NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey guys, I've recently entered into blog debate with an extremely devout Christian who claims that Evolution is a shaky-ground theory. I've copied a page where he "refutes" all my points. I'd like you to assess just how accurate he is.

(I state that I can't abide people who refuse to understand science and embrace fantasy)

His Response: Before you go waving the “you don’t understand science” banner, how about you actually look at the degrees and experience that many who oppose the theory of evolution have. If they are “people who don’t understand science”, then what chance do you have?

You have also used a rather poor persuasive technique, even in your first sentence, by grouping those who disagree with evolution as people who believe in a “Magic Unicorn”. Does this make their objections easier for you to discredit because it ridicules the person? By doing this you aren’t solving any problems because you aren’t tackling the objections.

(I claim that there is very little division within the scientific community over evolution and that by and large, the debate is a non event with most serious scientists due to the vast amount of evidence and reputable research which validates it)

His Response: You obviously have little idea of who or what a “serious scientist” is. Plus, there are many who aren’t creationists or supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) that have rejected evolution as a viable explanation.

Good to see some dogmatic stuff being brought in here, along with a huge generalisation that evolution is the one of the most “heavily evidenced Scientific Theories around”. If there was so much evidence then how can scientists claim that evolution is wrong?

“No debate”? Are you aware that there is a debate occurring? Aren’t you someone who is angry that it is?

(I claim that the illusion of any serious debate in the scientific community is a myth propogated by people who belive that God somehow planted dinosaur bones in the earth)

His response: And the illusion that there is no debate is a myth propagated by those who adhere to the idea that there is no God and that, no matter what, they will not believe in Him.

As for God putting dinosaurs in the ground to trick us, this is ludicrous. God does not deceive humanity; why would He need to when we are perfectly capable of that ourselves? Most fossils were created due to the Flood described in Genesis. This catastrophe gives the right conditions for fossil formation and gives the perfect circumstances for the instantaneous deaths that can be seen in some fossils (i.e. a carnivorous fish in the middle of a meal).

(I claim that there has not been one event of solid evidence or argument being offered in peer-reviewed science journals)

There is a growing number of reputable peer-reviewed journals that publish new discoveries and evidences that contradict evolution. There has also been quite a few articles published questioning evolution within even the atheistic peer-reviewed journals. Although, for the most part many papers are rejected purely for the fact that the author has rejected evolution in the first place so is barred from publishing anyway. There is one noticeable exception to this that resulted in the sacking of the editor.

Well what do you think? Have I been pwned?

There's a full copy on his blog here: http://spaces.msn.com/members/fallenthenredeemed/Blog/cns!1pNTZ7vVUW4PIMSM6uus91SA!538.entry#comment

Fanatics should be treated as trolls. DON'T FEED THEM.

Well I don't think he's a fanatic, unless you're referring to me, which is profoundly unfair since I clearly am not.

There are a lot of scientists who don't agree with the Theory of Evolution, or think that it has holes, so he's mostly right. The only weakness in his argument (from that short snippet you provided) is his insistence on the Great Flood.

Observation: he seems to be attacking and discrediting evolution, not making a case for ID or creationism. Despite what many like to believe, proving evolution wrong will *not* mean that ID is suddenly right.

Challenge him to show that ID is a scientific theory, backed by facts from many different diciplines without referring to evolution. If he cannot, you have shown ID has no value.

Well I don't think he's a fanatic, unless you're referring to me, which is profoundly unfair since I clearly am not.

I'm not referring to you.
I only call him a fanatic because it seems he is unwilling to except other possibilities. Anyone without an open mind is considered a fanatic to me.

Well I don't think he's a fanatic, unless you're referring to me, which is profoundly unfair since I clearly am not.Ask him to name those "peer reviewed magazines".

Actually, just ask him to support his claims with something other than a site that wants to uphold the "bible from the first verse". Ask him if it's ok to covet something other than women and oxen, since nothing else is mentioned in the bible and it obviously must be taken literally. Ask him if he can read Greek, Aramite, and Hebrew.

From everything I've read the debate over evolution conducted by most real scientists doesn't center on whether evolution happened, but rather how it happened. Most agree that the sheer volume of evidence in favor of evolution makes it almost an undeniable fact. Many creationists, whether because they are simply mistaken or because they seek to decieve, interpret that debate over the how of evolution as a debate over the evolution itself.

There are a lot of scientists who don't agree with the Theory of Evolution, or think that it has holes, so he's mostly right. The only weakness in his argument (from that short snippet you provided) is his insistence on the Great Flood.

The disputes that serious, reputable scientists* have about evolution are not about whether evolution exists or not.

Evolution has enough evidence to be considered alingside Newton's Laws and other highly regarded scientific theories. The devil is in the details. Scientists do continually argue over which species came first, which species evolved from what and what a certain extinct species is classified as. Yes, there are 'holes' in evolution, gaps in the fossil record, which is to be expected if fossils developed over millions upon millions of years. There is no argument in the scientific community as to whether evolution exists or not, just about the details of the evolutionary chain.

The 'Great Flood' is indeed problematic. If there were such an event that wiped out all currently extinct species at once, then there would be no gaps in the fossil record. This would also lead all fossils to be completely uniform , as scientists have found recently most fossils are in various 'states of fossilization' and bone marrow and even muscle tissue have been found in 'newer' fossils.

The Sqeaky Rat is correct, he (like most ID proponents) is attacking evolution instead of offering factual proof for his theories. It is easier to attack a theory than it is to prove a theory.





*I.E. any scientist that has a doctorate from an established university with an established sciences curriculum.

