If these people are Christians, why are “they” so hateful?

Why consentrate on a Hateful OLD testement, when Jesus taught respect for ALL.

“They” don’t seem to get it… Jesus was killed by religious leaders to protect their power. All religious leaders, Catholics, Communists, Nazis, Jews, Maoists, Evangelists preach hate to control “their” people. Only EDUCATION, and separation of Gov. and Religion can prevent (hopefully) the nontolerant from gaining ground.

Think about it

I wonder, is there any such thing as a HUMBLE Christian anymore?

Erm … maybe the ones who don’t participate in online discussions?

—”Evolution is not science! Neither is ID.
If evolution is being classified as science, then ID can also be classified as science by the same std. Data are same – only listing two possible conclusions.”

False. One conclusion is an assumption. One is derived from evidence. The latter would be evolution.

—”What is evolution?
“NOTHING + long TIME= life & universe today”.
It a LIE used to indoctrinate students into the atheism religion. An idolatry.”

It appears you don’t even know what evolution means. Evolution deals SPECIFICALLY with explaining the diversification of biological life on Earth. That’s it. It also makes no theological claims, just like every other field of science. It is “agnostic” on the concept of “God”.

—”The constitution declares that everyone has unalienable rights endowed by the CREATOR – life, freedom and pursuit of happiness.”

Incorrect, you are referring to the Delcaration of Independance, which has NOTHING to do with the establishment of the laws laid down in the US Constitution. Also, I was created by my parents. That’s the nice thing about the abiguity of the reference to the ‘Creator’ in the document. It no more supports Christianity than it does any other religion or philosophy.

—”Creator was mention means there is creation.”

And even if it was referring to your particular favourite God, saying it exists is not the same as demonstrating it exists. However this is irrelevant to the validity of evolution.

—”So scientists have no right to say there is no creation because they will voilate the constitution.”

And since that’s not what evolution claims then that is not a problem. I point out Francis Collins as an example, former head of the Genome Sequencing Project, Christian, and evolutionary biologist.

—”The God I believe is the resurrection and the life. He walked on water.”

Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the validity of science.

—”1. Evolution Idol & liar – Darwin is dead & now in hell.
2. Evolution Idol & liar – Stephen Hawkins is condemned by God – now can’t even talk and on wheel chair.”

Just one problem: YOU don’t get to decide who does and who doesn’t go to hell. Judge not, lest you be judged. And yet here you are VIOLATING the Word of God, for the sake of your own blind arrogance. I wonder, is there any such thing as a HUMBLE Christian anymore?

—”Truth hurts.”

“Truth” is subjective. We’re only interested in facts and evidence. You have nothing to offer except preaching, which is irrelevant to a scientific discussion.

—”Bachmann is telling the truth.”

Bachmann is ignorant and doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This is a very common problem amongst those who deny scientific reality for the sake of their faith.

—”I have 2 science degrees one in chemistry & another in biochemistry.”

You’re lying. We know this due to your mischaracterization of evolution at the beginning of your post. We also know this due to your preoccupation with preaching instead of making any kind of scientific case. That’s TWICE you’ve VIOLATED the commands laid out by the Word of God. So why is it that you fundies ALWAYS lie?

—”I believe a creator because he never fail to answer my prayers.”

Not interested as it’s irrelevant. Thanks.

Now, do you have a SCIENTIFIC alternative for explaining the diversification of life on Earth? If so, let’s hear it. If not, stop lying for Jesus and admit you reject evolution for theological reasons. Thanks in advance.

What is evolution?
“NOTHING + long TIME= life & universe today”.
It a LIE used to indoctrinate students into the atheism religion. An idolatry.

The constitution declares that everyone has unalienable rights endowed by the CREATOR – life, freedom and pursuit of happiness.

Creator was mention means there is creation.
So scientists have no right to say there is no creation because they will voilate the constitution. They also will voilate freedom and they must be held responsible if children becomes morally corrupt and one day go to hell.

God will judge.
The God I believe is the resurrection and the life. He walked on water.
1. Evolution Idol & liar – Darwin is dead & now in hell.
2. Evolution Idol & liar – Stephen Hawkins is condemned by God – now can’t even talk and on wheel chair. (Just talk & walk..you evolutionist!)

Truth hurts.
Bachmann is telling the truth.

I have 2 science degrees one in chemistry & another in biochemistry. I believe a creator because he never fail to answer my prayers.

I also agree that argument from authority should be kept to an absolute minimum. But when arguing about ID or whatever, you either make one, or you turn into a nerd of evangelical proportions.

If there is a third way, I don’t know what it might be.

I like giving Phil a hard time because I miss his days of addressing poor science in movies and actual astronomy.

You call that (comment #32) giving Phil a hard time?

And, BTW, you seem to have missed all of his recent posts about astronomy.

Oh, I very much agree. I think we’re stuck with needing argument from authority in the broad social arena, so we have to make the best of it. I just detest it and try to keep it to a minimum. Ultimately the goal still needs to be an evidence-based understanding, even if that’s more long-term.

And I totally second your motion for “an argument of scientists.”

Bachmann does not need to be an expert in a subject to know whether or not it’s important.

True, but irrelevant.

Also, how well she is able to explain and defend Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the validity of it.

True, but her comments typify the feebleness of the defence of ID. It has no validity.

That she is standing up for what she believes in is what we all do, what we should do.

Except in this case her beliefs are contradicted by reality. So standing up for those beliefs makes her an idiot in the eyes of anyone who understands that reality.

