciers (such as Greenland) are also melting. My sources are Fox News, Wikipedia, the US EPA, and the Washington Post.
Would you please identify the ice caps that are solidifying? I am unable to find any info about them other than your column.
Thank you for being willing to discuss the science of this issue.
That’s a serious accusation. Can you support it?
Do you see any evidence that he knows anything about atheism?
You act as though this is an offer that is generous. Why? Is there some reason to think that debating Postelnik about atheism or science is a valuable use of time?
You mean, aside from actually knowing how the key concepts are defined?
For example?
No, Postelnik quite clearly said he didn’t know what atheism is. Since he gave a false definition of atheism, everyone knows he doesn’t understand what atheism is.
Well, Postelnik isn’t a scientist.
I can tell you what Postelnik is. Postelnik is someone who thinks it is clever to post under multiple names. Sometimes he posts under his real name, “Yomin Postelnik.” Sometimes he posts under an assumed name, like “Analytic Thinker.”
Is it really a valuable use of my time to “debate” a person who not only doesn’t understand the definitions of key concepts, but who also posts under multiple names in order to give the impression that they have “impartial” support from people with an “open mind”? I don’t think so. I frankly see little value in debates in the first place - they tend to emphasize presentation, rhetoric, and sound bites over sober reason, analysis, and logic (in my opinion, at any rate).
If I’m to debate someone, I need a very good reason to do so. A person who demonstrates no understanding of the most basic key concepts is not giving me a reason by simply resorting to passive-aggressive taunting. That’s just providing more reasons not to debate. Posting under different names… well, if I needed a reason not to trust the person demanding a debate, that would provide me with one, wouldn’t it?
Wow!
Austin took an article that only mentioned atheism in passing and concluded from that that Yomin knows nothing about atheism.
Austin then says that Yomin’s only point about atheism in that piece isn’t a point but refuses to say why and runs like a chicken from debate.
Now Austin’s minions want Yomin to debate whether on not Austin spinned Yomin’s words or not and one guy wants to debate global warming instead of atheism. Anything not to debate atheism! Wow.
You’re right Yomin - They are like bigots. Kind of makes you wonder what they fear.
Postelnik multiple usernames - it’s on the forum you paranoid idiot. Maybe you need some prozac. We can help you with your mental needs just like we help him with his debate manning needs.
I’m sorry, I have no idea what “forum” you are talking about, but it doesn’t matter. Postelnik posted under a new name referring to himself in the third person. It’s clear that he was trying to pretend to be someone new.
No, it was discussed more than that. Pretending otherwise doesn’t minimize the obvious and massive errors.
No, I conclude it from his false definition of atheism and failure to make a single correct statement about it.
I don’t have any “minions” and I haven’t seen anyone express an interest in what you describe. Why are you unable to make a single correct statement about the situation?
What is there in the above that is “like” bigotry? Why do you keep pretending that Postelnik said anyone was “like” a bigot when I have demonstrated he made more direct accusations? And why do you feel the need to inject personal attacks into every comment? Why, you’re behavior reminds me of… Yomin Postelnik!
Austin:
First of all, I’d like to ask you to stop lying and spinning. I wonder what you hope to accomplish. When you mentioned above that I said I don’t know anything about atheism, I offered to buy you Hooked on Phonics. What I said was as clear as day; that you refuse to debate on several nonsensical pretexts such as “I don’t know anything about atheism” and several others all listed in parenthesis. It was highlighting your nonsense, not agreeing to it. But of course, you know that and are just playing games.
Instead you’re trying to drag this into a nonsensical he says she says
While this shows your profound lack of character and gross intellectual dishonesty, it also shows the weakness of your viewpoint.
Of course, that too is nothing new. Had you indeed agreed to debate, a gracious offer I extended even after you falsely portrayed my column as dealing primarily with atheism (It wasn’t. Hence, the reason it doesn’t get into an indepth discussion on the fallacies of atheist philosophy) and then continued to play one of the most childish games of “spin the phrase” I’ve ever encountered.
The reason, in fact, why you’ll do anything and everything to avoid debating atheism is simple. Even the one proof brought in the column is something you won’t touch with a ten foot pole. In the end, all the points atheist philosophy brings up, which contrary to your assertions I’m intimately familiar with, fall apart at the fact that randomness cannot create a universe with near infinite numbers of species, many of which are interdependent. You, of course, would site the primordial swamp theory, and I would show you that for all those events and creations to happen one after the other in perfect order, starting from randomness, is even more illogical.
But that’s what atheism is. Sandcastles built on illogic. Intricately developed fallacies that, though nicely packaged, fall apart at the prick of a needle like a balloon. To avoid having the foolishness of your philosophy exposed, you must do anything to avoid debate and in that you have succeeded.
By the way, don’t accuse me of multiple personality postings. I guess that’s what you do with some of the more cartoonish cheering above, Mr. Smith and lynx.
PAUL:
I offered to debate the existence of an intelligent Creator, not everything and anything under the sun. That said, I find it quite amusing that in all of your internet searching about a period of global cooling starting in 1998, you failed to simply type GLOBAL COOLING 1998 into google!
If you’re really interested in global warming I have 200 links I can send you, on condition you post 5 of them to this ridiculous board. Just email me for them, ypostelnik at gmail. You seem to care about global warming and have time for such things, just not debating atheism, so I’ll be glad to forward you the links. In the meantime here’s something to chew on http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html
I’d ask you to point to where I have done so, but I’ve suggested that before without successful results.
If you think it is nonsensical to see no value in debating someone on a subject when they can’t even define the key terms, please do explain why.
If you think it shows a lack of character, intellectual dishonesty, and weakness in my position to see no value in debating someone on a subject when they can’t even define the key terms, please do explain why.
Feel free to quote me where I portrayed your column as dealing primarily with atheism.
Oh, and you might want to go back to when you first issues a challenge to debate (do note that you used the word “challenge,” not “offer” — those words mean different things). I asked you right then “Is there any reason to think that debating you wouldn’t be a waste of time?” You never answered.
You haven’t given anyone a reason to debate you; instead, you act like debating you is something others should be falling all over themselves to do, such that not doing it is what requires some sort of sinister explanation (like fear). This has the situation exactly backwards, because what you should be doing is explaining why anyone should give such a debate a second thought, much less serious consideration. In the absence of such reasons, it’s hardly surprising that you aren’t inundated with positive responses to your “challenge.”