Evolution has enough evidence to be considered alingside Newton's Laws and other highly regarded scientific theories.
You know, Newton's laws are inaccurate...

Ask him to name those "peer reviewed magazines".

Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.

Editor explains reasons for 'intelligent design' article
By Michael Powell / The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.

Not long after that, Smithsonian scientists asked Sternberg to become the unpaid editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a sleepy scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian. Three years later, Sternberg agreed to consider a paper by Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge University-educated philosopher of science who argues that evolutionary theory cannot account for the vast profusion of multicellular species and forms in what is known as the Cambrian "explosion," which occurred about 530 million years ago.

Scientists still puzzle at this great proliferation of life. But Meyer's paper went several long steps further, arguing that an intelligent agent -- God, according to many who espouse intelligent design -- was the best explanation for the rapid appearance of higher life-forms.

Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot.

"I am not convinced by intelligent design but they have brought a lot of difficult questions to the fore," Sternberg said. "Science only moves forward on controversy."

He mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review. It has been suggested that Sternberg fabricated the peer review or sought unqualified scientists. The claim was dismissed by James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals.

"They were critical of the paper and gave 50 things to consider," Sternberg said. "But they said that people are talking about this and we should air the views."

When the article appeared, the reaction was near instantaneous and furious. Within days, detailed scientific critiques of Meyer's article appeared on pro-evolution Web sites. "The origin of genetic information is thoroughly understood," said Nick Matzke of the NCSE. "If the arguments were coherent this paper would have been revolutionary -- but they were bogus."

A senior Smithsonian scientist wrote in an e-mail: "We are evolutionary biologists and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA."

An e-mail stated, falsely, that Sternberg had "training as an orthodox priest." Another labeled him a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years.

This latter accusation is a reference to Sternberg's service on the board of the Baraminology Study Group, a "young Earth" group. Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider."

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution, insisted that Smithsonian scientists had no choice but to explore Sternberg's religious beliefs. "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist," Scott said. "Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry."

I saw a programme on the telly a while ago about why the Great Flood was a myth, and only a myth. This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html) contains similar points to the programme.

The programme did include the likely origins of the myth as well, though, but I forget the details. The origins of mythologies is an interesting subject.

The disputes that serious, reputable scientists* have about evolution are not about whether evolution exists or not.

Evolution has enough evidence to be considered alingside Newton's Laws and other highly regarded scientific theories. The devil is in the details. Scientists do continually argue over which species came first, which species evolved from what and what a certain extinct species is classified as. Yes, there are 'holes' in evolution, gaps in the fossil record, which is to be expected if fossils developed over millions upon millions of years. There is no argument in the scientific community as to whether evolution exists or not, just about the details of the evolutionary chain.Ah, I stand slightly corrected.

Actually, just ask him to support his claims with something other than a site that wants to uphold the "bible from the first verse". Ask him if it's ok to covet something other than women and oxen, since nothing else is mentioned in the bible and it obviously must be taken literally. Ask him if he can read Greek, Aramite, and Hebrew.

Those sites are easily attacked as being "unscientific". Some examples:

- Genesis states the earth is older than the sun and other planets. Evidence from the sciences of physics, astronomy, geology and chemistry all contradict this.
- The earth being older than the sun *suggests* the earth is the centre of the universe. This is observably not true: the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, and the sun is not the centre of the universe either. We are in fact in a rather backward spiral arm of a not too big galaxy.
Maintaining something is true despite observational evidence to the contrary is unscientific.
- Methusalem being 500 years old somewhat conflicts with the science of gerontology
- The science of Linguistics disagrees with the tower of babel story.
- The contruction of Noahs ark required technology Noah could not possess. If it *truly* contained one pair of every landdwelling species we cannot build it nowadays either. Lots of beetles in this world.

Sciences and the Bible contradict eachother too much to be compatible. So lets not confuse one with the other and teach tehm in the *right* class.

Hmm. By what other process did humans and all the various other lifeforms, whether animals or plants or whatever, come to be if not by evolution, scientifically speaking? And what do these other biologists believe if not evolution?

Metaphysically speaking, I've had some Christians desperate to convince me the world had magically appeared 10,000 years ago, that dinosaurs -- or at least their fossils -- were products of the Devil designed to take us away from God, etc. Mind, I've also known Christians who've been evolutionists. After all, evolution is a scientific theory of a biological process and by studying that process, without imposing such conditions as "intelligent design" or whatever -- which, if you study most animals, including humans, you would have to wonder, "What the f--- was that all about?" -- one comes closer, hopefully, to the truth, whatever aspect that takes.

@Kyott: Great,but what´s your point?

You know, Newton's laws are inaccurate...
But they're a pretty good model of how the universe is observed to work, and that's one of the things science aims to provide, isn't it?

Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.
It's been destroyed by other articles.

I saw a programme on the telly a while ago about why the Great Flood was a myth, and only a myth. This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html) contains similar points to the programme.

The programme did include the likely origins of the myth as well, though, but I forget the details. The origins of mythologies is an interesting subject.
One theory of the origins of the Flood story comes from ancient Babylonian myth/religion relating to the seasonal flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, bringing renewal to the farmers. (Alternatively, it might have been the Nile, but I think the Jews at the time were enduring the Babylonian Captivity.)

Hmm. By what other process did humans and all the various other lifeforms, whether animals or plants or whatever, come to be if not by evolution, scientifically speaking?

Currently the answer science would have to that question is best summarised by "we don't know, but probably something similar to evolution since it works so damn well as an approximation of the truth".

