A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection).

1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design?
3. How did the DNA code originate?
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
8. How did multi-cellular life originate?
9. How did sex originate?
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing?
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:My

jackspell wrote:
My foundation is not based on assumption. Its based on fact, that has been documented in writing, is textually pure, has been around for 1000's of years

Ah. So the curtain drops... you don't have any other argument besides scripture.

 

(hint: There may be natural explanations for some of the described Old Testament events.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:...and at the

Kapkao wrote:

...and at the end of the day, The Big Invisible Everglorious Magician Himself™ fails to to pass on the secret causative factor behind his creation methods on to his idiot, Bronze Age/Iron Age followers. My, my, my...

Out of curiousity, how does the big bang come to be?

Why should he even try when he knows we lack the capacity to comprehend, especially the lower forms of intelligence such as yourself

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4114
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.


 

 

 

 


  

 

jackspell wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said it may have been analogous to the loading of a firecracker?

 

          No, I didn't miss any of your "analogies" metaphors, comparisons, word pictures.  You tell a good story. In fact you should write children's books.

 

 

 

jackspell wrote:
His packing of the powder (matter) and chemical charge (energy) is the setting of the constants and quantities in the universe, then setting the initial expansion in motion. How is this anymore implausible then your explanation? By the way, how about you give us your explanation of how all off space-time, matter, and energy came into existence? I can't wait!

 

   The naturalist theory can have many flaws but does that in any way validate your "*magically"  (  *an analogy )   created universe theory ?   Can't your Intelligent Maybe Perhaps Designer theory * stand ( *an analogy ) on its own merit ?    If your argument is so compelling why is it not embraced by the scientific community at large,   ......is it being thwarted by that evil atheist conspiracy again ?

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4114
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

 

 

 

     How is this anymore implausible then your explanation?

 

      Funny you should ask.  How plausible is it that right before these physical properties were brought into existence by your "Intelligent Designer" that it allegedly spoke and said "LET THERE BE LIGHT !"  Do you believe this Intelligent Designer also designed and delivered the Book of Genesis ?   You are a Christian no doubt.

 

       

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15645
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Kapkao

jackspell wrote:
Kapkao wrote:

...and at the end of the day, The Big Invisible Everglorious Magician Himself™ fails to to pass on the secret causative factor behind his creation methods on to his idiot, Bronze Age/Iron Age followers. My, my, my...

Out of curiousity, how does the big bang come to be?

Why should he even try when he knows we lack the capacity to comprehend, especially the lower forms of intelligence such as yourself

There is a HUGE difference between saying "You are full of shit" and "You are a piece of shit". No one here is judging YOU, we are judging your arguments. But if you want us to really hate you as an individual, keep this up.

Now as far as claims go, IT IS A SHITTY CLAIM to me to claim babies can magically be born without a second set of DNA. DO NOT blame me for a book I did not write.

Just like it is a shitty claim to claim you'll get 72 virgins in a non existent after life. Just like it was shitty for humans to believe the sun rotated around the earth.

It was more understandable back then because humans didn't know better. But to expect us today, with our modern scientific knowledge to placate your emotions about clearly ABSURD claims about talking snakes, talking bushes, adults magically popping out of dirt, IS ABSURD.

You have no right to try to demonize us for merely saying that the moon is not made of cheese.

No one is going to hate you for playing Dungeons and Dragons, but don't expect us to play the game just because you fell for it. MAYBE there is a reason we are questioning you having NOTHING do do with hating you.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Kapkao

jackspell wrote:
Kapkao wrote:

...and at the end of the day, The Big Invisible Everglorious Magician Himself™ fails to to pass on the secret causative factor behind his creation methods on to his idiot, Bronze Age/Iron Age followers. My, my, my...

Out of curiousity, how does the big bang come to be?

Why should he even try when he knows we lack the capacity to comprehend, especially the lower forms of intelligence such as yourself

A fallacy yet again... how do you know that "he" knows that we don't know how to comprehend? 

Oh that's right, you are the chosen one.

All hail Jackieboy! The one who has a higher level of education and training in complex mathematics! He is here to interpret for us his wizard's magical compendium!

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No one is

Brian37 wrote:

No one is going to hate you for playing Dungeons and Dragons, but don't expect us to play the game just because you fell for it. MAYBE there is a reason we are questioning you having NOTHING do do with hating you.

HAHAHA, great minds think alike. I was thinking of D&D and the Wizard's Compendium but couldn't get the spelling right for compendium which delayed me by about five minutes from your post.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15645
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

No one is going to hate you for playing Dungeons and Dragons, but don't expect us to play the game just because you fell for it. MAYBE there is a reason we are questioning you having NOTHING do do with hating you.

HAHAHA, great minds think alike. I was thinking of D&D and the Wizard's Compendium but couldn't get the spelling right for compendium which delayed me by about five minutes from your post.

Yea you are fine with me until I pick on Buddhism. I like you outside the issue of labels, but all I have ever tried to point out to you is, that it is a dodge to say "my label has no magic or super heros", and my point is "so what".

MY POINT to everyone, him, you, Mulsims. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, communists, capitalists, rich, poor, ect ect ect ect.

No one is special by proxy of label. We merely have social clubs we flock to. We are special to ourselves and to the people close to us, and the clubs we subscribe to.

BUT ultimately your label is NOT required for evolution to occur. If you can accept that about Jackspell, then with or without calling Buddhism woo, it still would NOT change that evolution was around long before the invention of ANY OF THESE and if those labels suddenly got abandon by humans, ANY OF THEM, evolution would still occur.

All you have to do is make offspring.

Buddhism is still a mere predilection and is only special to those who ascribe to it. It is not special to evolution or the universe anymore than I am as an individual.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Jackspell renounces christianity

jackspell wrote:
Good! I wouldn't debate faith neither. Since faith is a BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that would be stupid. My foundation is not based on assumption. Its based on fact, that has been documented in writing, is textually pure, has been around for 1000's of years, is the eyewitness accounts of many, my own personal experience with God, and arguments that contemporary science CONFIRMS. What is your belief of naturalism based on?

LMAO!

I was going to continue this debate on the use of faith by jackanoff to prove their "god" but I couldn't pass up this opportunity to show some silliness of these religious people.

Any one see it in jack's post above? anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Something U-R-E? Anyone?

LMAO this is awsome...

"Textually pure"

OK. When I saw this I knew what a weird choice of words to use when describing your sources. So I opened up Google and searched for the words. I made sure to put the quotes around it so I could filter out unwanted results. Guess what I found?

5,220 results, but that isn't the funny part.

The first thing I noticed about the search was the large number of bible related results. The first page was all bible results with each page after that the results were no lower than 8 out of 10 for the first 10 pages of results. I wrote down the number of results out of 100 and I got a 93% return.

The other thing I noticed while doing this little experiment was that the results returned people claiming the bible was X% pure or X% accurate. I didn't see any thing lower than 98.5%, but there were some 100%'s sprinkled in there.

Oh, and I noticed one other thing. Robert E Howard's Conan the Barbarian seems to be "textually pure" but that is another story...