Feel free to explain how anything in your column qualifies as a “proof.”
Well, it’s that or you’re letting someone use your computer — someone who tries to pretend that they are coming to this with an “open mind” and as an independent voice. Frankly, I find that far less likely than you using a different name.
Yomin,
Thanks for the link to Gateway Pundit. And thanks for clarifying your debate offer.
So, let’s talk about an “intelligent creator.” I’ll abbreviate it “IC” to make typing easier. Do you base your belief in an IC on the complexity of life?
I accept the evolutionist explanation for biological diversity, i.e., speciation, however, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life on this planet. So I need to know whether you are limiting the discussion to the origin of all life on earth, or whether you wish to include the diversity of species which we observe in our discussion.
I accept the evolutionist explanation for several reasons. One is the fossil record. Two is the distribution of genes in animal DNA. (BTW, did you see the recent articles about the sequencing of the platypus genome? It looks to me like the platypus is a living “transitional” species.)
pb
Great!
Paul, Glad to see not everyone’s like Austin. So closed.
We can talk about evolution as well. But the main point is the existence of an intelligent Creator. Specification is just one aspect, but it’s a leading one. If we say that order formed out of a primordial pool, without intelligent guidance, we’re saying that randomness begot intricate specificity, to the tune of billions upon billions of species, the existence of many being are interdependent. The difference between sudden random creation and evolved devolpment, in essence, would be whether a full set of Encyclopedia Britannicas was formed suddenly with the accidental spill of one massive ink blot or whether spilled ink first started out as dots, then gradually formed as letters and then words, paragraphs, etc. all without intelligent guidance. The latter possibility is even more illogical than the first. And it would be far, far easier for such an encyclopedia set to come about than a universe in which numerous stars and planets must be aligned enough so as not to collide, in which species need food, water, air, sunshine and other elements to survive and just happen to have all of them (if life adapts to the conditions that are prevalent it would have never been able to get off the ground, and many in cold parts could survive on merely snow, etc. - more on that later if you want), and in which each species has the exact organs and cavities that are necessary for life, with even one missing, added or in the wrong place making life unsustainable.
Also, please realize that despite Austin’s worry of multiple Yomins (he denies the existence of One Creator but believes in many Yomins and maybe many Austins), it may take 24 hrs, sometimes 48 between responses. Those are the constraints of a kid and business, and are worth it.
By the way, the platypus genome is similar similar to other so-called “transitional” fossil, the Archaeopteryx. That one had fully developed feathers and nothing transitional in nature. A transitional fossil would have half scales and half feathers, etc. What we have instead is a species that’s not uniquely mammal or amphibian, but it’s not transitional.
By the way, feel free to email me for the global warming links. The 1998 study got a lot of coverage on the BBC in 2006 and wasn’t mentioned again in the media for another year, but there are many links to it. That’s just the tip of the iceberg (lousy pun intended).
Yomin,
I think your idea of an IC is based on reasoning (correct me if I’m wrong): life is so fantastically complex, an IC is the only thing we know of that could have caused it. That’s a reason, but I don’t accept it as fact.
I do not think that life was caused by an intelligent creator. I have seen no evidence to support that idea so I have no good reason to believe it. I haven’t seen good evidence for other explanations either. I think the origin of life is a mystery, which may be solved in the future. In the meantime, I am content to let it remain a mystery.
You’ve probably heard this before but I’ll repeat it anyway. If life on earth was created by some being, what caused the creator? If that is a mystery, then a creator being is unnecessary. You are just moving the mystery “back” one level. If you think the creator always existed, I have to ask: how do you come by this knowledge? As far as I can tell, there is no way to know the nature of such a creator.
pb
Hi Paul,
I agree with you that the Creator can’t be physical and to my knowledge no religion believes in a physical Creator, rather, one that is higher than physicality. All I’m saying is that physicality itself points to the fact that there is an Intelligent Creator, above the physical realm. What that Creator is remains a partial mystery, in as much as we only understand the physical and have an idea of the spiritual and the Creator needs to be higher than both (as physicality cannot emanate from spirituality - more on that later). But one thing is clear. The only way that an orderly universe with some many complex creatures, inter-reliant on each other, can exist is through the act of a conscious Creator. A plane can’t build itself, and if it did so piece by piece that would be even more fantastic, much less a whole universe. To look for the answers as to more about this Creator, we need to analyze which texts have a logical source and tradition, and make sense. That’s a different subject, but one we should discuss. But that can only be looked at after analyzing the Universe and recognizing that such a vast physicality mandates a conscious Creator.
Paul,
Please. Stop. You are embarrasing yourself. You have entered into a debate with someone who has made the goofy claim - not just once, but repeatedly - that there must be a god because life on earth could not exist without food. (Actual quote, “And were a world, even one with oxygen, to have been created without food, life would have lasted a few days and then died out.”)
It’s like you are debating with a pre-schooler who claims chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
Save yourself.
Wow this thread’s changed! Actually dingbat, his point was that everything in the world can’t just miraculously appear by itself. Sounds pretty straight to me. But what do I know. I’m not a clown.
This thread’s so interesting. First Austin trashes Yomin, anmd writes a whole piece trashing him saying he can’t debate and doesn’t know what atheism is. Then somebody debates him and he shows that he does know what he’s talking about. This causes all the clowns to run and hid, especially Austin. He can’t say he was wrong to trash the guy and say he doesn’t know anything. He can only run and hide. Happy camping idiots.
Yomin, how come you’re not calling them on the floor for this????
Hi Yomin,
I think that it’s a bit premature to talk about the whole universe. The only life we have knowledge about is based on earth, so I will address that.
Yes, life is unimaginably complex. However, I think that scientists, such as biologists and paleontologists, have provided us with reasonable answers to the complexity of life on earth with the the law of evolution. That law also provides good reasons for the facts that lifeforms on earth are highly adapted to their environments and are interdependent with each other. Because those reasons are based on verifiable evidence, I prefer them to those based on an Intelligent Creator.
As to how life originated on earth, it’s possible that it’s the result of intelligent creation, but IC does not exhaust the possibilities. So, I need a good reason to prefer the IC solution to any of the others. If I said that life came about accidentally, by a fortuitous combination of natural events, you would rightly want me to give you a reason that made sense to you.
Furthermore, if the complexity of life requires an explanation for its origin, I think that an IC would also require an explanation for its origin. The IC you refer to must be complex because you said that it transcends both the physical AND the spiritual.
