tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post5069918470974247941..comments2023-05-26T01:08:22.886-07:00Comments on The Religion Virus: Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter, Biochemist and FoolCraig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-18579826005245105862010-07-20T12:41:52.688-07:002010-07-20T12:41:52.688-07:00Hey Rupert - Thanks for your thoughts, and I'm...Hey Rupert - Thanks for your thoughts, and I'm glad I can provide a place for you to express them. The ID people truly don't want real debate, since their arguments fall apart so quickly.<br /><br />It would be great if we could ignore them. Their arguments are so silly and flawed. Unfortunately, they have real-world effects that damage our lives, our environment, and our health. So keep it up.Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-45047871923166814192010-07-19T22:46:42.671-07:002010-07-19T22:46:42.671-07:00Part 2
I can't answer most (if any!) of the h...Part 2<br /><br />I can't answer most (if any!) of the highly specialized questions the detractors of evolution pose, I don't even know if eminent scientists can. But that's not really the point now is it. Like I've said before, all the gaps, flaws and doubts that have been resolved have been resolved by science, ALWAYS, not creation/ID, EVER. There is absolutely no proof to the contrary. Of course there is never any real response to this from the creation/ID side. They just raise another infinitesimal question mark over 'the science'. And when an answer they deem acceptable is not forthcoming they claim….well, what is it they claim? If it’s not creation/ID/god, what is it? The Erich von Danekin theory? The L. Ron Hubbard theory? The white mice theory al la 'Hitchhikers...'? This is a question for which an answer is never proffered. By all means, question the science. But come up with a scientific alternative, not a myth-based one.<br /><br />I'll tell you what. Next time these questions are raised, I'll hold my breath until science finds an evidential answer. You can hold your breath until creation/ID/god provides an evidential answer. Let’s see who turns blue and keels over first shall we? It is science which fills the gaps. Not balls of papier- mache made from pages of the bible attempting to plug them. I'd rather breathe while the formation is explained/understood/whatever scientifically. Not be smothered by a book with no evidential answers for life or anything else. A single book of selective amalgamated texts of doubtful origin is what some people use as a guide for life? How does that work?<br />In the meantime I will continue to critique the articles of Cornelius and the posts of his supporters as the exercises in creative writing that they are. Religion drives science? It certainly does for proponents of creation/ID/god. Meanwhile science gets on with the job of providing more and better answers on an ongoing and accelerating basis.Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141432408537488025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-13185344306359630422010-07-19T22:44:39.384-07:002010-07-19T22:44:39.384-07:00I found this wackaloon a few months back through t...I found this wackaloon a few months back through the Uncommon Descent site (major, major wingnuts).<br /><br />He is from Biola University where the faculty sign an agreement that the bible is the font of truth, creation is real and all science must be subsumed to it. <br /><br />Ever since I posted this (very easily found) info (just follow his bio to Biola and roam around their website) I have been unable to post anything in his comments, no matter what email address I use. I think my IP address itself has been blocked at their site.<br /><br />I prepared the following tract but have been unable to post it. I would be more than happy if someone else cares to do do.<br /><br /><br />I've sat back for a while and watched the debate/discussion progress in the usual manner, which is with the scientific challenges becoming more and more finessed and micro-specific.<br /><br />It goes like this. Cornelius alleges a flaw or incongruity in evolutionary theory. He claims he offers no alternative, despite his very evident credentials. We get past a few little spats and then two or three contributors, with the odd interjection by Cornelius, start a more and more detailed game of 'so and so said quote, quote quote - if that's the case then what about.....'<br /><br />The truth is that Cornelius's original pieces and the ensuing arguments are tantamount to trolling through the Lord of the Rings trilogy looking for spelling errors and then saying 'well, look at that! The whole tome is flawed and not worth reading.' Meanwhile, what the creationist/IDers are really trying to convince us is that their cat has five legs, while we stand there in amazement, gazing at a cat with four legs and a tail.<br /><br />‘The zygotic perambulator of the hexagonoid dizzydoodle of the southern rhinestone slug befuddles it's doodlewacky in a manner which goes against popular evolutionary theory and contradicts claims in regard to the eastern zombiefied articulated collywobble. So how do you cover that gap/flaw huh? Come on, HOW? TELL ME HOW? Ha, you can't, therefore evolutionary theory is a crock!' Naturally there is no claim to an alternative theory being postulated (rolls eyes). If this is the case, why are they not applying themselves fully to resolving these dilemmas in a scientific manner? What reasons do they have for challenging science rather than putting all their energies into rectifying, answering or improving these factors? What reasons?<br /><br /><br />Part 1 (word limit)Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141432408537488025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-5008325195456540422010-07-19T12:51:57.439-07:002010-07-19T12:51:57.439-07:00If their God is infinitely complex, then he must h...If their God is infinitely complex, then he must have had an infinitely + 1 complex designer!The Big Blue Froghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14902575853613884796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-74087333736689902522010-07-19T11:23:56.066-07:002010-07-19T11:23:56.066-07:00BB Frog -- excellent point. One of the fundamenta...BB Frog -- excellent point. One of the fundamental flaws in all creationist arguments is that their God must be almost infinitely complex. As the old song goes, "Pack all your troubles in your old kit bag, and smile, smile, smile!"Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-30019715271405307652010-07-19T10:51:31.004-07:002010-07-19T10:51:31.004-07:00Part of the principle of parsimony is the reductio...Part of the principle of parsimony is the reduction of unnecessary "entities" and you have to say that making up a God and all the entities that come with him (devils, demons, angels, etc.) is more complicated than the rather simplistic naturalistic approach.The Big Blue Froghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14902575853613884796noreply@blogger.com