Now back to "faith".

If the bible is "textually pure" then it must have a reference to compare it to; such as Robert E Howard's writings.

See Robert E Howard lived up until 1936, so his original writings are almost all available for review. When his stuff was published people, collectors now, got printed copies of his original stories. This information can be compared to originals thus showing "textually pure" writings.

Now, for people who follow christianity.... Where do they compare the bible to? I know there is a 1600 year old bible available but it isn't complete and the most amazing thing (which no one ever seems to talk about) is that there are numerous "books" and "passages" which have been removed. So how can the bible be 98% textually pure?

The answer is that the bible isn't; and they don't have the originals to compare to so calling any thing "textually pure" is the reason why they use faith to support their claims of god, jesus and the virgin mary.

 

The Bible: A brief history

Although earlier fragments of the Bible have survived the passage of time, the Codex Sinaiticus is so significant because it is by far the most complete. The full text that has been discovered so far contains virtually all of the New Testament and about half of the Old Testament.

But whenever an ancient version of the holy book is found, it often raises questions about the evolution of the Bible and how close what we read today is to the original words of Christ and his early followers.

The Old Testament was written largely in Hebrew (with the odd Aramaic exception) but it is by no means a homogenous entity. Protestant and more recent Catholic versions of the Bible tend to use the Masoretic Text, a variation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was copied, edited and distributed by Jewish Masorete scholars between the 7th and 11th centuries. Earlier Catholic translations and the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches use the Septuagint, an ancient Greek version of the Hebrew text that was translated between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC.

In studying the early history of the New Testament, historians have about 5,650 handwritten copies in Greek on which they can draw, many of which are distinctly different. As Christianity consolidated its power through the first millennia, the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John came to form the key elements of the New Testament.

But other apocryphal writings were discarded along the way. The Shepherd of Hermas, for instance, is a Christian literary work of the 2nd century which appears in the Codex Sinaiticus and was considered part of the Bible by some early Christians but was later expunged. The most well-known apocryphal gospel is that of Thomas, a collection of 114 numbered sayings attributed to Jesus that was discovered in 1945. As it never refers to Jesus as "Christ", "Lord" or the "Son of Man" (and lacks any mention of the miracles attributed to Jesus in the other gospels) it is perhaps not surprising that it never made it into later versions of the Bible.

Link to article on 1600 year old bible

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
CrackerJack wrote:Did you

CrackerJack wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said it may have been analogous to the loading of a firecracker? His packing of the powder (matter) and chemical charge (energy) is the setting of the constants and quantities in the universe, then setting the initial expansion in motion. How is this anymore implausible then your explanation? By the way, how about you give us your explanation of how all off space-time, matter, and energy came into existence? I can't wait!

Why do you keep using these fallacies? I keep pointing them out to you and you keep using them over and over. It's really making me question if you got your "higher education" from a CrackerJack box?

You are using a source for how the Universe was formed which has yet to be proven. You can't even make an educated guess that their is a creator because your only source is a bible which is a collection of vague mythological stories.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:You aren't

jackspell wrote:

You aren't even worth responding to.  You have offered nothing of any substance.  Basically, you are a piss-on.

So in other words I succeeded in proving you are a liar and false prophet, and any credibility you ever had has been thrown in the shitter. Good to know, theist scum. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jackspell

Vastet wrote:
jackspell wrote:

You aren't even worth responding to.  You have offered nothing of any substance.  Basically, you are a piss-on.

So in other words I succeeded in proving you are a liar and false prophet, and any credibility you ever had has been thrown in the shitter. Good to know, theist scum. Smiling

Jackonaught does it again. He creates a fallacy by thinking that "you aren't worth replying to" but his ego is so big that he must tell every one publicly "you aren't worth replying to" but he still replies.

MUHAHAHAHA. Is this person for real or is this some sock puppet by an atheist who is just being silly?