Paul
There is nothing in my article about Postelnik being able to debate.
Talking to yourself like this isn’t helping your case.
First of all, to you others, on both sides, if you don’t want to participate in the substance of the discussion, then by all means, don’t. We don’t need sidebars for show.
Paul and I probably don’t agree on a single major issue. But I respect and commend his intellectual honesty, intelligence and forthrightness, whether we agree or not. The rest of you, who first used some of the most childish taunts and are now trying to shut down discussion because it’s challenging your views have proven the premise of my original article, that had almost nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the tactics of SOME liberals and the root cause of same.
As to John’s attempt to shutdown debate that doesn’t conform to his views: Yes, the fact that there’s a Creator is seen more readily in the minute details than even in the larger picture is a valid point and one that needs to be considered. The fact that were the world missing even the smallest detail life would be unsustainable shows intelligent Creation. So does the immensity of other beings, but the minute details possibly demonstrate this more (as the universe is detailed down to the last point). Beings can’t readily adapt to any conditions, showing the impossibility of life without common sustenance (i.e. food(. Those ways that beings can adapt are minor and also show the intelligence of the Creator.
AUSTIN, I’m sorry that you have no decency to admit to your lies, twists and distortions that are clear as day to anyone who reads these threads. Your tactics of using an article that only mentioned atheism in passing to say that I know nothing about atheism and then your running from a challenge to debate are seen for what they are, the need to run from anything that challenges your narrow minded and dogmatic views, something you accuse the other side of. At least do everyone a favor and stop your nonsense about multiple posts. It’s getting annoying, which I guess is your sole intent.
To ACC - While I agree with your take on these posts, what would be the point of challenging them? Anything else is getting bogged down in nonsense and avoiding the main issue, which is what Austin and John want to happen. In the meantime one person has the intellectual honesty to debate and that’s all that’s needed.
You repeat this allegations regularly, but you never even try to provide any substance to them.
Actually, you did more than mention it in passing, but even if you that wouldn’t excuse or justify so horribly mis-defining and misrepresenting it. Regularly insisting that you only “mentioned atheism in passing” does not address the substance of any of my criticisms.
I’d first need a reason to debate before it would even be possible to run from it.
I’ll stop pointing out you posting under multiple names when you actually stop doing it. I would not be doing readers any favors if I failed to inform them about this. They don’t have access to the log information; I do.
You agree with yourself? Wow, what a surprise.
Intellectual honesty in debate would require, at a minimum and among other things, supporting one’s claims and not posting under multiple names. You’re wrong that there’s just one person here with that; in fact there is just one without it. You’re also wrong that only one is needed to debate; in fact you need at least two people with that in order to have a serious and productive debate.
Now back to substance.
Hi Paul,
I agree that we have to look from the bottom up, so to speak. We live and understand this physical world and know much of the physical universe. But by looking at the numerous interactions needed to form physical existence as we know it, we can come to certain logical conclusions.
Evolution is a poor answer to creation. Even if we were to take it for granted as fact, it would only further show proof of a creator as orderly progress, down to the most minute detail, would need to be intelligently orchestrated. Going back to the analogy of an Encyclopedia Britannica being formed from an ink blot, if it commenced formation as a dot and then expanded in perfect order to form a complete set of thoughts, that would be greater proof of its intelligent design than even a sudden formation of the entire set. And that’s only an encyclopedia, a collection of thoughts. Actual creation is far more complex, down to the last being. The life of one small mammal takes more simultaneous reactions and interdependent happenings than it takes to form an entire bookshelf of words. Looking at this physicality necessitates an intelligent Creator.
So in short, by considering just physical existence, no matter how it was formed, we see a need for a conscious Creator, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself, even in steps.
But evolution’s not a fact. It’s a theory. And it’s one that mandates that life started from non-life, which is unattainable. The lack of transitional fossils also needs to be looked at, but even the scarcity of fossils that are considered evolutionary (though admittedly non-transitional as they aren’t a combination/transition between two species) points to a huge problem. There’s an overabundance of fossils of species known to us, dating throughout all timelines. By contrast, those cited as possible evolutionary fossils are scarce, decayed and inconclusive. If evolution showed the development of numerous species such fossils would be plentiful and many would be conclusive. The problem gets worse when examining hominids, as of the 12 known types, 9 have only monkey/ape characteristics and 3 have solely human ones. None contain features known to be uniquely human as well as uniquely ape in conjunction, as would be the case were evolution to play a role.
Regarding knowledge of the Creator, as we do live on this physical plane, we can only know a certain amount, perceiving a little bit about the Creator through the Creator’s own acts. Even our understanding of spirituality is limited to how it connects with physical beings. Knowledge of purely spiritual existence is beyond us. We only see that it exists because it’s the animating force of physicality. That’s with regard to spirituality. The Creator is necessarily above being spiritual, as spirituality cannot create physicality. Therefore we’re talking about a being that’s higher than both, and that creates both physicality and spirituality and is able to combine the two. Obviously, such a being is out of the realm of understanding. However, there are ways we can understand something about its essence, that being through its acts. As the intelligent and purposeful creator of life (as existence demands an intelligent designer), we see its immense kindness. Through the way the world works, we see measured severity, needed for continuous harmonious existence and delving further we can see other attributes as well. This allows us, after much contemplation, to understand something about the nature of the Creator. But the fact that there is a Creator seems pretty open and shut from the immensity of physical existence as well as by considering the completeness of the entire creation, down to the smallest detail needed for life to exist.
Austin,
Do you really think people can’t read? No one sees what you wrote about me “knowing nothing about atheism, can’t even define it, knowing no science or logic, etc.” Do you think people are so dumb so as not to see your refusal to debate and compare it to your obsession with trying to use every tactic to distort and skew everything I say (which is clear to anyone who can read), and to say anything and everything to accuse me of impropriety. That kind of foolishness is what you have an interest in. Debating facts and reason is something you don’t.
You believe in no gods and in multiple Yomins. Interesting…. You can’t debate so you really need to grasp at straws. It’s really ridiculous and no, I’m not using multiple usernames. Alright JSmith/lynx/Austin….?
I hope they see it. Anyone who defines atheism so poorly as you can’t know anything about it.
Yes, just as they see your refusal to provide any reason to even consider debating.
From what I can see in the logs, no gods have signed in to post. You have, though, and under more than one name.
Yomin,
In the scientific community evolution has the same status as the theory of gravity. There is no controversy. It’s a law.
