tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post3437632860900991726..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: We get email: another creationist punching bagUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38027705219753093682010-05-20T12:16:28.904-05:002010-05-20T12:16:28.904-05:00@ Thomas
In Human Evolution class, the analogy wa...@ Thomas<br /><br />In Human Evolution class, the analogy was of the tangled garden hose. You move the hose in the shortest path possible not caring about how it gets tangled or what it gets snagged on...when you have to move it you're not allowed to backtrack, you have to go around the mess you already made.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31700310329679959542010-05-19T12:31:46.737-05:002010-05-19T12:31:46.737-05:00@Ing
I always looked at it from a systems/software...@Ing<br />I always looked at it from a systems/software engineering perspective. The simplest, most elegant designs are usually those designed from the ground up to serve a single purpose.<br /><br />Systems that have evolved, or been adapted to serve purposes beyond the original design, often fail that test. They will have designs and work flows that only make sense if you start by explaining how the system used to work, and then explain how this new functionality was hacked onto the old.<br /><br />When you think about vestigial organs, the design of the human eye, the broken vitamin C gene, etc, the human body seems more like a series of hacks, than a system designed from scratch to work the way it does. "Reuse of code" is not an adequate explanation for design flaws made by a perfect being. <br /><br />But I think the blood type example is probably a better example to give to the average (or below average) person.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72669779750137948122010-05-19T09:21:52.735-05:002010-05-19T09:21:52.735-05:00"I think the automobile analogy may have been..."I think the automobile analogy may have been a reference to the way genetic similarities between species are often dismissed as "God uses interchangeable parts". "<br /><br />Which fails the second anyone needs a blood transfer.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58697278504719443582010-05-17T11:55:35.648-05:002010-05-17T11:55:35.648-05:00I think the automobile analogy may have been a ref...I think the automobile analogy may have been a reference to the way genetic similarities between species are often dismissed as "God uses interchangeable parts". <br /><br />But was anybody able to make sense of the "Laws of love/viruses exist to kill creation" paragraph?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69969308704893971782010-05-17T10:06:27.049-05:002010-05-17T10:06:27.049-05:00I really don't see why he is claiming to be a ...I really don't see why he is claiming to be a neuroscientist, since he clearly has no high regards for science anyway. It doesn't make any sense. <br /><br />It does make sense it doesn't make any sense. This guy is a freaking idiot. You did your job Martin, I'm laughing :-DLegionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05230018220493247504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20083547706056554482010-05-15T03:19:14.985-05:002010-05-15T03:19:14.985-05:00So @ the end he switches gears from his lack of an...So @ the end he switches gears from his lack of any scientific understanding on full display to just preaching. <br /><br />That last part gave me a bad flashback to Ben Stein's interview on the 700 Club: "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people".Kyle Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04569432667084294505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14956892257917864982010-05-14T20:36:05.974-05:002010-05-14T20:36:05.974-05:00@ Martin
Even non-living things like Viruses &quo...@ Martin<br /><br />Even non-living things like Viruses "evolve". The only requirement is Replication with the chance of imperfection.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38412732992846241752010-05-14T18:44:07.602-05:002010-05-14T18:44:07.602-05:00elentir, JT: I suppose I could have simply said &q...elentir, JT: I suppose I could have simply said "reproduction" to be pedantically accurate. There has been a lot of debate among researchers about whether asexual or sexual reproduction is a better evolutionary strategy, with most research showing that while asexual is more efficient, sexual reproduction allows a species to develop greater genetic resistance to disease. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/index.html" rel="nofollow">Here's some cool reading</a> about the kind of actual science creationists just aren't doing.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91723691715020505572010-05-14T17:25:04.269-05:002010-05-14T17:25:04.269-05:00"You also seem to think that "integratin..."You also seem to think that "integrating" modern scientific evidence with the writings of a Bronze Age holy book produced by an ignorant, pre-scientific, and primitive culture that barely even had indoor plumbing to be a valid approach to researching this vast and complex field."<br /><br />Love that one.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77706486619837085882010-05-14T16:55:53.013-05:002010-05-14T16:55:53.013-05:00@elintir