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
~~~~

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 

A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)

The Big-bang

Density-of-matter in the Big-bang

The inflationary Big-bang

Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang

The Strong Force

Gravity

Electrons & Protons

Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry

Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness

The big-bang (reprise)

The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

So you're telling me there's a chance.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15645
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 


A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)


The Big-bang


Density-of-matter in the Big-bang


The inflationary Big-bang


Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang


The Strong Force


Gravity


Electrons & Protons


Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry


Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness


The big-bang (reprise)


The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

 



















So you're telling me there's a chance.

 

It's ok, he's a limo driver.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea you are

Brian37 wrote:

Yea you are fine with me until I pick on Buddhism. I like you outside the issue of labels, but all I have ever tried to point out to you is, that it is a dodge to say "my label has no magic or super heros", and my point is "so what".

MY POINT to everyone, him, you, Mulsims. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, communists, capitalists, rich, poor, ect ect ect ect.

No one is special by proxy of label. We merely have social clubs we flock to. We are special to ourselves and to the people close to us, and the clubs we subscribe to.

BUT ultimately your label is NOT required for evolution to occur. If you can accept that about Jackspell, then with or without calling Buddhism woo, it still would NOT change that evolution was around long before the invention of ANY OF THESE and if those labels suddenly got abandon by humans, ANY OF THEM, evolution would still occur.

All you have to do is make offspring.

Buddhism is still a mere predilection and is only special to those who ascribe to it. It is not special to evolution or the universe anymore than I am as an individual.

You still don't get it. I don't hate you, but you are such a hypocrite. Sure I rag on christians, muslims, whomever, because their religion, if it is based on gods, saviors, ghosts or ufo's I know they are being ignorant. I know that most of them have been taught this stuff and they don't know any better to question the information they have been given. I know that some of them are mental and if I sense that I usually back off and don't talk to them any more.

You on the other hand, you are an atheist but any one who believes in any thing that isn't your belief is a moron. You don't rag on people, you trash them, as if your sole purpose is to beat them senseless and in to submission. Others have seen you doing this and doing it to me. They have spoken up in one form or another (even came to defend me) because they saw you trying to smack me around.

Look. You aren't a bad egg. I see you like I see every one else, including myself. We are all ignorant fools being tricked by our ego. We allow emotions to rule our lives and it creates suffering. I choose to believe that there is a way to stop that suffering. I know I haven't figured it all out yet, but I'm working on it. It's my life. It's my path. It's my choice.

I've challenged you previously and you refused because you like the game you play. You like setting your own conditions, your own terms, so that you never lose. Hey, that's fine. That's your thing then so be it. So don't think you are going to convince me that my belief is wrong. I'm too old and too wise. I know better. So go off and play until you learn what I've already learned. One day you'll figure it out.

 


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.


 

 

 

 


   

 

jackspell wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said it may have been analogous to the loading of a firecracker?

 

          No, I didn't miss any of your "analogies" metaphors, comparisons, word pictures.  You tell a good story. In fact you should write children's books.

 

 

 

jackspell wrote:
His packing of the powder (matter) and chemical charge (energy) is the setting of the constants and quantities in the universe, then setting the initial expansion in motion. How is this anymore implausible then your explanation? By the way, how about you give us your explanation of how all off space-time, matter, and energy came into existence? I can't wait!

 

   The naturalist theory can have many flaws but does that in any way validate your "*magically"  (  *an analogy )   created universe theory ?   Can't your Intelligent Maybe Perhaps Designer theory * stand ( *an analogy ) on its own merit ?    If your argument is so compelling why is it not embraced by the scientific community at large,   ......is it being thwarted by that evil atheist conspiracy again ?

 

 

Uh oh.  What's this?

 

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—2
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Bernard d'Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)
John C. Walton Professor of Reactive Chemistry (Ph.D. & D.Sc.) University of St. Andrews (UK)
Fellow Royal Society of Chemistry
Fellow Royal Society of Edinburgh
Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry The University of Hong Kong
Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia
Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia
Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho
Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California, Los Angeles
Alexander F. Pugach Ph.D. Astrophysics Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Ralph Seelke Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology University of Wisconsin, Superior
Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology University of Turku (Finland)
Fred Schroeder Ph.D. Marine Geology Columbia University
David Snoke Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of Pittsburgh
Frank Tipler Prof. of Mathematical Physics Tulane University
John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology University of Vermont
James Tour Chao Professor of Chemistry Rice University
Pablo Yepes Research Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy Rice University
David Bolender Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Cell Biology, Neurobiology & Anatomy Medical College of Wisconsin
Leo Zacharski Professor of Medicine Dartmouth Medical School
Joel D. Hetzer Ph.D. Statistics Baylor University
Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University
Michael Atchison Professor of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania, Vet School
Thomas G. Guilliams Ph.D. Molecular Biology The Medical College of Wisconsin
Arthur B. Robinson Professor of Chemistry Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine
Joel Adams Professor of Computer Science Calvin College
Abraham S. Feigenbaum Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Rutgers University
Yasuo Yoshida Ph.D. Physics Kyushu University (Japan)
Domingo Aerden Professor of Geology Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Kevin Farmer Adjunct Assistant Professor (Ph.D. Scientific Methodology) University of Oklahoma
D.R. Eiras-Stofella Director, Electron Microscopy Center (Ph.D. Molecular Biology) Parana Federal University (Brazil)
Neal Adrian Ph.D. Microbiology University of Oklahoma
Kerry N. Jones Professor of Mathematical Sciences Ball State University
Ge Wang Professor of Radiology & Biomedical Engineering University of Iowa
Moorad Alexanian Professor of Physics University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Richard Spencer Professor (Ph.D. Stanford) University of California, Davis, Solid-State Circuits Research Laboratory
Mark Krejchi Ph.D. Polymer Science & Engineering (Post-docs, Stanford & Caltech) University of Massachusetts
Braxton Alfred Emeritus Professor, Anthropology University of British Columbia (Canada)
R. Craig Henderson Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Tennessee Tech University
Michael J. Kavaya Senior Scientist NASA Langley Research Center
Wesley Allen Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
James Pierre Hauck Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of San Diego
Olen R. Brown Former Professor of Molecular Microbiology & Immunology University of Missouri, Columbia
Eshan Dias Ph.D. Chemical Engineering King’s College, Cambridge University (UK)
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—3
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Joseph Atkinson Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dennis Dean Rathman Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Richard Austin Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences Piedmont College
Raymond C. Mjolsness Ph.D. Physics Princeton University
John Baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics & Space Physics University of California, Los Angeles
Glenn R. Johnson Adjunct Professor of Medicine University of North Dakota School of Medicine