However, "not knowing" is still better than "accepting the first easy theory with no evidence that comes along just because it sounds nice".

@Kyott: Great,but what´s your point?

Laerod asked about the names of these peer-reviewed journals, so I supplied the one peer-reviewed article I know of. Because of lag it got posted somewhat out of order.

*comprehension*

Hooray!

*now happy* :)

One theory of the origins of the Flood story comes from ancient Babylonian myth/religion relating to the seasonal flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, bringing renewal to the farmers. (Alternatively, it might have been the Nile, but I think the Jews at the time were enduring the Babylonian Captivity.)
If I recall - and I might not - the programme centered on the evidence of a significant flood in Iraq some considerable time ago.

Currently the answer science would have to that question is best summarised by "we don't know, but probably something similar to evolution since it works so damn well as an approximation of the truth".

However, "not knowing" is still better than "accepting the first easy theory with no evidence that comes along just because it sounds nice".
My apologies. My comment was a rhetorical question along the lines of evolution is itself a constantly evolving theory that over time conforms to rigorously evaluated scientific evidence.

Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.
Hehe. This isn't a "new discovery and evidence" though... ;)

Sciences and the Bible contradict eachother too much to be compatible. So lets not confuse one with the other and teach tehm in the *right* class.Taking the Bible literally contradicts science. Technically, if Genesis is considered a parable, it is a nice poetic description of what could well be the Big Bang, evolution, and the beginning of man's consciousnous.

But they're a pretty good model of how the universe is observed to work, and that's one of the things science aims to provide, isn't it?Yeah, thing is there accurate as long as whatever you're doing isn't too fast. There valid in most calculations under those conditions since the error doesn't matter that much. (This is me trying to put to use some of that physics course I had to attend...)

Taking the Bible literally contradicts science. Technically, if Genesis is considered a parable, it is a nice poetic description of what could well be the Big Bang, evolution, and the beginning of man's consciousnous.

Except for the order in which things happened conflicting with science... which is a *much* bigger problem than the 7 days.

Except for the order in which things happened conflicting with science... which is a *much* bigger problem than the 7 days.Like? (I don't have a bible handy...)

The real problem in these debates is that anything with a Ph.D. counts as a biology scientist to these people. Someone could have a Ph.D. in theology, and these people would go, "Look, He's a scientist and he believes in it!" Well, so? We don't go to theologists to treat us for the flu, why would we go to them for our biology?

Edit: Just to clarify, I would add that a theologist is more of a philosopher, but not a scientist.

Like? (I don't have a bible handy...)

Most problematic are the earth existing before the sun (the light present the first few days is not sunlight) and the stars and the fruit bearing trees existing before the sun and animals to eat the fruit

You know, Newton's laws are inaccurate...

Yes, Newton's Laws do not apply on the atomic level. For the most part Newton's Laws are accurate, with modifications made for better scientific instrumentation and additions to scientific knowledge from Newton's time until now.


Let us also remember that not only does the Bible contradict science, it also contradicts itself. There are several instances where God commands his follows to kill, after he issues the Commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' to Moses. Bible 'fact' should be taken with a grain of salt considering the source itself is often openly contradictory.

It seems to me possible for a creationist to gain a PhD in Science. At the end of the day, all you need to do is pay lip-service to the theories, pass your exams, and then claim everything you've been taught was in fact a lie.

However, it disappoints me, as a scientist, that this creationist article was as badly recieved as it was. I am a convinced evolutionist. But i abhore intolerance, and while I would approve absolutely of scientific critiquing of that paper, for it to be torn down ad hominum, is not tolerant.

That's not how reasonned men should act, and adds a certain amound of weight to some of ID's claims.

Let us also remember that not only does the Bible contradict science, it also contradicts itself. There are several instances where God commands his follows to kill, after he issues the Commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' to Moses. Bible 'fact' should be taken with a grain of salt considering the source itself is often openly contradictory.I really don't want to sound like a creationist, but in fact, the ten commandments would better read thou shalt not murder...

Well what do you think? Have I been pwned?
You haven't, but then neither has he.

If I recall - and I might not - the programme centered on the evidence of a significant flood in Iraq some considerable time ago.

I remember that as well. As I recall, the Epic of Gilglimesh (including a Noah type character) has a very similar flood story (So do the ancient Greeks). The poster who said much of the Hebrew Bible was compiled during there captivity in Babylon was right so the Flood in current day Iraq fits quite nicely with it.

(In fact, I know a lot of Christian Scholars who argue this point)

-snip-


Let us also remember that not only does the Bible contradict science, it also contradicts itself. There are several instances where God commands his follows to kill, after he issues the Commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' to Moses. Bible 'fact' should be taken with a grain of salt considering the source itself is often openly contradictory.

Of course, the fact is that the King James translation uses the word "kill" instead of "murder", which is the correct translation, and clears that up handily.

Killing can be illegal (murder) or legal (war, self-defense, disinfection, insect extermination). Illegal killing (murder) is what God is prohibiting.

Many Bible so-called contradictions fall into easily explained categories like this, needing only some scholarship to reconcile.

Please do not take half-remembered verses and/or anti-Christian ranting to be the whole truth about the Bible or the God of the Bible. ;)

Reverbia']However, it disappoints me, as a scientist, that this creationist article was as badly recieved as it was. I am a convinced evolutionist. But i abhore intolerance, and while I would approve absolutely of scientific critiquing of that paper, for it to be torn down ad hominum, is not tolerant.

Did you miss the part of the article about the scientific critiques of the article posted up everywhere?

Meanwhile, if the reviewers found 50 problems with the article, it shouldn't have been published in the first place.