The law of evolution says nothing about life starting from non-life.
Consider the following physical features of the platypus.
Bird-like: duck bill, webbed feet, egg laying, toothless, one orifice for excretion / sex / egg laying.
Reptile-like: leathery eggshells, venom, multiple sex chromosomes, testes kept internally.
Mammal-like: milk producing (but no nipples), fur, beaver tail, 4-chambered heart, mammalian jaw hinge, middle-ear bones separated from lower jaw, digs ground burrows and has sensitive hearing although it spends most of its time in the water where these features are nearly useless.
This improbable combination of physical characteristics is now joined by an equally improbable combination of genes. The newly sequenced platypus genome includes some genes which are found only in birds, some found only in reptiles, and some found only in mammals.
The platypus is a living transitional form.
If life’s DNA code were designed intelligently, it would be different than it is. It is easy to see ways to improve it.
Consider:
There are 64 possible 3-letter words using the 4-letter alphabet of the DNA genetic code. Each word represents an amino acid from which proteins are constructed within the body. Because the proteins of life are made from only 20 amino acids, only 22 words are needed (taking into account one word for “start” and another for “stop.”
In fact, DNA uses all 64 combinations, including 43 for synonyms. This 64-word vocabulary of DNA appears to be haphazard rather than orderly. For example, some amino acids have four or six synonyms whereas others have none or one. Moreover, the word ATG, depending on context, represents either the amino acid methionine, or “start,” and there are no synonyms for either one.
It would be better if methionine and start each had its own word, rather than relying on context for meaning. There are many redundant words that could have been used for that purpose. The reality is what you would expect from a code that evolved by trial and error over millions of years.
It’s hard to believe that a creator capable of making a universe would also create a hodge-podge such as our DNA code. It is much less problematical to think that it was not designed at all.
Paul
A fascinating discussion between Paul and Yomin. Kudos to bother of you for ignoring the jokers in between. Too bad it’s disturbed by some crazy interruptions and ramblings. I wonder what their point is.
Yes, like people talking to themselves. Yomin.
AUSTIN,
PRODUCE THE LOGS.
I’ve had enough of your baseless slander. Your whole column was a hit piece and now everyone who doesn’t agree with you you say is me. Know that I’ve posted this to forums and shown this to about 10 people in the office all of whom think you’re insane. If you’re so paranoid as to believe that everyone who posts (and who isn’t one of your regular yes men) is me, then see a shrink.
Hi Paul,
I’ll write more later, but briefly - the complexity of the DNA code also attributes also helps different humans respond differently to certain diets, acclamations, etc. It seems purposeful. In any case, it doesn’t negate the need for an active Creator to have formed something so massive and interdependent. It’s a question as to why it was done in a certain way, but something so complex doesn’t come into existence by itself.
Unnecessary. Only one piece of evidence is necessary: while you can change the name you type in here, you can’t change your IP address. When the same one registers under multiple names, that indicates that the same person is trying to pull a fast one.
Well, that or (as I noted above) several people just happen to all be using the same computer — an unlikely possibility which would, even if true, undermine the claims made under those extra names that they are independent people who came here with an open mind. Friends posting in support of each other from the same computer and while pretending to be strangers wouldn’t be much of an ethical step above one person doing the same under multiple names.
You leave digital fingerprints wherever you go. Even people who know something about how to cover their tracks have trouble catching everything.
Paul,
There are many prominent creationist scientists. Granted, they don’t get much media attention (what else is new), but their findings are challenging and profound.
Evolution does necessitate that life started from non-life, as the first step is lower than algae and more advanced swap life, which according to the evolutionist originated from a mix of chemicals, forming molecules etc. At its root, the first step is non-life and its supposed transition to life poses a greater problem than the missing link.
The platypus has features of different species types, but none are transitional (i.e. half formed feathers, half formed scales). Furthermore, they’ve been around exactly as they are, without transitioning, as long as any other species. Why they were designed in such a way is another question, but they’re no different than the multitudes of species. The same question can be asked of any interesting species, although few are as diverse as the platypus. We don’t see the platypus as a link in any evolutionary chain, just as a unique creature. The fact that all these characteristics are fully developed makes it even less likely to be part of an evolutionary chain and seems to point to it being a unique species in and of itself.
I was running into a meeting in my last post and didn’t read it properly, thinking you were talking of the possible unnecessary complexity of human dna.
Austin, In case you haven’t noticed from my response to the hit piece, I’m about the easiest person to make a truce with, so I wonder why you don’t do so.
Yomin,
You look at the complexity of life and the universe and think that implies a creator. My point is this: When I look at some of the parts of this supposed creation, I see sloppiness that could have been avoided. To me, that argues against a creator.
It seems to me that a creator with the power to create an entire universe such as the one we observe, and the extremely complex life on earth, which we also observe, would have been able to create things in a way that would be more efficient, orderly, uniform, and especially, conducive to the health and welfare of the life forms.
But what I observe is sloppiness, haphazardness, and inefficiency — functional but with many problems that could have been avoided.
I am only a human, and not a biologist or other specialist. Yet I can see many ways that human bodies could have been improved, body parts that are less optimal than the same parts in other animals.
For example:
1) In the human eye, the optic nerve goes through the retina, creating a blind spot. The eyes of octopuses are wired the “right” way, so that they have no blind spot.
2) Humans can choke on their food while eating. Chimpanzees (with whom we share 98% of our genome) have a better shaped throat, such that they cannot choke while eating.
3) Certain Africans have a mutation which confers immunity to malaria. However, this beneficial effect is offset by its also making the person susceptible to sickle cell anemia.
There are many such examples, as well as the suboptimal business of the DNA code that I mentioned previously.
So, when I consider these things, I say that a being powerful enough to create the universe easily could have avoided these problems when creating human beings. Especially since better “designs” are to be found in other animals.
To scientists and non-theists, like me, our observations of life are entirely consistent with the law of evolution. On the other hand, those observations seem inconsistent with the work of an all-powerful creator as described by the people who believe in such a being.
In light of the above, I conclude that life evolved and was not created by a supernatural being. I think that is a reasonable conclusion to make.
AUSTIN,
PRODUCE THE LOGS
I showed it to some people here, but there’s more interest by email. I doubt it was people here, at least all people here.
I suspect this is another croc to try to discredit, just like my supposed “admission” to knowing nothing about atheism, something you’d probably say of Anthony Flew so as to deflect debate. However, if you produce the logs I’ll ask around and let you know. But produce the logs. You can even email them to me.