George Bennett Associate Professor of Chemistry Millikin University
Robert L. Waters Lecturer, College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology
David Berlinski Ph.D. Philosophy Princeton University
James Robert Dickens Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University
Phillip Bishop Professor of Kinesiology University of Alabama
Jeffrey M. Jones Professor Emeritus in Medicine (Ph.D. Microbiology and M.D.) University of Wisconsin-Madison
Donald R. Mull Ph.D. Physiology University of Pittsburgh
John Bloom Ph.D. Physics Cornell University
William Dembski Ph.D. Mathematics University of Chicago
Ben J. Stuart Ph.D. Chemical & Biochemical Engineering Rutgers University
Raymond Bohlin Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of Texas, Dallas
Christa R. Koval Ph.D. Chemistry University of Colorado at Boulder
John Bordelon Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
David Richard Carta Ph.D. Bio-Engineering University of California, San Diego
Lydia G. Thebeau Ph.D. Cell & Molecular Biology Saint Louis University
David Bossard Ph. D. Mathematics Dartmouth College
Robert W. Kelley Ph.D. Entomology Clemson University
David Bourell Professor Mechanical Engineering University of Texas, Austin
Carlos M. Murillo Professor of Medicine (Neurosurgery) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Walter Bradley Distinguished Professor of Engineering Baylor University
Sami Palonen Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Helsinki (Finland)
John Brejda Ph.D. Agronomy University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Bradley R. Johnson Ph.D. Materials Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Rudolf Brits Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry University of Stellenbosch (South Africa)
Gary Kastello Ph.D. Biology University of Wisonsin-Milwaukee
Karen Rispin Assistant Professor of Biology LeTourneau University
Frederick Brooks Kenan Professor of Computer Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Omer Faruk Noyan Assistant Professor (Ph.D. Paleontology) Celal Bayar University (Turkey)
Neil Broom Associate Professor, Chemical & Materials Engineering University of Auckland (New Zealand)
Malcolm D. Chisholm Ph.D. Insect Ecology (M.A. Zoology, Oxford University) University of Bristol (UK)
John Brown Research Meteorologist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Joseph A. Kunicki Associate Professor of Mathematics The University of Findlay
John Brumbaugh Emeritus Professor of Biological Sciences University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Thomas M. Stackhouse Ph.D. Biochemistry University of California, Davis
Nancy Bryson Associate Professor of Chemistry Mississippi University for Women
Walter L. Starkey Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering The Ohio State University
Donald Calbreath Professor, Department of Chemistry Whitworth College
Pingnan Shi Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (Artificial Neural Networks) University of British Columbia (Canada)
John B. Cannon Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Princeton University
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—4
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
John L. Burba Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Baylor University
Stephen J. Cheesman Ph.D. Geophysics University of Toronto
Mike Forward Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Chaos Theory) Imperial College, University of London (UK)
Lowell D. White Industrial Hygiene Specialist (Ph.D. Epidemiology) University of New Mexico
Brian Landrum Associate Professor of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering University of Alabama, Huntsville
David Chambers Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Michael T. Goodrich Professor of Computer Science University of California, Irvine
T. Timothy Chen Ph.D. Statistics University of Chicago
Sarah M. Williams Ph.D. Environmental Engineering (emphasis in microbiology) Stanford University
Donald Clark Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry Louisiana State University
John Frederick Zino Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Shing-Yan Chiu Professor of Physiology University of Wisconsin, Madison
Todd A. Anderson Ph.D. Computer Science University of Kentucky
John Cimbala Professor of Mechanical Engineering Pennsylvania State University
Chris Swanson Tutor (Ph.D. Physics, University of Oregon) Gutenberg College
Kieran Clements Assistant Professor, Natural Sciences Toccoa Falls College
John K. Herdklotz Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Rice University
Jan Chatham Ph.D. Neurophysiology University of North Texas
George A. Gates Emeritus Emeritus Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Washington
John Cogdell Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Texas, Austin
David R. Beaucage Ph.D. Mathematics State University of New York at Stony Brook
Leon Combs Professor & Chair, Chemistry & Biochemistry Kennesaw State University
Laraba P. Kendig Ph.D. Materials Science & Engineering University of Michigan
Nicholas Comninellis Associate Professor of Community and Family Medicine University of Missouri-Kansas City
William J. Arion Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Stephen Crouse Professor of Kinesiology Texas A&M University
Cham Dallas Professor, Pharmaceutics & Biomedical Science University of Georgia
Charles N. Verheyden Professor of Surgery Texas A&M College of Medicine
Melody Davis Ph.D. Chemistry Princeton University
Thomas Deahl Ph.D. Radiation Biology The University of Iowa
Shun Yan Cheung Associate Professor of Computer Science Emory University
Robert DeHaan Ph.D. Human Development University of Chicago
Gage Blackstone Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University
Harold Delaney Professor of Psychology University of New Mexico
Jonathan C. Boomgaarden Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin
Greg Tate Ph.D. Plant Pathology University of California, Davis
William Bordeaux Chair, Department of Natural & Mathematical Science Huntington College
Michael Delp Professor of Physiology Texas A&M University
Keith F. Conner Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Clemson University
David DeWitt Chair, Department of Biology & Chemistry Liberty University
Aaron J. Miller Ph.D. Physics Stanford University
Gary Dilts Ph.D. Mathematical Physics University of Colorado
Gerald Chubb Associate Professor of Aviation Ohio State University
Robert DiSilvestro Ph.D. Biochemistry Texas A & M University
Daniel Dix Associate Professor of Mathematics University of South Carolina
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—5
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Allison Dobson Assistant Professor, Chemistry Georgia Southern University
David Prentice Professor, Department of Life Sciences Indiana State University
Kenneth Dormer Ph.D. Biology & Physiology University of California, Los Angeles
Ernest Prabhakar Ph.D. Experimental Particle Physics California Institute of Technology
John Doughty Ph.D. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering University of Arizona
Jeanne Drisko Clinical Assistant Professor of Alternative Medicine University of Kansas, School of Medicine
Robert Eckel Professor of Medicine, Physiology & Biophysics University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Seth Edwards Associate Professor of Geology University of Texas, El Paso
Eduard F. Schmitter Ph.D. Astronomy University of Wisconsin
Lee Eimers Professor of Physics & Mathematics Cedarville University
William J. Hedden Ph.D. Geology Missouri University of Science & Technology
Daniel Ely Professor, Biology University of Akron
Pattle Pun Professor of Biology Wheaton College
Thomas English Adjunct Professor of Physics & Engineering Palomar College
Rosalind Picard Sc.D. Electrical Engineering & Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Danielle Dalafave Associate Professor of Physics The College of New Jersey
Richard Erdlac Ph.D. Structural Geology University of Texas (Austin)
Michael C. Reynolds Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Arkansas-Fort Smith
Bruce Evans Ph.D. Neurobiology Emory University
Gary Achtemeier Ph.D. Meteorology Florida State University
William Everson Ph.D. Human Physiology Penn State College of Medicine
Susan L.M. Huck Ph.D. Geology/Geography Clark University
James Florence Associate Professor, Department of Public Health East Tennessee State University
Douglas R. Buck Ph.D. Nutrition and Food Sciences Utah State University Fellow, American College of Nutrition
Margaret Flowers Professor of Biology Wells College
Étienne Windisch Ph.D. Engineering McGill University (Canada)
Mark Foster Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of Minnesota
Suzanne Sawyer Vincent Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Washington
Clarence Fouche Professor of Biology Virginia Intermont College
Robert Blomgren Ph.D. Mathematics University of Minnesota
Kenneth French Chairman, Division of Natural Science Blinn College
Richard N. Taylor Professor of Information & Computer Science University of California, Irvine
Stephen C. Knowles Ph.D. Marine Science University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Marvin Fritzler Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Calgary Medical School (Canada)
Mark L. Psiaki Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (Ph.D., Princeton) Cornell University