And finally, in order to truly provide a scientific critique, there has to be [b]science[/i] involved. That is, the study in question must follow the scientific method and come to conclusions using it, and not untestable assumptions. Unfotunately, ID and Creationist "critiques" fail at the outset, because they are completely based in untestable (and unnecessary - within science anyways) assumptions.

Of course, the fact is that the King James translation uses the word "kill" instead of "murder", which is the correct translation, and clears that up handily.

Killing can be illegal (murder) or legal (war, self-defense, disinfection, insect extermination). Illegal killing (murder) is what God is prohibiting.

Many Bible so-called contradictions fall into easily explained categories like this, needing only some scholarship to reconcile.

Please do not take half-remembered verses and/or anti-Christian ranting to be the whole truth about the Bible or the God of the Bible. ;)

That is interesting. You did not know that 'kill' and 'murder' are the same word in Hebrew?

That is interesting. You did not know that 'kill' and 'murder' are the same word in Hebrew?Argh!
Do you happen to know which word?

Of course, the fact is that the King James translation uses the word "kill" instead of "murder", which is the correct translation, and clears that up handily.

Killing can be illegal (murder) or legal (war, self-defense, disinfection, insect extermination). Illegal killing (murder) is what God is prohibiting.

Many Bible so-called contradictions fall into easily explained categories like this, needing only some scholarship to reconcile.

Please do not take half-remembered verses and/or anti-Christian ranting to be the whole truth about the Bible or the God of the Bible. ;)

With all do respect the KJV is not the best translation there is and the New Testimant writers also sometimes mistranslated the Hebrew Bible to suit their purposes. For instance, Matthew 1:22-23 states: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which translated means, God with us." Missionaries claim that this is the fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14, that actually reads: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

There are numerous inaccuracies in the Christian translation. For example:

1) The Hebrew word, "almah," means a young woman, not a virgin, a fact recognized by biblical scholars

2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime;

3) The verse says "she will call his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call."


Even apart from these inaccuracies, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, from which this verse is taken, it is obvious that Christians have taken this verse out of context.

This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims). Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to Isaiah. As it says in Isaiah 8:4, "For before the child shall know to cry, "My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.

Hey guys, I've recently entered into blog debate with an extremely devout Christian who claims that Evolution is a shaky-ground theory. I've copied a page where he "refutes" all my points. I'd like you to assess just how accurate he is.



Well what do you think? Have I been pwned?

There's a full copy on his blog here: http://spaces.msn.com/members/fallenthenredeemed/Blog/cns!1pNTZ7vVUW4PIMSM6uus91SA!538.entry#comment

The person you are arguing with is an idiot. You should have brought up that if the flood in genesis took out the dinosaurs then dinosaurs and humans were on earth at the same time? Not according to the information I've seen. Where were these dinosaurs in the bible that got wiped out? Why didn't they just eat Adam, Eve, and the garden of eden while they were at it?

The person in debating with you, they are inventing to respond to your valid points. I'd ignore this person.

Biologists do not 'believe' in the modern synthesis, it is simply accepted as being the most accurate explanation of the phenomenon of evolution, with the greatest predictive power.

The only belief required is that there is an objective reality independent of our experiences, and even then only maybe.

I belive the word used in the Hebrew Old Testament is ratsach, it means 'kill' or 'murder' depending entirely upon context. 'Thou shalt not kill' obviously has no context, except to 'not do it', it is not 'Thou shalt not kill, unless I say so' .

The Hebrew word nakah also means 'kill' or 'murder' but once again it depends on context, and is typically used in context with a pre-meditated act of killing or an accidental killing, which is probably more appropriate for murder.

However, both words, as do most Hebrew verbs, depend entirely upon context.

Every time a thread on Evolution vs. Creation is made, God kills a puppy.

Every time a thread on Evolution vs. Creation is made, God kills a puppy.

NO silly...he kills a creationist...somehow to poetically prove a point... ;)

Every time a thread on Evolution vs. Creation is made, God kills a puppy.

MORE THREADS!!!




(there is still a dog over population problem)

The real problem in these debates is that anything with a Ph.D. counts as a biology scientist to these people. Someone could have a Ph.D. in theology, and these people would go, "Look, He's a scientist and he believes in it!" Well, so? We don't go to theologists to treat us for the flu, why would we go to them for our biology?

Edit: Just to clarify, I would add that a theologist is more of a philosopher, but not a scientist.

well you wouldn't go to a ph.D. to treat you for the flu,you'd go to an M.D.

Well... I didn't read the whole post, so I hope I didn't copy anyone's points.

This is quoting the IDer in the topic post.

Before you go waving the “you don’t understand science” banner, how about you actually look at the degrees and experience that many who oppose the theory of evolution have. If they are “people who don’t understand science”, then what chance do you have?

Logical Fallacy #1: Appeal to authority.


You obviously have little idea of who or what a “serious scientist” is.

Logical Fallacy #2: Ad hominem.

Plus, there are many who aren’t creationists or supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) that have rejected evolution as a viable explanation.

Well, that's just generally vague and requires factual support. But I suppose you could say it's,

Logical Fallacy #3: Appeal to popularity.

If there was so much evidence then how can scientists claim that evolution is wrong?

And that's just plainly unsupported. He hasn't demonstrated that scientists do claim it's wrong.

Other comments that are unsupported:

And the illusion that there is no debate is a myth propagated by those who adhere to the idea that there is no God and that, no matter what, they will not believe in Him.

God does not deceive humanity; why would He need to when we are perfectly capable of that ourselves? Most fossils were created due to the Flood described in Genesis.