Btw The platypus doesn’t have any transitionary features (half, half). Its webbed feet aren’t unique among mammals. In many ways, it’s perfectly fit to its environment. It seems to be much more of a unique type of species than a mistake, especially given the fact that it uses each of its unique abilities to survive in an uncommon terrain.
“There are many prominent creationist scientists.”
Do they really do science?
Where are the predictions they have made, the experiments they have run?
What have they published in peer-reviewed science journals?
I wasn’t aware that there was a need for a “truce,” but then again I haven’t been engaging regularly in personal attacks or posting under multiple names. Your original essay was filled with personal invective and your comments here have been much the same (just a thought: if you need to be an easy person to make a truce with, could it be due to causing conflict with others too readily?). Yet, despite this, you haven’t been treated in kind. Your ideas, claims, and arguments have been criticized without mercy, but there has been little to nothing in the way of personal comments.
If it’s a “truce” you want, it’s ultimately your behavior that’s going to have to change. If you make accusations and claims, then back them up; you’ll be criticized and ultimately dismissed otherwise. If you’re going to comment on a subject, be sure to at least know how to define it; you’ll definitely be dismissed otherwise. If you don’t like what people say, don’t be so quick to attack them personally; people will stop listening otherwise. Without question, you definitely have to not post under multiple identities. There’s little chance of making a come-back and regaining any credibility once you start doing that.
Do note the complete absence of personal attacks or insults here. You aren’t being called a coward, a liar, or any of the other vilifications you have repeatedly used. It is possible to be critical of a person’s ideas and actions without all that.
Even if it wouldn’t be unethical of me to post your IP address here, what would be the point? You and I both know the truth; anyone else who doesn’t believe me wouldn’t have a reason to think that I haven’t edited the information here. The simple fact is, I can see multiple identities posting from the same location. The chance of those multiple identities actually being multiple people simply aren’t high enough to take seriously. That leaves just one person posting under multiple identities.
I notice, though, that your IP addresses have started to change. Did you figure out how to use TOR or are you using some other anonymizer? Looks like TOR to me. Curious how this started just when you started to demand (not ask, demand) to see the logs. Not at all surprising, mind you, but curious.
Perhaps if you had thought to use an anonymizer when you first started creating new identities, you would have gotten away with it for a while. By now, though, it’s far too late. Sorry.
Here, so you have no ethical issues, great ethicist.
Main office comp (which only I use, or should be, btw) - 78.129.201.189
Office lab top - 74.233.155.49
Home comp - I don’t know right now. Using these two here. Generally don’t post from home as busy with catch up work if on there at all.
Let me know the logs, now that no ethical issues are present, like say, slandering someone with every accusation under the sun and featuring their name in a title article based on nonsense.
That I don’t know atheism? No, what’s plain to see is you have no ethics or morals, cannot debate, know little and are afraid to even consider alternative viewpoints. It’s actually sad.
Paul,
They present logically sound solutions. Their books are very indepth. You need to examine all sides. The so-called “global warming consensus” is challenged by hundreds of prominent climatologists, especially those studying primarily historic (as opposed to modern) patterns. Likewise with creationist science. It is compelling and is without the political attacks that are the hallmark of most evolutionary responses (though not yours, and I give you credit for that).
Curious, but none of your posts have come from either of the IP addresses you list. Maybe you aren’t really you? Of course, I can’t verify the accuracy of the information you post any more than you can verify the accuracy if I posted the address information I see here. Everybody knows that and thus knows that your demands don’t lead anywhere.
This doesn’t change the fact that you, Tulsa, Analytic Thinker, and ACC have been posting from the same location. If you are going to keep insisting that you aren’t all the same person, you’re going to have to come up with a pretty convincing explanation.
No, you don’t even know how it is defined.
Ah, there we go with the personal attacks again. Do you usually find this sort of aggressive bluster works? In my experience, it tends to undermine a person’s overall credibility.
Oh, ok, now I know you’re lying
I gave a small possibility to one of the guys I was showing your nonsense to of having posted as we were all laughing our heads off over your ridiculous tactics and game of run and hide. They also get a kick out of when I get stubborn in challenging hypocrites and exposing them. At least Paul’s sane, honest and intelligent. You, Austin, are just fun. However, I doubt they bothered posting and you’ve just shown again that you’re full of hot air.
Here, I give you full permission to disclose the number. What IP do you have? Or is this all another ruse (no surprise here).
Ah, now you’re also upset over “personal attacks” more games. Sorry, I guess I wrote a slanderous and untrue article about you and then accused you of multiple ridiculous falsehoods. My apologies Oh Great One.
Have another drink to the 4 Yomins you see. I can assure you there’s only one here.
No, you’ve been claiming that all along. This is just more bluster.
I agree. I find it highly unlikely that it’s been anyone but you.
Doesn’t matter. I can simply give whatever number you’ve had and lie that others have been posting under it as well. If I’ve been lying so far, there’s no reason why I can’t continue. There isn’t any evidence I can give that can’t be manipulated and every half-way competent person knows that.
No, I’d have to care about your opinion to be upset about that. I was simply pointing out some important facts about your behavior.
Of course there is only one Yomin; unfortunately, he posts under more than one name.
You are fun, I’ll give you that. Please show me the supposed logs. I’m really curious. By the way, how do you justify writing a column against someone claiming that they know nothing about a certain subject, based on a column of theirs that had almost nothing to do with the subject, and then, when instead of holding you responsible for libel they simply ask you to debate, you instead twist their words, use stuff they didn’t say as excuses and then accuse them of everything else under the sun. I guess anyone who calls you to task for it must be me with TOR, which if I used I’d need you to guide me there, after I supposedly already started using it.
Seemingly anyone sane would provide answers to the questions of substance, all of which you refuse to touch. Anyone with even a minute amount of ethics would, after posting the trash you did.
Why don’t you write a column “Austin Cline: The Man Who Holds Religion in Such Disdain The he Won’t Entertain Any Possibilities and Personally Defames All Who Do”
Secular you are, but you’re a little short on the humanism part.
And no, I didn’t post under multiple names…
Should I check my current IP again to make sure I really am me?
I’ve already told you what’s in them.