Walter E. Lillo Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Purdue University
Mark Fuller Ph.D. Microbiology University of California, Davis
Daniel Galassini Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Kansas State University
Stanley E. Zager Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering Youngstown State University
Andrew Fong Ph.D. Chemistry Indiana University
John Garth Ph.D. Physics University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
John K. G. Kramer Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Human Biology & Nutrition Sciences University of Guelph (Canada)
Glen O. Brindley Professor of Surgery, Director of Ophthalmology Scott & White Clinic, Texas A&M University H.S.C.
Ann Gauger Ph.D. Zoology University of Washington
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—6
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Pamela Faith Fahey Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Illinois
Paul Brown Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies Trinity Western University (Canada)
Mark Geil Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering Ohio State University
Ibrahim Barsoum Ph.D. Microbiology The George Washington University
Jim Gibson Ph.D. Biology Loma Linda University
John W. Balliet Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of Pennsylvania,
Post-doctoral Fellowship, Harvard Medical School
William Gilbert Emeritus Professor of Biology Simpson College
Joe R. Eagleman Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Kansas
Dexter F. Speck Associate Professor of Physiology University of Kentucky Medical Center
Warren Gilson Associate Professor, Dairy Science University of Georgia
Raul Leguizamon Professor of Medicine (Pathology) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Steven Gollmer Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Purdue University
Sun Uk Kim Ph.D. Biochemical Engineering University of Delaware
Gene B. Chase Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science (Ph.D. Cornell) Messiah College
Chris Grace Associate Professor of Psychology Biola University
James A. Ellard, Sr. Ph.D. Chemistry University of Kentucky
Richard Gunasekera Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics Baylor University
Jennifer M. Cohen Ph.D. Mathematical Physics New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Russel Peak Senior Researcher, Engineering Information Systems Georgia Institute of Technology
Graham Gutsche Emeritus Professor of Physics U.S. Naval Academy
Olivia A. Henderson Ph.D. Pharmaceutics University of Missouri, Kansas City
Dan Hale Professor of Animal Science Texas A&M University
Robert L. Jones Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology University of California, Irvine
James Harbrecht Clinical Associate Professor, Division of Cardiology University of Kansas Medical Center
George W. Benthien Ph.D. Mathematics Carnegie Mellon University
James Harman Associate Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry Texas Tech University
Frederick T. Zugibe Emeritus Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons
William Harris Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry University of Minnesota
Thomas H. Johnson Ph.D. Mathematics University of Maryland
Paul Hausgen Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Gregory A. Snyder Ph.D. Geochemistry Colorado School of Mines
Walter Hearn Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois
Janice Arion Ph.D. Animal Science Cornell University
Howard Martin Whitcraft Ph.D. Mathematics University of St. Louis
Nolan Hertel Professor, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Joseph Francis Associate Professor of Biology Cedarville University
Roland Hirsch Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Michigan
Todd Peterson Ph.D. Plant Physiology University of Rhode Island
Charles Edward Norman Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Carleton University (Canada)
Dewey Hodges Professor, Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
James P. Russum Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Marko Horb Ph.D. Cell & Developmental Biology State University of New York
Joe Watkins Military Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering United States Military Academy
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—7
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Barton Houseman Emeritus Professor of Chemistry Goucher College
Mark Pritt Ph.D. Mathematics Yale University
Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Cornelius Hunter Ph.D. Biophysics University of Illinois
Rodney Ice Principle Research Scientist, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Malcolm W. MacArthur Ph.D. Molecular Biophysics University of London (UK)
Rafe Payne Ph.D. Biology University of Nebraska
Muzaffar Iqbal Ph.D. Chemistry University of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Mark P. Bowman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Pennsylvania State University
David L. Elliott Chair, Division of Natural Sciences/Mathematics Louisiana College
David Ives Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Ohio State University
Amiel G. Jarstfer Professor & Chair, Department of Biology LeTourneau University
Stephan J. G. Gift Professor of Electrical Engineering The University of the West Indies
Tony Jelsma Ph.D. Biochemistry McMaster University (Canada)
George C. Wells Professor of Computer Science Rhodes University (South Africa)
Fred Johnson Ph.D. Pathology Vanderbilt University
Raleigh R. White, IV Professor of Surgery Texas A&M University, College of Medicine
Jerry Johnson Ph.D. Pharmacology & Toxicology Purdue University
Harold D. Cole Professor of Physiology Southwestern Oklahoma State University
Yongsoon Park Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Washington State University
Richard Johnson Professor of Chemistry LeTourneau University
David Hagen Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering University of Minnesota
David Johnson Associate Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology Duquesne University
Jay Hollman Assistant Clinical Professor of Cardiology Louisiana State University Health Science Center
Lawrence Johnston Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Idaho
Albert J. Starshak Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Illinois Institute of Technology
Robert Jones Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas-Pan America
Scott T. Dreher Ph.D. Geology (Royal Society USA Research Fellow) University of Alaska, Fairbanks
David Jones Professor of Biochemistry & Chair of Chemistry Grove City College
Robert Kaita Ph.D. Nuclear Physics Rutgers University
Kenneth Demarest Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Kansas
Edwin Karlow Chair, Department of Physics LaSierra University
Francis M. Donahue Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering The University of Michigan
James Keener Professor of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering University of Utah
Shawn Wright Ph.D. Crop Science North Carolina State University
Douglas Keil Ph.D. Plasma Physics University of Wisconsin, Madison
Dave Finnegan Staff Member (Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Maryland) Los Alamos National Laboratory
Micheal Kelleher Ph.D. Biophysical Chemistry University of Ibadan (Nigeria)
Christine B. Beaucage Ph.D. Mathematics State University of New York at Stony Brook
Rebecca Keller Research Professor, Department of Chemistry University of New Mexico
Gerald E. Hoyer Retired Forrest Scientist (Ph.D. Silviculture, University of Washington) Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Michael Kent Ph.D. Materials Science University of Minnesota
Richard Kinch Ph.D. Computer Science Cornell University
Irfan Yilmaz Professor of Biology (Ph.D. Systematic Zoology) Dokuz Eylul University (Turkey)
Bretta King Assistant Professor of Chemistry Spelman College
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—8
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Mauricio Alcocer Director of Graduate Studies (Ph.D. Plant Science, University of Idaho) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
R. Barry King Prof. of Environmental Safety & Health Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute
Hiroshi Ishii M.D., Ph.D. Behavioral Neurology Tohoku University (Japan)
Michael Kinnaird Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lasse Uotila M.D., Ph.D. Medicinal Biochemistry University of Helsinki (Finland)
Donald Kobe Professor of Physics University of North Texas, Denton
Martin Emery Ph.D. Chemistry University of Southampton (UK)
Charles Koons Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Minnesota
Miguel A. Rodriguez Undergraduate Lab. Coordinator for Biochemistry University of Ottawa (Canada)
Carl Koval Full Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry University of Colorado, Boulder
Magda Narciso Leite Professor, College of Pharmacy & Biochemistry Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (Brazil)
Bruce Krogh Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University
Tetsuichi Takagi Senior Research Scientist Geological Survey of Japan
Daniel Kuebler Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of California, Berkeley
William Notz Professor of Statistics Ohio State University
Don Ranney Emeritus Professor of Anatomy and Kinesiology University of Waterloo (Canada)