Yeah, I was wondering about that stateme...@elintir<br /><br />Yeah, I was wondering about that statement. It isn't THAT necessary. Sexual reproduction tends to speed up the process greatly by providing more variations of offspring when random segments of the population copulate.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85600647436704243942010-05-14T12:14:19.895-05:002010-05-14T12:14:19.895-05:00If this guy was a True Christian (tm) all he had t...If this guy was a True Christian (tm) all he had to say was, "I believe in Intelligent Design, because I love Intelligent Design." Martin would have had no case.<br /><br />Natch!Doom03https://www.blogger.com/profile/13290607738323035380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38313403956917615182010-05-14T11:39:22.668-05:002010-05-14T11:39:22.668-05:00My position is that orange juice cures cancer. If ...<i>My position is that orange juice cures cancer. If there are apparent contradictions I look for errors in both my understanding of cancer and my understanding of orange juice. I have found errors in both places over time. But of course I would never ever question that orange juice can in fact cure cancer.</i><br /><br />Suzanne Sommers? Is that you?Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5388237845657169402010-05-14T10:13:07.930-05:002010-05-14T10:13:07.930-05:00I just wanted to point out a potential error: Real...I just wanted to point out a potential error: <i>Really, only three things need to exist for evolution to occur, and they're all things that we know exist: Sexual reproduction, heritable variation, and selection pressure.</i><br /><br />Is sexual reproduction required? I thought that it only has to be reproduction. Can't asexual organisms evolve?elentirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14885266506331046714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79407282547312645812010-05-14T09:41:39.705-05:002010-05-14T09:41:39.705-05:00Question for you ACA folks. When you respond to th...Question for you ACA folks. When you respond to these sorts of e-mails and ask them questions to clarify or correct their claims/evidence/assertions, how often do they actually care to give you a reasonable response? I'm referring specifically to points such as these:<br /><br /><i>What is your basis for considering scripture valid as evidence of anything in the first place?</i><br /><br /><i>Where are the peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that evolution by natural selection has been refuted?</i><br /><br /><i>1. Explain endogenous retroviruses using the evolutionary model.<br />2. Explain the creationist alternative.<br />3. Demonstrate precisely how the latter refutes the former, with citations.<br />Extra Credit: Submit your work to Nature and win a Nobel Prize.</i><br /><br /><br />My guess would be that the response type breakdown is something like the following:<br /><br />1) (80%) Ignore/dodge the point entirely<br /><br />2) (15%) Give some short, weak ass answer to support their position and/or dismiss the point as illegitimate<br /><br />3) (3%) Actually give a well reasoned and researched response<br /><br />4) (2%) Respond with an honest "I don't know"Tyler Olsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02266867686223090208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21048372652068375962010-05-14T07:54:40.077-05:002010-05-14T07:54:40.077-05:00"The list of scientific evidence which refute..."The list of scientific evidence which refutes Darwinian evolution is enormous, but this email isn't a place for me to recite all of such evidence."<br /><br />He forgot to add, "So, I'm not even gonna mention a single one. Just take my word for it."Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435379042731604819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49280260957588906402010-05-14T07:35:10.771-05:002010-05-14T07:35:10.771-05:00"My approach it an integrative evidence based..."My approach it an integrative evidence based approach, in which scripture and nature rightly understood always harmonize. If there are apparent contradictions I look for errors in both my understanding of scripture and my understanding of nature. I have found errors in both places over time."<br /><br />Wow. This one really is a masterpiece.<br /><br />His "approach" is that scripture accords with nature. Really? His epistemology apparently is something like "I am right. And I know it. Now I just have to find out why and how and for what reasons I am right."<br /><br />Is there anything you can not prove with this approach?<br /><br />My position is that orange juice cures cancer. If there are apparent contradictions I look for errors in both my understanding of cancer and my understanding of orange juice. I have found errors in both places over time. But of course I would never ever question that orange juice can in fact cure cancer.eimerianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01828469060198765454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26900619629855196712010-05-14T07:29:34.654-05:002010-05-14T07:29:34.654-05:00THANK YOU, Martin, for posting this.