Adults today have been through an education system that teaches evolution as fact, not the theory that it is,

Several things wrong with your statement here:
1. Very often, evolution is not tauight in US schools;
1a. Where evolution is taught, it is too often glossed over as an add-on, rather than the fundamental unifying principle that it is.
2. Evolution is a fact. Biological entities change over time.
2a. Evolution is also a theory, i.e. an description of the mechanisms by which biological change occurs. This description explains the facts that we observe in biology.
2b Evolution is also a history, the history of how living things are interrelated.

and it’s caused the prejudices that many blindly hold.

Nope. Not unless accepting reality the way it is counts as a prejudice these days.

When an argument comes along that challenges evolution,

Such as what?

it’s automatically dismissed because if this.

If you refer to ID, that was given a fair hearing. It was then torn to shreds because it was (a) illogical and (b) at odds with the facts.

That is the problem, the majority of people do not really know what the theory of evolution is,

Yourself included, it would appear.

nor could they properly defend that belief.

Huh? What belief?

There’s no disputing that DNA is information.

Yes there is. DNA is a double-stranded anti-parallel linear polymer of nucleotides containing four different basic aromatic nitrogen heterocycles. The sequence in which those heterocyclic bases occur contains information.

To get that DNA, that enormous amount of complex information, even in the simplest form of life, by random chance is impossible.

There are several things wrong with your comment here, too:
1. DNA contains simple information. It is, after all, merely a four-letter code that obeys the laws of chemistry.
2. The amount of information contained in DNA sequences was not always large. There is plenty of evidence that genetic information has accumulated over time.
3a. If by “the simplest forms of life” you mean viruses, then many of these have very simple genetic information. Lambda phage, if memory serves, contains only about 10 genes.
3b. If by “the simplest forms of life” you mean free-living bacteria or archaea, these have had about 3 billion years in which to accumulate new information.
4. No-one is claiming that large amounts of information have accumulated by random chance (except people like you who wish to have a strawman at which to pitch coconuts). Evolution is not a random process. Adaptive change is driven by selection pressure In fact, by Billy Dembski’s own definition of design, evolution qualifies as a design process (but so does a sieve, so Dembski’s definition is not all that useful).
5. Finally, who are you to know what is and is not possible? There are some things that we can confidently dismiss as ludicrously unlikely, but evolution ain’t one of them. Evolution by natural selection (and other mechanisms) is far more plausible than any proposed alternative.

If you’ve never studied Biochemistry or Molecular biology, then you can’t speak authoritatively on the matter.

Fortunately I have a PhD in biochemistry, so I can authoritatively state that you know not of what you speak.

However the main claim that some kind of intelligent entity was somehow responsible for “designing” biological life and even the universe itself has NOT been falsified – because the premise as it stands is non-falsifiable.

No, you are not being excessively nitpicky.

And if I couldn’t handle a bit of nitpicking, I shouldn’t comment here at all!

Anyhoo . . .

You are largely correct, of course, I was oversimplifying the situation.

I should have more clearly stated that it is the cases put forth by the creationID proponentsists as evidence for design that have been falsified.

Oh my, it seems I’ve rather accurately anticipated the reactionary exhibition of ire:
[snip]

Er, no, not really. Ron1 (120) was pretty calm and lucid. If you call that ire, then you really are over-sensitive.

—”Someone, somewhere, at some time, designed some of the stuff we find in biology, somehow. But actually, this has already been falsified*, so it no longer counts.”

At the risk of being nitpicky, I disagree. While many specific claims of ID/Cers have been falsified (Irreducible Complexity, Young Earth, etc) have been falsified, these are ultimately anti-evolution claims which are able to be compared with reality and either confirmed or falsified. The claim is then that since evolution is wrong then Goddidit with magic, and such reasoning is a logical fallacy in itself. But the falsifiability in these cases are referring to the validity of evolution, which IS falsifiable (but not been falsified yet of course).

However the main claim that some kind of intelligent entity was somehow responsible for “designing” biological life and even the universe itself has NOT been falsified – because the premise as it stands is non-falsifiable. And if it’s not falsifiable, it’s not scientific. Once the ID/Cers are able to to narrow down the definitions enough for us to be able to perform some kind of scientific research in order test the hypothesis, THEN it becomes amenable to verification or falsification, and therefore scientific. Unfortunately for them all they have is “Something didit, somehow, somewhere, at sometime”. Which leaves them up the proverbial creak.

It is still *possible* that such an entity exists that created the universe and all life in it. But until we are provided with testable evidence of such, it is also equally possible that the entity in question is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And that’s the very point of the FSM, that it demonstrates that ID/C and FSMism are both equally valid concepts.

Citing authority is not useless. But ultimately, given a choice between arguing based on overwhelming scientific evidence and arguing based on overwhelming scientific consensus, I’ll favor the evidence.

This may be so, but when people are largely ignorant of what the evidence is and its import, then the consensus of experts really does serve as a guide.

Seriously, the collective noun for scientists ought to be “an argument”. You will never find more passionate disagreement over details than in a scientific conference.

Unlike creationism, ID says that evolution did happen, but all in one week in 4004BC instead of over billions of years.

No, it doesn’t. ID is vague enough that it lets people believe that this is so, but it does not claim this.

What ID claims is that evolution by itself cannot account for the diversity and complexity of life that we find on Earth today. However, ID seeks to replace evolution with nothing but arm-waving vagueness. Also, every argument made to support ID applies the false dichotomy of “not evolution, therefore ID” and makes illogical and unsupportable claims about evolution, design, intelligence and complexity.

For example, if you parse through the works of Billy Dembski, you find, among the obfuscation and waffle, a concept that he terms Complex Specified Information (CSI). He never defines it specifically, instead trying to convey it through analogy, but he does – at various separate points – define Complexity, Specification and Information. They are all, according to Dembski, the inverse of probability.

So, his CSI is “improbably improbable improbability”. IOW, Dembski’s major thesis is an argument from personal incredulity : “that seems pretty unlikely to me, therefore it cannot be true”.