The fact that your column wasn’t primarily about atheism isn’t a reason not to comment on all your false statements about atheism, science, etc. You seem to think that the fact that your column wasn’t primarily about atheism is somehow relevant to whether your falsehoods should be criticized or not. I don’t get that, and I guess I never well because you’ve had plenty of opportunity to justify this position.
That’s a curious statement coming from someone who has not answered many, many questions and challenges. So, by your own standards it sounds like you don’t think you are sane. I personally wouldn’t have made such a personal attack against you, but…
Then feel free to come up with a good reason for why others’ comments appear under the same IP address as yours. I’ve pointed out this option to you once already, but you’ve ignored that just as you’ve ignored so many pointed questions put to you. It’s obviously others where you work or you. I don’t think it’s the former. So that leaves…
Yomin,
How did you decide what kinds of features a transitional species should have?
Paul
Austin,
Show me the logs and I’ll ask. I doubt this happened and I think it’s another of your ruses. Oh, and yes, saying “I don’t know anything about atheism” b/c of a column that had precious little to do with atheism is spin, but of course, you know all that.
Paul,
Good morning. A transitional form is something that shows transition, i.e. scales developing into skin or feathers. As such, the scales would be partial and the feathers partial. Neither would be fully formed as the scales would be turning into skin or feathers. The platypus has nothing transitional, i.e. changing from reptilian to mammal. It has characteristics of both, which works very well in its fairly unique environment, but a)it has nothing transitional along the lines described above (which would be needed to show change and gradual development; evolution) and b) it’s the same as fossils of other platypus. No change is evident over time (and, because of reason a, it doesn’t fit into any “evolutionary” form or chain).
If you aren’t posting under multiple names, you don’t need anything more than what I’ve given you to ask if others are posting from your location - and you know this. If you are posting under multiple names, which is what I believe, then you certainly don’t need anything beyond what I’ve said - and you know this. Either way, you don’t need anything more than what I’ve said and you know this. Thus demanding more is nothing but a distraction.
I find it interesting that since I started calling out every instance of you posting under other names, the behavior has stopped. That’s a good first step, but it falls wells short of an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and apology.
The fact that atheism wasn’t the primary topic of the column isn’t relevant; what is relevant is the fact that in this column you made numerous false assertions. I pointed out all the falsehoods and, curiously, you haven’t even tried to offer a substantive response on any point. There is no “spin” to comparing the truth to the falsehoods in your column. Given that among those falsehoods was an outrageously incorrect definition of atheism, there’s little option but to conclude that your knowledge of atheism is nearly non-existent.
However, if you disagree and think that it shouldn’t be a problem to write falsehoods about atheism so long as this isn’t the primary purpose of an essay, feel free to explain. If you think that it is “spin” to conclude that a person can’t know anything about atheism if they demonstrate no accurate knowledge of it — not even of its definition — feel free to explain how.
Strictly speaking, logic is like checking for spelling errors. It is useful, but not terribly important. Talking, reading, writing, and just comparing and contrasting (thinking) are far more important. It takes imagination, courage and luck to sense and escape from cons and traps. Many know about 911, but few understand 911.
To Yomin
A transitional form? Sure look at your hands. They are part way between Homo Erectus and whatever species replaces us. See? Humans are a transitional form- every species is. Except the species that is the last on its branch before it goes it extinct.
As for your actual article… lets see-
-The reason they focus on Republican scandals is there are more of them. There have been 12 compared to 1 with a Dem.
-Dems aren’t liberals.
-Talking points? Like what? The media openly supported Bush for Iraq- I didn’t see them helping out the dems or issuing their talking points.
-You make a long rant, but give no examples- or even evidence.
- The religious right is conservatives who are evangelicals. We CAN do blanket statements about them because the term covers people with a specific ideology.
-Bin Laden isn’t the president… nor did he steal an election. Unlike you I happen to want to see Laden hang. I hate bush for failing to give us that opportunity.
-Analyze scientific data? We do that all the time.
-Conservativism has faults.
-It is called self justification, not bigotry. Take psych 101.
-A bigot is a person who stereotypes a whole group of people falsely. Please use a dictionary.
-Could it possibly be the reason they do this is… they are right? Conservatives do bad things, and some of the things liberals do are justified?
-Judging people by ideology is perfectly acceptable. It is similar to judging by action.
-Actaully the reason liberals do that is half a century of education at conservative hands. ID and the wedge document anyone? Liberals think conservatives are a cabal of plotting nuts because REPEATEDLY they have been shown to do that. Karl Rove anyone?
-Strawman liberal. I don’t fight against old- I fight against wrong.
-The Greeks weren’t hedonists.
-Gay rights? Class issues? Democracy? These aren’t issues of societal change.
-If that is true why do all the racists wind up in the GOP?
-No, liberalism exposes a “it is the responsibility of the strong to aid the weak” philosophy
-He is on to us! We supported the abolition of the slave trade because we KNEW it would lead to the right of blacks and white to marry each other! Kidding aside you still haven’t provided and actual example.
-Who cares what he thinks? He is a facist/commie… hmm. There ARE people we don’t give a damn about what they think… because their beliefs are insane. And before you ask “what Nazi”, the guy at Atheism Analyzed is close. “The atho-pagan conspiracy is working to destroy traditional values!” Or maybe Vox Day’s “Killing when God tells you to is mandatory”.
Don’t take it personally. I hope you can see your error if I show you how, exactly you are wrong. Why do you refuse to accept facts and logic though? It is frustrating to have to deal with a bigot such as yourself.
Honestly the list at the end IS that offensive. Why? Because it assumes your opponents DON’T use facts and logic. In short it assumes your opponents are nuts.
I don’t assume such things- I can see it clearly from your article.
I do agree with the poster above who speaks about promoting discussion.
Sam,
Like I said earlier in the thread, though I wish I could, I don’t have time to debate all issues. I do deal with some of those issues in other articles. I think media bias has been the other way around, but don’t expect them to question too much before it becomes a talking point. Unfortunately for both sides, they’re followers, not leaders.
Re transitional forms - We’re talking about the unavailability of half/halfs, true transitional forms that document transitions. Hands would only be transitional if you take for granted, as a leap of faith, so to speak, that they evolved from the palms of apes. There are no transitional skeletons/fossils that show half human hand, half ape palm, not even the inconclusive hominids usually cited. It’s this that we’re talking about with regard to transitional forms, actual documented transition (which is unavailable).
Paul,
Have a good weekend if I can’t get online before Mon.
Austin,
Btw, was speaking with my intern. Turns out he did post something, but not multiple posts. Still, I think your other accusations are ridiculous and some have been shown as such.