Wesley Nyborg Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Vermont
Peter William Holyland Ph.D. Geology University of Queensland (Australia)
Paul Kuld Associate Professor of Biological Science Biola University
Larry B. Rainey Principal Space Systems Engineer Missle Defense Agency
Heather Kuruvilla Ph.D. Biological Sciences State University of New York, Buffalo
Nancy L. Swanson Ph.D. Physics Florida State University
Martin LaBar Ph. D. Genetics & Zoology University of Wisconsin, Madison
William B. Hart Assistant Professor of Mathematics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Teresa Larranaga Ph.D. Pharmacology University of New Mexico
Yuri Zharikov Post-Doctoral Research Fellow (Ph.D. Zoology) Simon Fraser University (Canada)
Ronald Larson Professor and Chair of Chemical Engineering University of Michigan
Wolfgang Hutter Ph.D. Chemistry University of Ulm (Germany)
Robert Lattimer Ph.D. Chemistry University of Kansas, Lawrence
Robert J. Graham Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Iowa State University
M. Harold Laughlin Professor & Chair, Department of Biomedical Sciences University of Missouri
Samuel C. Winchester Klopman Distinguished Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Princeton) North Carolina State University
George Lebo Associate Professor of Astronomy University of Florida
Kurt J. Henle Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania) University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
J.B. Lee Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Texas, Dallas
James O. Dritt Ph.D. Civil Engineering & Environmental Science University of Oklahoma
Matti Leisola Professor, Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering Helsinki University of Technology
Manuel Garcia Ulloa Gomez Director of Marine Sciences Laboratory Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
E. Lennard Sc. D. Surgical Infections & Immunology University of Cincinnati
Glen E. Deal Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Florida Institute of Technology
Lane Lester Ph.D. Genetics Purdue University
Paul Whitehead Ph.D. Chemical Thermodynamics University of Natal (South Africa)
Catherine Lewis Ph.D. Geophysics Colorado School of Mines
John R. Goltz Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Arizona
Peter Line Ph.D. Neuroscience Swinburne University of Technology (Australia)
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—9
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Gerald P. Bodey Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Former Chairman Department of Medical Specialties,
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Garrick Little Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Texas A & M University
John Nichols Ph.D. Mathematics University of Tennessee
Mark Bearden Ph.D. Electrical & Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University
Harry Lubansky Ph.D. Biological Chemistry University of Illinois, Chicago
Daniel L. Moran Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology Ohio University
Fulbright Scholar
Ken Ludema Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Michigan
Jed Macosko Ph.D. Chemistry University of California, Berkeley
Nigel Surridge Ph.D. Electrochemistry & Photochemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Christopher Macosko Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Princeton University
David Keller Associate Professor of Chemistry University of New Mexico
Allen Magnuson Ph. D. Theoretical & Applied Mechanics University of New Hampshire
Amy Ward Ph.D. Mathematics Clemson University
Donald Mahan Professor of Animal Nutrition Ohio State University
Shane A. Kasten Post-Doctoral Fellow (Ph.D. Biochemistry, Kansas State University) Virginia Commonwealth University
Robert Marks Professor, Signal & Image Processing University of Washington
Chi-Deu Chang Ph.D. Medicinal Chemistry State University of New York, Buffalo
Jesus Ambriz Professor of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Julie Marshall Ph.D. Chemistry Texas Tech University
Jay L. Wile Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry University of Rochester
Manfredo Pansa Ph.D. Computer Science University of Turin (Italy)
David McClellan Assistant Professor of Family & Community Medicine Texas A&M University College of Medicine
Evgeny Shirokov Faculty Lecturer (Nuclear and Particle Physics) Moscow State University (Russia)
Charles E. Hunt Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Professor of Design University of California, Davis
Also, Visiting Professor of Physics University of Barcelona (Spain)
Andy McIntosh Full Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory University of Leeds (UK)
Mark A. Robinson Ph.D. Environmental Science Lacrosse University
Hsin-Yi Lin Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering & Biotechnology National Taipei University of Technology (Taiwan)
Tom McMullen Ph.D. History & Philosophy of Science Indiana University
Martin Poenie Associate Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Texas, Austin
Haim Shore Professor of Quality and Reliability Engineering (Ph.D. Statistics) Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Israel)
Tony Mega Ph.D. Biochemistry Purdue University
Carl Poppe Ph.D. Physics University of Wisconsin
Keith P. Birch Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics University of Southampton (UK)
James Menart Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Wright State University
Theodor Liss Ph.D. Chemistry Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Keesling Professor of Mathematics University of Florida
Brian Miller Ph.D. Physics Duke University
Christopher D. Beling Associate Professor of Physics The University of Hong Kong (China)
Art Nitz Ph.D. Anatomy & Neurobiology University of Kentucky
Thomas Milner Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering University of Texas, Austin
David Ness Ph.D. Anthropology Temple University
Christian W. Puritz Ph.D. Mathematics University of Glasgow (UK)
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—10
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Forrest Mims Atmospheric Researcher Geronimo Creek Observatory
S. W. Pelletier* Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Chemistry University of Georgia, Athens
Richard L. Carpenter, Jr. Ph.D. Meteorology University of Oklahoma
Paul Missel Ph.D. Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jeffrey Sabburg Ph.D. Physics Queensland University of Technology (Australia)
Dónal O'Mathúna Ph.D. Pharmacognosy Ohio State University
Steve D. Figard Ph.D. Biochemistry Florida State University
Lennart Möller Professor, Center for Nutrition & Toxicology Karolinska Institute (Sweden)
Victoriano Saenz Professor of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Takeo Nakagawa Chancellor (Ph.D. Physics, Monash University, Australia) White Mountains Academy (Japan)
David Monson Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Indiana University
James T. Fowler Ph.D. Mathematics University of Durham (UK)
Hugh Nutley* Professor Emeritus of Physics & Engineering Seattle Pacific University
Terry Morrison Ph.D. Chemistry Syracuse University
Bijan Nemati Ph.D. High Energy Physics University of Washington
William Russell Belding Ph.D. Mathematics University of Notre Dame
Bridget Ingham Ph.D. Physics Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)
Paul Nesselroade Associate Professor of Experimental Psychology Asbury College
Kevin L. Kendig Ph.D. Materials Science & Engineering University of Michigan
Marco Bernardes Professor & Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering Federal Center of Technological Education, Minas Gerais (Brazil)
Robert Newman Ph.D. Astrophysics Cornell University
Angus Menuge Ph.D. Philosophy of Psychology University of Wisconsin-Madison
Khawar Sohail Siddiqui Senior Research Associate (Protein Chemistry) University of New South Wales (Australia)
Janet Parker Professor of Medical Physiology Texas A&M University, Health Science Center
Scott Northrup Chair and Professor of Chemistry Tennessee Tech University
John Omdahl* Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of New Mexico
Matthew A. Jenks Professor of Horticultural Science Purdue University
Fazale Rana Ph.D. Chemistry Ohio University
Rebecca Orr Ph.D. Cell Biology University of Texas, Southwestern
Cevat Babuna Professor Emeritus of Gynecology (Post-doc, University of Chicago) Istanbul University (Turkey)
Bruce L. Gordon Ph.D. Philosophy of Physics Northwestern University
Lawrence Overzet Professor of Engineering & Computer Science University of Texas, Dallas
J. C. Meredith Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Siddarth Pandey Assistant Professor of Chemistry New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Bruce Holman, III Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Northwestern University
Gordon Mills Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry University of Texas, Medical Branch
A. Clyde Hill Ph.D. Soil Chemistry Rutgers University
Aric D. Blumer Ph.D. Computer Engineering Virginia Tech
Stephen C. Meyer Ph.D. Philosophy of Science Cambridge University (UK)
William Purcell Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Princeton University
Paul Randolph Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics University of Minnesota
