Atheists who attack Christianity

How about logic and reason?

Hi Ulrika

This site provided both.

Who?

See, I have #2 in my hands right now - Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell, /Biology, Fifth Edition/ -
Your arn.org web page gives it a "D", which is second to "F".

It's the same text that I referenced earlier, which made it explicitly clear that it was a hypothesis - /clear/. YOUR refernce gives it a "D" for being 'misleading'.

The tree of life. This text discusses the Cambrian explosion - which your arn.org web page calls "a problem for evolution", which it clearly is not - only Creationist propaganda, citing a few quotes taken out of context (texts that perform /reductio ad absurdum/ by presuming it /might/ be a problem and then demonstrating that it is /not/ - Creationists cherry-pick the set-up of th /reductio ad absurdum/ out of context, and call it a "problem" do so.

Universal common ancestry is a /fact/. It has been demonstrated through the study of morphology and the tree of life that was derived from the study of DNA analysis reconstructs that same tree with minor changes to small outlying limbs and leaves.

Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell - Excellent.

arn.org gives it a D.

Vertebrate limb homology - aka the study of morphology.

Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell discuss how the use of the radius and ulna and phalanges in modern orcas presents morphological homologies to other mammals, and presents other cases as well. (This is a survey textbook, by the way - not an in-depth exploration).

Well-surveyed. No inaccuracies.

arn.org gives it - a D - hmmm...

It gives everything else there a D, including "ohnoes the staged peppered moth photos" where a photographer pinned down peppered moths in order to photograph them for a textbook, - not, as Creationists hype, in order to falsify data.

Oh, it gives it a B for being accurate about Archaeopteryx.

Throughout this little "critique", which is actually a blind report card - nowhere do they actually use fair use quotations in order to discuss the methodological issues that they claim. I wonder why? Could it be because they knew if they quoted the material that they have a "problem" with that their critique would fall flat on its' face?

and published by - oh, look! The Discovery Institute! The people that I've just mentioned are the propagandists! And the entirety of this little "critique" has been debunked on talk.origins! and arn.org is an Intelligent Design shill site run by Jonathan Wells - set up before Kitzmiller in order to provide a divorceable front from the Discovery Institute's clear Christian Creationist pedigree!

I'm unimpressed.

*shuts book*

No, the site provided neither. See last post from me.

out of curiousity, what does it say about the origin of life?

Remember me from March?

Here, look at this, your history of posts. ....


/invalid_link.html

I don't have time for it all, but this was cute. The theory of ID suggests all life would share DNA traits to a degree because the creator would use what works.

Your theory suggests that just because all life has DNA with similar traits, it proves all life came from a single, original being. Your argument is circular, you are pointing at a fact (DNA is similar) to insist your theory (all life came from the same common ancestor) is fact.

Neither theory can be proven.

I give you post #702. or 703. Something near that ordinal.

/112/e7/119854/29.html#post1152629

not what I was looking for, I mean does your Biology books explain the formation of the first single celled organisms?

I do. You're that fellow who's, erm, special. Keep on doing what you do. I feel things are about to go your way.

Nnnnnoooooooooooo -

Intelligent Design speculates.

See, in evolution, we have TWO sources of data. ONE is morphology. Common descent was hypothesised and accepted as a scientific theory and fact /before/ the discovery and analysis of DNA.

DNA was discovered by Crick.

DNA was analysed.

The tree of life built by that analysis matched the one built from morphological data!

/Your/ notion is that a deity created types. It is utterly non-provable and utterly non-disprovable. That makes it not science.

Common ancestry is extremely strongly supported by the evidence - it would be perverse to suggest otherwise, or intellectually dishonest! NO scientific theory can ever be Ultimately Proven because that's not how science works. Common Descent /is/ disprovable - which makes it science - by a better explanation, which also must be disprovable.

Your explanation is not better.

Is the message sinking through yet? Do you get the hint that your discredited propaganda and myths are not special? Do you understand that just perhaps there might be people who aren't fooled by your churn of old hat?

This will never end....

It will end when Kevn Klein realises that he's shilling for people who Lie for Jesus, /and/ feels shame about it.

What's special is you didn't know who Ulrika is, and you only post in threads in which she is a major player. How did you ever miss the name? "Who?".. indeed..

So god is incomprehensible and that why he doesn't come and hang out with his chosen? the divine manster plan does not allow him time for it? Of course if you are omnipotent and omnipresent then you would think hanging out for a while would nto be a problem.

The incomprehensible mind of god is just one more implausible excuse piled on the heap of implausible excuses to explain why god is not really involved in anyones lives and does not protect them or respond directly to prayer. The incomprehesible mind of god is a weak attempt at justification and not an answer.

And no I did not buthcher the point-if the positive is impossible, the negative must be true, no matter how improbable. You are just stuck on the broken reconrd of your two minute encounter with syllogistic logic that tells you that you cannot prove a negative. Which is fine, you need that. In trun I am allowed to take a very emiprical point of view and say if you cannot prove it, or show it to me, or arrive by way of reasonable (key is "reasonable" specualtion and factual inference, then It does not exist. Again, I do not need to prove a negative, you simply fail to prove the positive and I can categorically deny the existence of god.

well not exactly, there are a number of good theories that don't involve god though. since there is no other evidence of god around, I don't see any need to bring him inot the formation of single cell organisms. thought he mathematical improbabilities you will now doubt asssert ned to be seriously revised to account for a variety of circumstances, thus they can be reduced by a factor of at least ten, and frankly the universe is a big place, and proabability becomes meaningless at that scale. If it is possbile it has likely happened somewhere.

My beliefs are my own, the fact others agree with my beliefs is nothing more than coincidental.

Those kind of statements don't further debate or add anything to the knowledge base.

I wasn't trying to make a point with that, its a curiousity of mine, since I have yet to find two sources that agree. In fact your assumptions are unsettling Jake.

You're not on the verge of violating the ToS are you?

The size of the universe is immaterial when we realize it must happen in a place like Earth, when all the conditions are perfect. How many Earths are there now, that we know of?

That doesn't even make sense.

Do you come down and hang with the ants in your ant farm?



Not really. It just is what it is. By definition the mind of an all-knowing being would be incomprehensible to those who were of finite knowledge.



Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

To eliminate the impossible you have to render the existance of God impossible. Since God transcends such concepts by virtue of being omnipotent, it's impossible to absolutely render him impossible, mearly improbable.

The ability or innability to prove God is a failing of the mortal condition, not emperical science and logic.

And, again, I'm not trying to prove anything. Why can't people read?

Well there are a lot of references to this notion in buddhist literature. One of the key things though is that conceptions and language change between branches. The Theravedic Buddhists speak somewhat differently than the tibetan buddhists, who see it a bit differently than the zen buddhists. It would take threee lifetimes to sort this out between traditions.

I can give you the most accessible reference I can think of in Zen: Its called Hardcore Zen: Punk Rock, Monster Movies, and the Truth about Reality by Brad Warner.

It is a great overview of Zen thought and told by someone who made the journey from outside into Zen. Warner is a gifted writer to can explain so puzzling concepts better than most. Of Course most of zen comes from knowing for yourself.

There are a lot of other books in any barnes and noble that discuss this from a variety of traditions. One problem is the terms birth and death are so preganat with meaning in western culture-it is confusing because for a westerner the terms are very finite.

Not that I know of, why?