Also, you make some good points, Biblically speaking, in your latest article about the origin of sin, but also a few mistakes. Genesis does call it sin and cites it as the root of all punishment. Established commentators of both religions, Jewish and Christian, do cite it as sin. They do differ on punishment, though both say it can be immediate (which is far less than punishment in the afterlife). Jewish commentators believe that Divine punishment is very strong but ultimately temporary and has a cleansing nature. Many Christian commentators see it as sometimes permanent, which raises a number of questions. But the original sin being the one outlined in Genesis is accepted by both.
You don’t get what I’m saying- ALL living things are transitional forms. Saying something is a transitional form and another isn’t is presuming evolution has a goal.
It doesn’t.
What you are talking about is simply links between species people haven’t found yet. However, this has NOTHING to do with the truth value of evolution. Why? Because we haven’t excavated the entire planet AND fossils are rare.
Heck, if punctuated equilibrium is accurate we WON’T find transitional forms. (PE is stasis and bursts of rapid change)
Samuel,
What I’m saying is that if you want to make a valid case for evolution, you need to find some forms that document it. These are what’s referred to as transitional forms. They’d show real gradual transition from amphibian to mammal or something of that nature. This is the premise that evolution is based on and such fossils have yet to be found (a platypus has fully formed reptile features and fully formed mammal ones, nothing that shows gradual transition).
More compelling: There’s an overabundance of fossils of multiple forms of species that exist today. A real overabundance. But out of all of these found, we have yet to find any with truly transitional forms (not fully developed mammal parts nor fully reptilian, etc.).
In essence, you’re asking me to accept evolution as a leap of faith, in spite of serious questions about its premise and key parts to the theory behind it. I’m just asking for a sound basis for such faith.
Why? Although fossils are evidence for evolution, they aren’t required.
Since we can see evolution occuring now we know it happens. Fossils are simply confirmations it occured in the past.
I’m not asking for faith. I don’t know any “serious questions” against it- most turn out to be a lack of knowledge about what evolution is.
By truely transitional you are making an error.
Trait A reptile
Trait B mammal.
Why not trait AB- reptile/mammal? Maybe because the species went from trait A to trait B.
You are assuming there must be an intermediate form for certain traits. That is simply not true the majority of the time. Not to mention the overwhelming majority of stuff doesn’t fossilive (skin anyone?).
I’d go on, but hopefully you will get the idea.
I’m late to this debate.But i must say Postelnik’s post no. 17 had me in hysterics.”I’m not referring to miracles.I’m referring to the Act of Creation.”
Andy,
Context means everything. Here’s the sequence:
1) I wrote a statement that the world didn’t create itself, and it was clear what the statement that for atheists the world somehow “miraculously” came together with everything in it to sustain life, different forms of life, planets that don’t collide, etc. It’s clear that the word ‘miracle’ in that sentence meant “in and of itself” or “magically” “instantaneously” etc.
2) One poster, Austin or whoever, took the word “miracle” which anyone who read the sentence knew meant “alleged advent of spontaneous creation” to mean that I readily accept Divine miracles as a premise, with no basis in thought.
This was only one of many such word games and the post you’re referring to was an attempt to clarify. Of course, that poster knew he was twisting words to begin with (unless he’s dyslexic and can only read the middle parts of sentences).
Just follow the discussion.
Samuel,
I understand that you believe that evolution can be proven from A becoming B without an intermediary. My point is that:
a) That is a huge leap of faith - you’re assuming that a became b without any proof of transition.
b) Evolution is based on the premise of gradual transition. The absence of such fossils goes against this theory.
c) Charles Darwin agreed with as much and said that such transitional fossils would appear over time. Given the enormity of fossils excavated in the last hundred years, none of which show true transition (which is again, documented transition, i.e. half/half or gradual), it’s quite possible that Darwin would now reject or amend his own theory as he recognized the need for transitional forms to prove it, the existence of which is strongly questioned by the enormity of other fossils and the absence of truly transitional. The absence of such fossils actually makes a strong against evolution.
This is what the famous “missing link” that’s always alluded to is about, just on a more complex level of discussion
Yomin,
I think we better understand each other’s views now but we are not making progress to finding common ground for productive discussion. As with so many other discussions of this type, I think the basic obstacle is evidence. You don’t accept mine and I don’t accept yours. Too bad. I gave it my best shot and now I want to conclude this discussion. Good luck to you.
Paul
No- I’m saying that evolution goes from form a to form b to form c and… whops- died out. How about this line? Them too… damn- what are the odds?
Evolution is not based on gradual transition. It can go in leaps- in fact it has to. DNA does work in degrees you know- well, not all the commands.
Transitional fossils have been found repeatedly. Read an anthropolgy text book.
The problem you have is you see a range of fossils. Than you put one half on one side and the other on the other side.
Then you ask where the middle is. It is a bit like upon being told the average height for several people, asking why none of them are that height.
Or, to put it simpler, all your arguments are based off of ignorance. You need to actually prove your case. Attacking alternatives doesn’t work (except in ethics and social organization- but those aren’t about truth, but effectiveness) You can’t.
Not a single one of your arguments gives evidence- only an attack on the opposing view.
The basic problem is that you can’t give a natural explanation for supernatural stuff. The problem is there is no reason to believe in the supernatural. You justify it with a circular argument.
design-> evolution flawed and supernatural
supernatural-> because of design
See the problem?
I’m still waiting for Yomin’s follow-up article “The Root Cause of Why Some Conservatives Are Unresponsive to Logic and Debate”.
Paul,
Thanks for giving the opportunity to debate. I would encourage you to examine all sides of the issue. That’s what led me to these views. I do respect your forthrightness and willingness to have examined some of these. Who cares if we don’t see eye to eye?
Austin,
Thanks for graciously pointing to the comments section within the article.
Simon,
I take it you haven’t read the debate. Which conservatives aren’t showing logic? Read 36 on.
Btw, when I wrote the column that somehow touched this whole thing off, even though it only mentioned atheism in passing, I titled it
“Some Liberals” for a reason. Paul and Samuel are open to debate. You might want to join the club.
Samuel,
The late Steven J. Gould, who obviously had a very different take than I did on the issue of evolution, nevertheless said “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” He, as did Darwin, understood transitional fossils in the way that I laid out. Their best argument used to be that fossils were still being uncovered. They understood evolution to be gradual. In fact, if it’s not, you have no reason to believe in evolution at all because one could equally attribute similar fossils, with little directly in common, to the fact that they’re two different species as opposed to the primitive and evolved forms of the same kind of species.