There is a growing number of reputable peer-reviewed journals that publish new discoveries and evidences that contradict evolution. There has also been quite a few articles published questioning evolution within even the atheistic peer-reviewed journals.


Either unsupported or not, the comments are also irrelevent unless he can demonstrate (as others have pointed out) that evolution is flawed and there is evidence of an intelligent designer.

A couple of links that will better prepare you for fights in the future.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

And the biggest thing to remember is this: Theories are used to explain facts. The theory can be wrong without the fact being disproven.

well you wouldn't go to a ph.D. to treat you for the flu,you'd go to an M.D.

Exactly!

And you wouldn't go to a Ph.D. in art history to ask about physics, you would go to someone with a Ph.D. in physics.

And you wouldn't go to an podiatrist to ask about intestinal parasites, you would go to an internist.

(I state that I can't abide people who refuse to understand science and embrace fantasy)
Not really the best opening line.. that seems somewhat flamebait-ish to me.

His Response: Before you go waving the “you don’t understand science” banner, how about you actually look at the degrees and experience that many who oppose the theory of evolution have. If they are “people who don’t understand science”, then what chance do you have?
Ask him to double check what these people have degrees in, or whether they actually exist. In my double checking of creationists, many of them will have a degree in say, inorganic chemistry and be discussing the fossil record. The one has nothing to do with the other. So ask him to name some top creationist scientists, or go through his sources and see if the people he's cited are actually speaking within their field of expertise.

(I claim that there is very little division within the scientific community over evolution and that by and large, the debate is a non event with most serious scientists due to the vast amount of evidence and reputable research which validates it)
You're right. Most scientists believe that evolution has occured. There are a number who go along with the idea of a god acting behind it though.

His Response: You obviously have little idea of who or what a “serious scientist” is. Plus, there are many who aren’t creationists or supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) that have rejected evolution as a viable explanation.
No, I don't think you'll find any real scientists who are within their fields and don't support evolutionary theory. You may find some shitty ones that are pretty much considered quacks by most of the scientific community... but other than that, no.

Good to see some dogmatic stuff being brought in here, along with a huge generalisation that evolution is the one of the most “heavily evidenced Scientific Theories around”. If there was so much evidence then how can scientists claim that evolution is wrong?
Not many scientists claim that evolution is wrong. It's some rediculously small % of the scientific community that doesn't agree and as I've said, they're mostly quacks.

“No debate”? Are you aware that there is a debate occurring? Aren’t you someone who is angry that it is?
There isn't a debate within scientific communities except for the details of evolution, really. The only real debates are between scientists and layman and layman amongst themselves.

His response: And the illusion that there is no debate is a myth propagated by those who adhere to the idea that there is no God and that, no matter what, they will not believe in Him.
No, there really isn't a serious debate here.

As for God putting dinosaurs in the ground to trick us, this is ludicrous. God does not deceive humanity; why would He need to when we are perfectly capable of that ourselves? Most fossils were created due to the Flood described in Genesis. This catastrophe gives the right conditions for fossil formation and gives the perfect circumstances for the instantaneous deaths that can be seen in some fossils (i.e. a carnivorous fish in the middle of a meal).
This guy got fossil formation kinda fucked up. Point out how it's odd that the smaller animal fossils didn't all sink to the bottom... also point out the ages of the rocks that formed, explain sedementation et c.

There is a growing number of reputable peer-reviewed journals that publish new discoveries and evidences that contradict evolution. There has also been quite a few articles published questioning evolution within even the atheistic peer-reviewed journals. Although, for the most part many papers are rejected purely for the fact that the author has rejected evolution in the first place so is barred from publishing anyway. There is one noticeable exception to this that resulted in the sacking of the editor.
Ask him to cite anti-evolution papers in reputable journals. Find out if they're actually technical journals. Ask him to dig up some of these rejected research papers and then find a biology student (I'm sure there's one kicking around here somewhere) and ask them to review it, or do your own research in actual peer-reviewed journals.

If an editor actually posted some of the drivel they try to pass as science in a real scientific journal, they would be canned simply because that shit ain't science.

Exactly!

And you wouldn't go to a Ph.D. in art history to ask about physics, you would go to someone with a Ph.D. in physics.

And you wouldn't go to an podiatrist to ask about intestinal parasites, you would go to an internist.

thats the unfortunate thing,everyone assumes a ph.D. has something to do with science.this isnt true at all,phD stands for Philosophy Degree(or possibly diploma or doctorate,it doesnt matter which)as opposed to MD which is Medical <insert whatever the D stands for in phD,cos its the same here>

Not really the best opening line.. that seems somewhat flamebait-ish to me. Hehehe, yeah I kinda make a point of being a bit of an asshole on my blog. ;)

You know, Newton's laws are inaccurate...
You know Einstein's theory of relativity solves the issues with Newton, right?

Hey guys, I've recently entered into blog debate with an extremely devout Christian who claims that Evolution is a shaky-ground theory. I've copied a page where he "refutes" all my points. I'd like you to assess just how accurate he is.

Well what do you think? Have I been pwned?


Aren't you the "extremely devout Christian" himself? Seems to me like you just tried to create a flame thread.

That is interesting. You did not know that 'kill' and 'murder' are the same word in Hebrew?