Christopher Morbey Astronomer (Ret.) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada
Stephen C. Tentarelli Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Lehigh University
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—11
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
David Reed Ph.D Entomology University of California, Riverside
Charles D. Johnson Ph.D. Chemistry University of Minnesota
J. Ishizaki Associate Professor of Neuropsychology (M.D., Ph.D. Medicine) Kobe Gakuin University (Japan)
David Rogstad Ph.D. Physics California Institute of Technology
Mark Shlapobersky Ph.D. Virology Bar-Ilan University (Israel)
Arthur John Jones Ph.D. Zoology & Comparative Physiology Birmingham University (UK)
Patricia Reiff Director, Rice Space Institute Rice University
Oleh Havrysh Senior Research Assistant, Protein & Peptide Structure & Function Dept. Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry & Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
W. Christopher Schroeder Associate Professor of Mathematics Morehead State University
Gail H. Allwine Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired) Gonzaga University
Dan Reynolds Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin
Gildo Magalhães Professor of the History of Science & Technology University of São Paulo (Brazil)
Andrew Steckley Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Western Ontario (Canada)
Terry Rickard Ph.D. Engineering Physics University of California, San Diego
Arlen W. Siert Ph.D. Environmental Health Colorado State University
Mubashir Hanif Ph.D. Plant Biology University of Helsinki (Finland)
Eliot Roberts Ph.D. Soil Chemistry Rutgers University
Mario Beauregard Associate Researcher, Department of Psychology (Ph.D. Neuroscience) University of Montreal (Canada)
Mehmet Pakdemirli Professor of Mechanical Engineering Celal Bayar University (Turkey)
Quinton Rogers Prof. of Physiological Chemistry, Dept. of Molecular Biosciences Univ. of California, Davis, School of Vet. Medicine
Liang Hong Associate Professor, Dept. of Dental Public Health & Behavioral Science University of Missouri, Kansas City
Daniel Romo Professor of Chemistry Texas A&M University
David Sabatini Professor Civil Engineering & Environmental Science University of Oklahoma
Richard Buggs DPhil Plant Ecology & Evolution Oxford University (UK)
Etienne Y. Vernaz Professor & Director of Research Director CEA (French Atomic Energy Agency) (France)
Theodore Saito Ph.D. Physics Pennsylvania State University
Jussi Meriluoto Professor, Department of Biochemistry & Pharmacy Abo Akademi University (Finland)
Kay Roscoe Ph.D. High Energy Particle Physics University of Manchester (UK)
Thomas Saleska Professor of Biology Concordia University
James F. Drake Ph.D. Atmospheric Science University of California, Los Angeles
Daniel M. Brown Ph.D. Physics Catholic University of America
Fernando Saravi Professor, Department of Morphology and Physiology Med. Sciences School, Univ. Nacional de Cuyo (Argentina)
Harold Toups Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Louisiana State University
Raúl Erlando López Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Colorado State University
Phillip Savage Professor of Chemical Engineering University of Michigan
Seyyed Imran Husnain Ph.D. Bacterial Genetics University of Sheffield (UK)
Gayle Livingston Birchfield Ph.D. Biology University of Missouri, Columbia
Dale Schaefer Professor, Materials Science & Engineering University of Cincinnati
Russell C. Healey Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Cambridge (UK)
James Gilchrist Ph.D. Physics University of Texas, Austin
Stuart C. Burgess Professor of Design & Nature, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Bristol University (UK)
Charles W. Bell Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences San Jose State University
Norman Schmidt Professor of Chemistry Georgia Southern University
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—12
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Flemming Nyboe Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Technical University of Denmark (Denmark)
Steve Maxwell Associate Professor of Molecular and Cellular Medicine Texas A&M University, H.S.C.
Rowan Seymour Ph.D. Computer Science Queen’s University, Belfast (Northern Ireland)
Leslie J. Wiemerslage Emeritus Professor (Ph.D. Cell Biology, Univ. of Pennsylvania) Southwestern Illinois College
Andrew Schmitz Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Iowa
Anne E. Vravick Ph.D. Environmental Toxicology University of Wisconsin, Madison
Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics University of Texas, El Paso
Richard A. Strong Ph.D. Chemistry Northeastern University
Marshall Adams Ph.D. Marine Sciences University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Stephen Sewell Assistant Professor of Family Medicine Texas A&M University
Mark C. Biedebach Professor Emeritus of Physiology California State University, Long Beach
Gregory Shearer Ph.D. Physiology University of California, Davis
Douglas Nelson Rose Research Physicist United States Army
David Shormann Ph.D. Limnology Texas A&M University
Paul Lorenzini Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Oregon State University
Mark Apkarian Ph.D. Exercise Physiology University of New Mexico
Dale Spence Emeritus Professor of Kinesiology Rice University
Edson R. Rocha Research Assistant Professor, Microbiology East Carolina University
David W. Dykstra Ph.D. Computer Science University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arnold Sikkema Associate Professor of Physics Dordt College
Larry S. Helmick Senior Professor of Chemistry Cedarville University
Georgia Purdom Ph.D. Molecular Genetics Ohio State University
John Silvius Ph.D. Plant Physiology West Virginia University
Philip S. Taylor Research Fellow, Computer Science Queen’s University Belfast (UK)
Fred Skiff Professor of Physics University of Iowa
Giulio D. Guerra First Researcher of the Italian National Research Council (Chemistry) Istituto Materiali Compositi e Biomedici, CNR (Italy)
Ken Smith Professor of Mathematics Central Michigan University
Audris Zidermanis Ph.D. Nutrition & Molecular Biology Texas Woman’s University
Jacquelyn W. McClelland Professor (Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry) North Carolina State University, NCCE
Robert Smith Professor of Chemistry University of Nebraska, Omaha
Fred Van Dyke Professor of Biology and Chair of the Biology Department Wheaton College (Illinois)
Ian C. Fuller Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography Massey University (New Zealand)
Wolfgang Smith Emeritus Professor of Mathematics Oregon State University
Jorge Pimentel Cintra University Professor, Earth Sciences University of São Paulo (Brazil)
Wayne L. Cook Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Kentucky
John Stamper Research Physicist Naval Research Laboratory
Alfred Tang Visiting Scholar (Ph.D. Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison) The Chinese University of Hong Kong (China)
Jeffrey L. Vaughn Ph.D. Engineering University of California, Irvine
Timothy Standish Ph.D. Environmental Biology George Mason University
Robert W. Kopitzke Professor of Chemistry Winona State University
William Hankley Professor of Computer Science Kansas State University
Walt Stangl Associate Professor of Mathematics Biola University
Karl Stephan Associate Professor, Dept. of Technology Texas State University, San Marcos
Cahit Babuna Ph.D. Radiology Istanbul University (Turkey)
Richard Sternberg Ph.D. Biology (Molecular Evolution) Florida International University
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—13
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Also: Ph.D. Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) Binghamton University
Reid W. Castrodale P.E., Ph.D. Structural Engineering University of Texas, Austin
Michael Strauss Associate Professor of Physics University of Oklahoma
Jason David Ward Ph.D. Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Glasgow University (UK)
Scott A. Renner Ph.D. Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
John Studenroth Ph.D. Plant Pathology Cornell University
Peter M. Rowell D.Phil. Physics University of Oxford (UK)
Mark Swanson Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois
Ricardo Bravo Méndez Professor of Zoology and Ichthyology Universidad de Valparaíso (Chile)
João Jorge Ribeiro Soares Gonçalves de Araújo, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics Open University (Portugal)
Rafi Ahmed Ph.D. Computer Science University of Florida
James Swanson Professor of Biological Sciences Old Dominion University
Wade Warren C.J. Cavanaugh Chair in Biology Louisiana College
Justin Holl Ph.D. Animal Science University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Bela Szilagyi Ph.D. Physics University of Pittsburgh
András Vukics Ph.D. in Physics University of Szeged, Hungary
Wildon Fickett Ph.D. in Chemistry Caltech
Richard Mann Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Princeton University
Daniel Tedder Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Derek Linkens Senior Research Fellow and Emeritus Professor (Biomedical Eng.) University of Sheffield (UK)
Charles Thaxton Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Iowa State University
Lee M. Spetner Ph.D. Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Christopher L. Thomas Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of South Carolina