The DNA argument alone is extremely weak (and that’s being mild). All physical life has very similar DNA. Look at us and mice, yet no credible scientist says we evolved from mice.
These are huge problems with evolution.
Now, more importantly (because this is what the whole debate here was supposed to be about), is that our physical universe necessitates a Creator. If you see a building, you know someone consciously designed and built it. If the universe was designed in such a way that everything was there to necessitate life except for the perfect combination of gases in the air, we wouldn’t exist. If everything was perfect but the planets collided, as do meteors, we wouldn’t exist. If the human being had one out of thousands of small things wrong with it, it could not survive. To argue that there’s no conscious Creator is to argue that billions of buildings came into existence in and of themselves, either all at once, or, if you want to chalk it up to evolution, molecule by molecule perfectly forming bricks without any instruction and then brick by brick forming billions of buildings all by themselves, each without a builder. Now sure, we can argue that in theory such a thing might happen if a number of things happen, but in reality such a position is absurd, no matter how well argued. The only difference is that it takes thousands of more simultaneous happenings to give life to a person than it does for a whole slew of buildings to rise up.
You can’t discount an entire field of logical thought without studying it at all, simply saying “it can’t be known,” without trying to discern it or without at least looking at thousands of years of logical arguments necessitating a creator, dating back as far as Plato.
Logical proofs of the existence of a conscious Creator range from the anthropic (that the world is too complex to create itself), to the cosmological (that finite matter cannot come to form a universe that is clearly larger than its original size) to the teleological (citing the inherent cooperation involved in all parts of the universe, showing that each works as a piece of a larger and well structured machine). Some of these arguments do date back to Plato and possibly before. But in the end, all are unnecessary. Proof of a Creator can be seen by just considering the enormity of the universe and how if one out of billions of things were off, life would never have taken root, or by looking at the small, detailed, individual factors on their own (perfect air balance, perfect nutritional balance, etc). In fact, off hand, I’d say that the small little details, that each small necessary ingredient to life is available, show a proof that’s even more thorough than that seen by considering the larger picture (that being the enormity of the universe, as outlined above).
Yomin:
>I take it you haven’t read the debate.
Why‘s that. Do you think it impossible that someone would find your unsupported claims unconvincing? I’ve read the entire debate and the original article. That’s why I posted.
>Which conservatives aren’t showing logic?
Is it your contention that no conservative fails to use logic? If not, why not write an article about it?
As you provided no examples and no support for your arguments, in order to write “Why Some Conservatives Are Unresponsive to Logic and Debate” you wouldn’t need to do much more than swap every “liberal” for “conservative” etc, and vice-versa. The result would be a parade of strawmen, but so is your original article.
Let me get you started:
Before I begin this column, please allow me to make clear that there are many people on the right who are open to discussion and to reexamining their views based on facts and analysis.
Many well meaning and thoughtful people, whose main interests generally lie outside of the field of politics and who are therefore less likely to analyze political issues beyond what they hear and see, are influenced by a media that plays up every Democratic scandal while excusing every Republican one. The media they rely on is one that never airs the reasons for Democratic policies, yet spends all day spouting Republican talking points, and they are influenced by it. Other, more thoughtful, consevatives have relied on professors or supposedly learned authors who see the world only through the narrow prism of conservative thought, but whose arguments, on the surface, are persuasive nonetheless. Many such people are often open to other possibilities that may have never been correctly presented to them. This column is not directed at such conservatives.
Etc, Etc.
Do you now sense the need for concrete examples, empirical evidense, and support for the claims made?
Can you see how one can’t just assume the truth of what they saying and expect to be convincing? You are free to believe what you want, but if you expect others to agree, you can’t assume the truth of your arguments as part of your argument.
Mr. Postelnik,
“…yet no credible scientist says we evolved from mice.”
Actually, evolutionairy biologists all agree the first known mammals, and most likely your direct ancestors, were small mouse or shrew like animals that lived about 250 million years ago.
Have you ever considered doing even the smallest amount of research before you start spewing, or would that take all the fun out of it for you?
John,
Do you do any research???
The point was that mice have almost exactly the same DNA as humans and no credible scientist says we were descended from that line of species.
I used “credible scientist” for a real. There was one quack on CNN who made such a claim. That scientists was vociferously refuted by other evolutionists who all said that no evolutionary tree can be deduced from such broad speculation, or from the mere fact that the DNA has approximately 99% commonality with ours. What’s more, the mouse genome was the only one that was mapped aside from humans at the time (they are now mapping more species). It seems that all physical life forms have much commonality in their DNA. That more readily shows that the physical part of life comes from the same type of matter (which is totally consistent with both the Biblical account and with all other accounts, but is wholly unrelated to proving evolution or, possibly, any other theory) than it shows anything about evolution.
The quackery that so many on your side is engaged in and the utter lack of scientific knowledge of those who apparently claim to be so beholden to science is scary. It seems that you get most of your “science” from the media and fail to do any indepth research.
Simon,
The two posters who actually engaged in the debate found the discussion to be extremely logical. It’s you who fails to address any of the issues laid out, chosing instead to engage in sideshow parodies.
Thank you for your beatiful parody of my column. One column is not meant to give proofs to all issues at one time. It’s a column, not a course. But of course you know that and are simply engaged in childish games as opposed to addressing anything of substance.
If you wish for substantiation of the other issues such as media bias, read some stuff on the issue, including some of my other columns.
That you took my comments to mean that no conservatives are unresponsive to logic instead of what they were, a direct response to your statement “Simon says:
I’m still waiting for Yomin’s follow-up article ‘The Root Cause of Why Some Conservatives Are Unresponsive to Logic and Debate’.” is more childish spin and stupidity. I guess for you it’s anything to avoid discussion of facts and substance. Well, thank you for so amply proving the point of my column.
I have better things to do than play such childish games. Can we have some more honest debaters here?
“Liberals are bigots”
Brilliant point, no more needs to be said.
Wow, I didn’t realize debating meant so much meanness. Are we debating facts or talking about how much spin others put on things. Sounds like a bunch of ten year olds talking about which Pokemon is THE BEST (they don’t talk about Pokemon cards anymore, do they?)
If the question is the theory of Evolution, it’s still a theory. Sc