Long quote on the passage in question, with five different Hebrew words for killing:

# Thou shalt not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV)
# Modern translations:

* You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NIV)
* You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NASB)

* Do not put anyone to death without cause. (Deuteronomy 5:17, BBE)
* Do not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, CEV)
* "'You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 ESV)
* "'Do not commit murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GNB)
* "Never murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GW)
* "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 HNV)
* No murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 MSG)
* "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 WEB)
* 'Thou dost not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 YLT)

# Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
râtsach ratsach (Strong's H7523) (Strong's H7523)

1. to murder, slay, kill
1. (Qal) to murder, slay
1. premeditated
2. accidental
3. as avenger
4. slayer (intentional) (participle)
2. (Niphal) to be slain
3. (Piel)
1. to murder, assassinate
2. murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive)
4. (Pual) to be killed

Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 220
# then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed [nakah] any person unintentionally may flee there. (Numbers 35:11)
# Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
nâkâh nakah (Strong's H5221) (Strong's H5221)

1. to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill
1. (Niphal) to be stricken or smitten
2. (Pual) to be stricken or smitten
3. (Hiphil)
1. to smite, strike, beat, scourge, clap, applaud, give a thrust
2. to smite, kill, slay (man or beast)
3. to smite, attack, attack and destroy, conquer, subjugate, ravage
4. to smite, chastise, send judgment upon, punish, destroy
4. (Hophal) to be smitten
1. to receive a blow
2. to be wounded
3. to be beaten
4. to be (fatally) smitten, be killed, be slain
5. to be attacked and captured
6. to be smitten (with disease)
7. to be blighted (of plants)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1364

# Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
hârag harag (Strong's H2026) (Strong's H2026)

1. to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand
1. (Qal)
1. to kill, slay
2. to destroy, ruin
2. (Niphal) to be killed
3. (Pual) to be killed, be slain

Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 514
# Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
shâchaṭ shachat (Strong's H7819) (Strong's H7819)

1. to kill, slaughter, beat (verb)
1. (Qal)
1. to slaughter
1. beast for food
2. sacrifice
3. person in human sacrifice
4. beaten, hammered (of shekels)
2. (Niphal) to be slaughtered, be slain (of food or sacrifice)
2. (BDB) slaughtering (noun feminine)
1. word doubtful

Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2362
# Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
mûth muth (Strong's H4191) (Strong's H4191)

1. to die, kill, have one executed
1. (Qal)
1. to die
2. to die (as penalty), be put to death
3. to die, perish (of a nation)
4. to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
2. (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
3. (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
4. (Hophal)
1. to be killed, be put to death
1. to die prematurely

Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1169

Aren't you the "extremely devout Christian" himself? Seems to me like you just tried to create a flame thread. I assure you I am not.

This is my blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/thatblondfilmguy

This is his blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/fallenthenredeemed/

Well, at the very least, you're exponentially increasing the hit count for both your blogs.

Well, at the very least, you're exponentially increasing the hit count for both your blogs. Lol, I only run ONE of the blogs. It was not my intention at all to increase traffic, I just wanted the opinions of the fine folks here at NS General.

Lol, I only run ONE of the blogs. It was not my intention at all to increase traffic, I just wanted the opinions of the fine folks here at NS General.

Heh, I meant you're increasing traffic for his blog and your blog...although, like another poster said, it's been a fairly Hitchcockian twist if you really were behind them both.

I wouldn't call him a fanatic, but he would be wrong on several very fundamental points. Science and religion can coexist and that coexistance can lead to the synthesis of a stronger understanding of the place, power and purpose of both. He, however, hasn't found it as he still insists on using religion to somehow limit science.

I remember that as well. As I recall, the Epic of Gilglimesh (including a Noah type character) has a very similar flood story (So do the ancient Greeks). The poster who said much of the Hebrew Bible was compiled during there captivity in Babylon was right so the Flood in current day Iraq fits quite nicely with it.

(In fact, I know a lot of Christian Scholars who argue this point)

I'm a student studying archaeology. There's actually quite a bit of evidence scattered around the world which suggests the "Great Flood" has a basis in fact.

Excavations and geological experiments in the Syrian desert show evidence of a massive flood about 10,000 years ago.

The natives of the Canary Islands, the Guanches, had no knowledge of boats and in their culture demonised the sea (this is extremely unusual for an island people). They believed all the world,except their mountains, had been covered in a flood long ago, and were amazed when the Spanish arrived.
Interestingly, step pyramids have been discovered recently on the islands.

The Maya count their time from a terrible catastrophe 10,000 years ago.

Underwater ruins in the Carribean eg the "Bimini road", and in the Black Sea again suggest coastlines were once much further out.

I'm not a creationist at all, but I don't think the Bible should be dismissed as complete fantasy.

I'm a student studying archaeology. There's actually quite a bit of evidence scattered around the world which suggests the "Great Flood" has a basis in fact.

Excavations and geological experiments in the Syrian desert show evidence of a massive flood about 10,000 years ago.

The natives of the Canary Islands, the Guanches, had no knowledge of boats and in their culture demonised the sea (this is extremely unusual for an island people). They believed all the world,except their mountains, had been covered in a flood long ago, and were amazed when the Spanish arrived.
Interestingly, step pyramids have been discovered recently on the islands.

The Maya count their time from a terrible catastrophe 10,000 years ago.

Underwater ruins in the Carribean eg the "Bimini road", and in the Black Sea again suggest coastlines were once much further out.

I'm not a creationist at all, but I don't think the Bible should be dismissed as complete fantasy.
There's no gelological evidence for a flood that covered the entire earth.

There is evidence that the sea levels rose after the ice age covering lands that were previously plains with water.

