Comments on: Catholic Theologian’s Try to Bend Dover http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/ Helping Mankind Overcome Religion Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:39:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: hydrocodone online http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-26616 hydrocodone online Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:16:45 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-26616 <strong>hydrocodone online...</strong> news...

hydrocodone online…

news…

]]> By: franky http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2222 franky Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:34:31 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2222 Yes, that's it! We just need a time machine! Brilliant.

Yes, that’s it! We just need a time machine! Brilliant.

]]> By: Reluctant Atheist http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2197 Reluctant Atheist Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:36:41 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2197 Christian theist: “…the whole theory of evolution rests upon the assumption that the laws of nature have been constant for the past X billions of years, and yet no one knows that this kind of uniformity has been constant. It’s just believed without justification.” Whatever makes you think otherwise? Do you have any proof? No, I mean EMPIRICAL proof that it was otherwise? The law of gravity has been around. Any reason I should think otherwise? Now let me toss in a few points here: indulge me, I'm an average layman. Transitional fossils? Transitional life-forms? Isn't EVERYTHING transitional? While the theists out there ponder that (I hope), I will bring another angle (I hope) to the discussion. Watching the discovery channel, there was a documentary on the Cro-Magnons & Neanderthals. A scientist tested the DNA of the N vs. the CM. There was a 40% deviation. This means (drum roll, please!) speciation. Prevalent theory is that the N's migrated to Europe, while the CM's stayed, and the CM diet was primarily fish (brain food), & so they evolved much more quickly. & 1 more to this 'transitional fossil' the theists keep spewing out. Mind you, I cannot emphasize this enough: EXAMPLE ONLY. You cannot find a 100 yr old African gorilla skeleton. Why? Multiple reasons: 1. High akaline soil. 2. Scavengers 3. Erosion Again: EXAMPLE ONLY. So unless the evolutionists build a time-machine, and go back in time, and manage to push the requisite # of creatures into tar pits (or bathe them in amber), the lack of 'transitional fossils' is pure sophistry. Not that it would matter. For each one, the theists will want 5 more. Those are provided, 5 more again.

Christian theist:
“…the whole theory of evolution rests upon the assumption that the laws of nature have been constant for the past X billions of years, and yet no one knows that this kind of uniformity has been constant. It’s just believed without justification.”
Whatever makes you think otherwise? Do you have any proof? No, I mean EMPIRICAL proof that it was otherwise?
The law of gravity has been around. Any reason I should think otherwise?

Now let me toss in a few points here: indulge me, I’m an average layman.
Transitional fossils? Transitional life-forms? Isn’t EVERYTHING transitional?

While the theists out there ponder that (I hope), I will bring another angle (I hope) to the discussion.
Watching the discovery channel, there was a documentary on the Cro-Magnons & Neanderthals. A scientist tested the DNA of the N vs. the CM. There was a 40% deviation. This means (drum roll, please!) speciation. Prevalent theory is that the N’s migrated to Europe, while the CM’s stayed, and the CM diet was primarily fish (brain food), & so they evolved much more quickly.

& 1 more to this ‘transitional fossil’ the theists keep spewing out.
Mind you, I cannot emphasize this enough: EXAMPLE ONLY.

You cannot find a 100 yr old African gorilla skeleton. Why? Multiple reasons:
1. High akaline soil.
2. Scavengers
3. Erosion
Again: EXAMPLE ONLY.

So unless the evolutionists build a time-machine, and go back in time, and manage to push the requisite # of creatures into tar pits (or bathe them in amber), the lack of ‘transitional fossils’ is pure sophistry.

Not that it would matter. For each one, the theists will want 5 more. Those are provided, 5 more again.

]]> By: Seth http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2174 Seth Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:21:52 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2174 "every fact…proves there is a God" But only if one is under the assumption that an all-powerful god already exists. For me, the fact that the ice in my cup has now melted does not serve as Yahweh's existence.

“every fact…proves there is a God”

But only if one is under the assumption that an all-powerful god already exists. For me, the fact that the ice in my cup has now melted does not serve as Yahweh’s existence.

]]> By: UnapologeticAtheist http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2157 UnapologeticAtheist Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:49:21 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/10/01/catholic-theologians-try-to-bend-dover/#comment-2157 CT - I observe evolution in action. Even you do not argue this (except you call it "micro" evolution). I simply recognize that once this principle is observed in action, now that the genetic causes of these changes is understood, especially, that we can study with a high degree of accuracy the ways in which these changes take place in a population, and how that population can split into differentiating branches. I say that we do not observe what YOU ask for, because you are full of crap. You clearly do not understand how genetically-reproducing populations operate, and that's fine, until you ask me to show you something that simply doesn't happen, because you (and I) KNOW it doesn't happen. The issue I take with it is that you keep asserting that I think it happens, anyway. I tried to point out that if what you say were to happen as you say, then it would disprove evolution as I know it. Then you chose to say it's not true either way, completely ignoring and refusing to own up to the my point that you had built this straw-man. When you own up to the fact that you intentionally have mis-represented what evolution is and how it works, I'll keep dealing with you on this. If you decide to keep insisting that your incorrect version is really what science claims, I'm just going to have to conclude that you are willfully dishonest or at least partially insane. Perhaps both. In either case, I will not deal with such a person. I am not trying to prove these things as an atheist. I DO prove these things as a biologist all the time. If you want to learn why we know what we know, take a good course in biochemical genetics and/or population genetics. But for crying out loud, don't make up random, insane crap about what you think science says, and then claim to have defeated me when I point out to you that you're totally wrong in your current understanding of what science asserts in the first place.

CT - I observe evolution in action. Even you do not argue this (except you call it “micro” evolution). I simply recognize that once this principle is observed in action, now that the genetic causes of these changes is understood, especially, that we can study with a high degree of accuracy the ways in which these changes take place in a population, and how that population can split into differentiating branches.

I say that we do not observe what YOU ask for, because you are full of crap. You clearly do not understand how genetically-reproducing populations operate, and that’s fine, until you ask me to show you something that simply doesn’t happen, because you (and I) KNOW it doesn’t happen. The issue I take with it is that you keep asserting that I think it happens, anyway. I tried to point out that if what you say were to happen as you say, then it would disprove evolution as I know it. Then you chose to say it’s not true either way, completely ignoring and refusing to own up to the my point that you had built this straw-man.

When you own up to the fact that you intentionally have mis-represented what evolution is and how it works, I’ll keep dealing with you on this. If you decide to keep insisting that your incorrect version is really what science claims, I’m just going to have to conclude that you are willfully dishonest or at least partially insane. Perhaps both. In either case, I will not deal with such a person.

I am not trying to prove these things as an atheist. I DO prove these things as a biologist all the time. If you want to learn why we know what we know, take a good course in biochemical genetics and/or population genetics. But for crying out loud, don’t make up random, insane crap about what you think science says, and then claim to have defeated me when I point out to you that you’re totally wrong in your current understanding of what science asserts in the first place.

]]>