I have to sa...THANK YOU, Martin, for posting this.<br /><br />I have to say this was one of the most annoying letters I've ever seen submitted to our list. And just to note that as easy going as I try to be with theists, I couldn't reply to this because it was such an obvious bald-faced lie from the author I couldn't see a point to addressing his claims beyond stating, "You, sir, are a liar."<br /><br />He's not a neuroscientist. He's not a psychiatrist (in his first e-mail to us he claimed love is divinely inspired...what psychiatrist, tasked with prescribing mood altering drugs that alter emotions via altering brain chemistry, doesn't understand HOW those drugs actually work?), and I can't take him seriously.<br /><br />I do think his apologetics are sincerely intended, but he's dishonest and/or deluded FAR beyond his religious beliefs. If he really does go around pronouncing himself to be things like a psychiatrist/neuroscientist to people--the guy's got issues...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27378956514979729122010-05-14T06:24:57.114-05:002010-05-14T06:24:57.114-05:00It's scary to think that this person is a doct...It's scary to think that this person is a doctor. OMG! ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12824777148643189620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21327942991166579502010-05-14T01:35:36.441-05:002010-05-14T01:35:36.441-05:00The creationist penchant for arrogant hypocrisy is...The creationist penchant for arrogant hypocrisy is really on its ugliest display here. This clod needs to have it drilled into him that he doesn't get to attack scientists for supposedly "filtering" evidence through a set of biases that prevent "real learning," when in the <i>very first fucking sentence</i> of his email, he boasts of practicing a bogus "integrative evidence based approach" that involves forcing reality to mesh with ancient religious scriptures he merely assumes are sufficiently factual to qualify as evidence in the first place, a clear and shameless bias that he flatters himself is simply "right understanding" of both reality and scripture.<br /><br />As someone wise once said, you're entitled to your own opinions in life, but not your own facts.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22103380966298582152010-05-14T00:06:58.340-05:002010-05-14T00:06:58.340-05:00I find reading your posts to be therapeutic becaus...I find reading your posts to be therapeutic because you do so well to match the tone of your replies with the earnestness of your interlocutors'.<br /><br />And, since you've bested this chap of such degree, shouldn't his academic honours be conferred on you? You know, like in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_(film)" rel="nofollow">Highlander</a>. That would make you a neuroscientist, a Christian Psychiatrist, and I believe, a projectionist?<br /><br />-cheersLi0nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09116010542261668426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11447271693951795702010-05-13T22:53:17.865-05:002010-05-13T22:53:17.865-05:00This exchange began on a downhill slide, and just ...This exchange began on a downhill slide, and just kept sliding. The first paragraph says it all:<br /><br />"My approach it an integrative evidence based approach, in which scripture and nature rightly understood always harmonize. If there are apparent contradictions I look for errors in both my understanding of scripture and my understanding of nature. I have found errors in both places over time."<br /><br />He's found errors in his interpretations -- but never an error in Scripture. That can never be in error. <br /><br />Congratulations, you have passed the Henry Morris Doctrinal Test 101, namely:<br /><br />Whenever reality appears to diverge from Scripture, <b> always question reality.</b>ABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15536547131562840293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84980115853412098852010-05-13T19:37:30.354-05:002010-05-13T19:37:30.354-05:00Yeah, I find it hard to believe this guy's a n...Yeah, I find it hard to believe this guy's a neuroscientist when he screws up his first sentence with the third word. Impossible, in fact. I'm gonna need some peer-reviewed evidence that this guy <i>has</i> a brain, much less studies them. <br /><br />The "vehicles on the road" example doesn't help his case that much -- designer or no, we can still trace a clear progression from simple to complex forms. Even ignoring the common fallacy of comparing artifacts which can't reproduce, to organisms which can, at best he has made a case for theistic evolution, not special creation. Which undermines his attempt to claim that evolution can't account for any of what we see, and also calls into question why his big invisible wizard apparently wouldn't have had the ability to use evolution as a method.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.com