Long quote on the passage in question, with five different Hebrew words for killing:

# Thou shalt not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV)
# Modern translations:

* You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NIV)
* You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NASB)

* Do not put anyone to death without cause. (Deuteronomy 5:17, BBE)
* Do not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, CEV)
* "'You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 ESV)
* "'Do not commit murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GNB)
* "Never murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GW)
* "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 HNV)
* No murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 MSG)
* "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 WEB)
* 'Thou dost not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 YLT)

# Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
râtsach ratsach (Strong's H7523) (Strong's H7523)

1. to murder, slay, kill
1. (Qal) to murder, slay
1. premeditated
2. accidental
3. as avenger
4. slayer (intentional) (participle)
2. (Niphal) to be slain
3. (Piel)
1. to murder, assassinate
2. murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive)
4. (Pual) to be killed



After checking, it is indeed ratsach that is used in the Hebrew Pentateuch in the famous 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Your excellent and very complete lists do indeed capture the main problem here. Translation. We can see that ratsach has at least four different meanings. These various meanings are attributed to the word in the context that the word is used in, as you point out (and I did earlier) it can mean murder or kill, depending on the context.

Thou shalt not kill , even in it's original Hebrew, is a command with no qualifiers, there is nothing in the context that explains what ratsach specifically means. Which is especially interesting.

In previous books the Jewish 'laws against murder' use context and examples to qualify when 'murder' is or isn't appropriate, not in a simple one line command.

Once agin the devil is in the details, in the case of the Ten Commandments, the lack thereof. When ratsach is used in other commands i.e. 'Kill him' , it clearly means 'kill' but yet when it is used in 'Thou shalt not kill' we want to replace it with 'murder', because then it allows us to rationalize that God indeed does support killing so long as it isn't againt the 'law', that allows Jews to say that the murders done later in the Pentatech are 'God's will' and also allows Christianity to alllow killing 'in God's name'.

It's a semantic cop out, as a direct command ratsach , nine times out of ten means kill. If God is giving you a direct command to simply 'not murder' there are at least four other clearer ways to say it. As you point out 'nakah' has more meanings of 'murder' and pre-meditated killing and smiting than ratsach.

INTERESTING NOTE:

A Jewish friend of mine just signed onto MSN and I posed the question to him, and he states that the exact and original translation of 'Thou shalt not kill' is:
lo tirtzack

He also points out that lo literally translates to 'do not' or 'no' and that tirtzack translates literally to 'killing of any kind whatsoever' which is also it's translation in The Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary by Dr. Reuben Alcalay.

So the Commandment: lo tirtzack literally means 'no killing of any kind whatsoever.'

He also goes on to point out that there are various accepted and unaccepted version of even the Hebrew Commandments, and that the above is often used by vegans and vegetarians to 'prove' that god didn't want animals killed for human consumption.

Food for thought.

You know Einstein's theory of relativity solves the issues with Newton, right?

By altering them to get rid of the error...

Thus, Newton's "Laws" are inaccurate, but the theory of relativity is more accurate. Thus, it is now the prevailing theory, whereas Newton's laws are only used as an approximation in certain situations in which the error is very small.

He also goes on to point out that there are various accepted and unaccepted version of even the Hebrew Commandments, and that the above is often used by vegans and vegetarians to 'prove' that god didn't want animals killed for human consumption.

Most eaten plants are killed when they are harvested....

Now you're just complicating things! This is why I generally don't debate the Bible, there is a different version for everyone!

I'm a student studying archaeology. There's actually quite a bit of evidence scattered around the world which suggests the "Great Flood" has a basis in fact.

Excavations and geological experiments in the Syrian desert show evidence of a massive flood about 10,000 years ago.

The natives of the Canary Islands, the Guanches, had no knowledge of boats and in their culture demonised the sea (this is extremely unusual for an island people). They believed all the world,except their mountains, had been covered in a flood long ago, and were amazed when the Spanish arrived.
Interestingly, step pyramids have been discovered recently on the islands.

The Maya count their time from a terrible catastrophe 10,000 years ago.

Underwater ruins in the Carribean eg the "Bimini road", and in the Black Sea again suggest coastlines were once much further out.

I'm not a creationist at all, but I don't think the Bible should be dismissed as complete fantasy.

You do know that the "Bimini Road" isn't actually a man made ruin, but in fact a natural mineral formation, right? If not kindly go out and get a copy of James "The Amazing" Rani's book Flim Flam.

I'm a student studying archaeology. There's actually quite a bit of evidence scattered around the world which suggests the "Great Flood" has a basis in fact.

Which of course does not proof that God caused it ;)

I'm not a creationist at all, but I don't think the Bible should be dismissed as complete fantasy.

Of course it isn't. Kings that really ruled are named. Places that really exist are described. No doubt several big events really happened. None of that however means the Bible must be entirely accurate or complete.

The bible works perfectly as metaphor for developing a vision of the meaning of life and moral guidance. Evolution works perfectly as science for describing the processes of the natural world. Both have uses -- different uses. They cannot do each other's jobs, but they don't negate each other's jobs. Insisting that they conflict somehow is kind of like saying you can't own both a car and a washing machine, imo.

Some people seem to have a problem with metaphor, though. They want the bible to be literal history. They seem to think science is somehow a refutation of the religion. I don't understand them.

Written as a reply as if he and you both would actually read this, because it's easier that way.

Ok, it's time to get something off my chest regarding this whole "Evolution vs Magic Unicorn" thing. Over the course of my blog, you may have noticed I hold strong opinions regarding Idiots, Goths, Communists, Fascists and the French. Well that's nothing compared to my loathing of people who don't understand science trying to undermine it."

Before you go waving the “you don’t understand science” banner, how about you actually look at the degrees and experience that many who oppose the theory of evolution have. If they are “people who don’t understand science”, then what chance do you have?

Fallcius Appeal to Authority. Thankyou, come again.

Alternately: Degrees mean nothing when not backed up by studies at a reputable university and when not shown to be worth something by the quality of work issued in the past. Further, Dr. Sagan has no authority commenting on economics. He has great authority commenting on cosmology. Whatever he is commenting on, his argument has to be able to stand on its own.

So where do these degrees come from, anyway? Patriot Bible University, like "Dr" Kent Hovind? Or like Dr. Zoe D. Katze, Ph.D., C.Ht., DAPA (http://www.dreichel.com/Dr_Zoe.htm)'s long string of degrees?

You have also used a rather poor persuasive technique, even in your first sentence, by grouping those who disagree with evolution as people who believe in a “Magic Unicorn”. Does this make their objections easier for you to discredit because it ridicules the person? By doing this you aren’t solving any problems because you aren’t tackling the objections.
He's right here; if you want to make an argument, make an argument, not an assertion. /assertion. On the other hand, you weren't making an argument, you were griping, which has no need for assertions until it becomes an argument.

"Evolution is real guys. It's just about the most heavily-evidenced Scientific Theory around. Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Archeology and a myriad of other sciences have produced so much evidence for Evolution that it isn't even questioned by serious scientists anymore. (Compare this with, say, the Big Bang Theory or M-Theory)."

You obviously have little idea of who or what a “serious scientist” is. Plus, there are many who aren’t creationists or supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) that have rejected evolution as a viable explanation.
Name a few prominent ones, find evidence that there is dissent among the consensus by non-theistic (either athiest, diest, or agnostic) individuals or by individuals who came to their conclusitons before conversion, name the articals they wrote on it that were posted in peer reviewed scientific journals, or kindly stfu.

Good to see some dogmatic stuff being brought in here, along with a huge generalisation that evolution is the most “heavily evidenced Scientific Theory around”. If there was so much evidence then how can scientists claim that evolution is wrong?
What scientists? Astrophysicists? Chemists? "Dr." Hovind?

"To give you an idea, there was a survey done recently and it was found there are more scientists named Steve who believe in Evolution in the United States of America than there are Scientists who believe in Intelligent Design ON THE ENTIRE PLANET. There is no debate within the scientific community."
Site the survey or don't make an argument from it, please. Fallacious appeal to authority on your part.

This is for humour, I hope. What’s your source for these “statistics”?
Hot damn, I agree with a fundie! What is going on here!

“No debate”? Are you aware that there is a debate occurring? Aren’t you someone who is angry that it is?
No debate among the reputable and relative scientific community. A third of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. That doesn't make there a debate. It makes them stupid.

"The illusion of two equal sides is a myth propogated by people who adhere to an idea that God put dinosaurs in the ground just to confuse us. Like he's some kind of wily prankster."

And the illusion that there is no debate is a myth propagated by those who adhere to the idea that there is no God and that, no matter what, they will not believe in Him.
Red herring. Get back on topic.

As for God putting dinosaurs in the ground to trick us, this is ludicrous. God does not deceive humanity; why would He need to when we are perfectly capable of that ourselves? Most fossils were created due to the Flood described in Genesis. This catastrophe gives the right conditions for fossil formation and gives the perfect circumstances for the instantaneous deaths that can be seen in some fossils (i.e. a carnivorous fish in the middle of a meal).
Provide evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. Provide evidence that an environment that can sustain fifty-meter-tall dinosaurs can also sustain humans. Provide evidence that the asteroid crater dated to the same date as the last dinosaur fossils is not really an asteroid crater, because it was a flood, and not an asteroid, that ended the dinosaurs. Provide evidence that evolution can occur so quickly that, over the time between the flood and the first mention of various races of people in the bible, humankind developed distinct nose and skull shapes, pigmentations, and provide evidence that humankind spread over the entire earth in a time when there was no Berring land bridge.

"Over the past 100 years there has not been one single serious challenge to Evolution mounted in any reputable Scientific Peer-Reviewed Journal. All that has consistently been offered is a load of hot air and empty rhetoric."

There is a growing number of reputable peer-reviewed journals that publish new discoveries and evidences that contradict evolution. There has also been quite a few articles published questioning evolution within even the atheistic peer-reviewed journals. Although, for the most part many papers are rejected purely for the fact that the author has rejected evolution in the first place so is barred from publishing anyway. There is one noticeable exception to this that resulted in the sacking of the editor.
Name them. Special relativity was posed in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and it too strongly contradicted the prevailing theories of the day.

Your blog is full of inaccuracies, so I don’t see how you can actually have made much research into this issue.

God bless,

Alistair
God hasn't blessed me noticably yet. Maybe you should try harder. I'd like a promotion and a pay raise by Wednesday, if you need to ask for something specific.

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

More directly:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

It's called project steve. Over 622 Steves with doctorates in Biology have signed the petition, which is far more then the 100 some people with doctorates in any science the IDers have gotten yet.

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

More directly:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

It's called project steve. Over 622 Steves with doctorates in Biology have signed the petition, which is far more then the 100 some people with doctorates in any science the IDers have gotten yet.

Bwahahahahahaha!

You do know that the "Bimini Road" isn't actually a man made ruin, but in fact a natural mineral formation, right? If not kindly go out and get a copy of James "The Amazing" Rani's book Flim Flam.

I knew some people were saying that,but didnt read anything solid on it. If youre back on this thread,could you give a link?Its somthing Im interested in.Thanks.