J. Benjamin Scripture Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Notre Dame
Douglas C. Youvan Former Associate Professor of Chemistry (Ph.D., U.C., Berkeley) Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jeff W. Johnson Ph.D., Industrial, Organizational, & Cognitive Psychology University of Minnesota
Sture Blomberg Associate Professor of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine The Sahlgren University Hospital (Sweden)
Pavithran Thomas Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Ohio State University
Leonard Loose Ph.D. Botany University of Leeds (UK)
Richard Thompson Ph.D. Computer Science University of Connecticut
D. Albrey Arrington Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences Texas A&M University
Kjell Erik Wennberg Ph.D. Petroleum Engineering Norwegian University of Science & Technology (Norway)
Orhan Kural Professor of Geology Technical University of Istanbul (Turkey)
Stephen Lloyd Ph.D. Materials Science University of Cambridge (UK)
James R. Thompson Noah Harding Professor of Statistics Rice University
Denis M. Boyle Ph.D. Medical Biochemistry University of Witwatersrand (South Africa)
Ide Trotter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Princeton University
Kevin E. Spaulding Ph.D. Optical Engineering University of Rochester
Royal Truman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Michigan State University
Robert VanderVennen Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Michigan State University
Tibor Tóth Professor of Product Information Engineering (D.Sc. Hungarian Academy) University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Nigel E. Robinson Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Nottingham (UK)
Vincente Villa Emeritus Professor of Biology Southwestern University
Margil Wadley Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry Purdue University
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—14
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Clifton L. Kehr Ph.D. Chemistry University of Delaware
Carston Wagner Associate Professor of Medicinal Chemistry University of Minnesota
Karl Heinz Kienitz Professor, Department of Systems & Control Instituto Technologico de Aeronautica (Brazil)
William F. Fechter Ph.D. Technology Arizona State University
Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School
James Tumlin Associate Professor of Medicine Emory University
David Van Dyke Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Illinois, Urbana
John Walkup Emeritus Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Texas Tech University
Tom Belanger Professor of Environmental Science Florida Institute of Technology
Joel Lantz Ph.D. Chemistry University of Rhode Island
Pieder Beeli Ph.D. Physics University of Notre Dame
Robert Waltzer Associate Professor of Biology Belhaven College
James R. Brawer Professor of Anatomy & Cell Biology (Ph.D., Harvard) McGill University (Canada)
Todd Watson Assistant Professor of Urban & Community Forestry Texas A & M University
Weimin Gao Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory
Woody Weed Mechanical Engineer, Science & Technology Division Sandia National Labs
Heikki Martikka Professor of Machine Design Lappeenranta University of Technology (Finland)
Gerald Wegner Ph.D. Entomology Loyola University
Richard R. Neptune Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas, Austin
Jonathan Wells Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley
Alexandre S. Soares Ph.D. Mathematics Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Robert Wentworth Ph.D. Toxicology University of Georgia
James Wanliss Associate Professor of Physics Embry-Riddle University
Einar W. Palm Professor Emeritus, Department of Plant Pathology University of Missouri, Columbia
Anthony Reynolds Ph.D. Philosophy of Science (thesis on the Argument for Design) University of London (UK)
R. P. Wharton Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Lawrence Dickson Ph.D. Mathematics Princeton University
Sandra Gade Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
Elden Whipple Affiliate Professor of Earth & Space Sciences University of Washington
Chee K. Yap Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D., Yale University) Courant Institute, New York University
Mark White Professor of Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Charles Detwiler Ph.D. Genetics Cornell University
Terrance Murphy Professor of Chemistry Weill Cornell Medical College
Ed Neeland Professor of Chemistry Okanagan University
Gregg Wilkerson Ph.D. Geologic Science University of Texas, El Paso
Noel Funderburk Ph.D. Microbiology University of North Texas
Joseph M. Marra Director, Interventional Radiology, & Adjunct Professor of Medicine Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center
Ken Pascoe Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Air Force Institute of Technology
John H. Whitmore Associate Professor of Geology Cedarville University
Ernest L. Brannon Professor Emeritus, Distinguished Research Professor (Ph.D. Fisheries) University of Idaho
Miroslav Hill Former Director of Research Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France)
Christopher Williams Ph.D. Biochemistry Ohio State University
Georg A. Speck Ph.D. Biology, Molecular Pharmacology University of Heidelberg (Germany)
J. Mitch Wolff Professor of Mechanical Engineering Wright State University
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—15
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Thomas D. Gillespie Research Professor Emeritus Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan
John Worraker Ph.D. Applied Mathematics University of Bristol (UK)
Hans Degens Reader in Muscle Physiology Manchester Metropolitan University (UK)
Alexander Yankovsky Assistant Professor of Physical Oceanography Nova Southeastern University
Begona M. Bradham Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of South Carolina
Christopher Scurlock Ph.D. Chemistry Arizona State University
John C. Zink Former Assistant Professor of Engineering University of Oklahoma
Patrick Young Ph.D. Chemistry Ohio University
Bruno Lemaire Professor, Decision Science & Information Systems (Ph.D. Mathematics) HEC Paris (France)
David Zartman Ph.D. Genetics & Animal Breeding Ohio State University
Charles T. Rombough Ph.D. Engineering University of Texas
Ingolf Kanestrøm Professor Emeritus, Department of Geoscience University of Oslo (Norway)
Henry Zuill Emeritus Professor of Biology Union College
Jane M. Orient Clinical Lecturer in Medicine University of Arizona College of Medicine
John C. Sanford Courtesy Associate Professor of Horticultural Sciences Cornell University
Frank Young Ph.D. Computer Engineering Air Force Institute of Technology
Murray E. Moore Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University
William J. Powers Ph.D. Physics University California, San Diego
William DeJong Ph.D. Computer Science University of Groningen (The Netherlands)
Max G. Walter Associate Professor of Radiology Oklahoma University Health Science Center
Rosa María Muñoz Head of Biopharmacy Department Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Scott R. Fulton Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Colorado State University
Don Olson Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Purdue University
Graham Marshall Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Pretoria (South Africa)
Ke-Wei Zhao Ph.D. Neuroscience University of California, San Diego
Philip R. Page Ph.D. Theoretical Particle Physics University of Oxford (UK)
Roger Wiens Ph.D. Physics University of Minnesota
Mark Toleman Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology Bristol University (UK)
Robert O. Kalbach Ph.D. Physical Chemistry University of South Florida
Gregory J. Brewer Prof. of Neurology, Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Cell Biology Southern Illinois University School of Medicine
Neil Huber Dr. rer. nat. (Ph.D. Anthropology) Tuebingen University
Marc C. Daniels Associate Professor of Biology William Carey University
J.D. Moolenburgh Ph.D. Epidemiology University of Rotterdam (The Netherlands)
Roger Lien Ph.D. Physiology North Carolina State University
Dean Schulz Ph.D. Computer Science Colorado State University
John Millam Ph.D. Computational Chemistry Rice University
Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control
Richard S. Beale, Jr. Ph.D. Entomology University of California, Berkeley
Ernest M. Thiessen Ph.D. Civil & Environmental Engineering Cornell University
Tianyou Wang Research Scientist Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement & Assessment, University of Iowa
Øyvind A. Voie Ph.D. Biology University of Oslo (Norway)
David K. Shortess Professor of Biology (Retired) New Mexico Tech
A.D. Harrison* Emeritus Professor of Biology University of Waterloo
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—16
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
William P. Shulaw Professor of Veterinary Preventive Medicine The Ohio State University
Darrell R. Parnell Ph. D. University Level Science Education Kansas State University
Daniel W. Barnette Ph. D. Aerospace Engineering Stanford University
David William Jensen Professor of Biology Tomball College
Edward M. Bohn Ph. D. Nuclear Engineering University of Illinois
Robert G. Vos Ph.D. Civil/Structural Engineering Rice University
Yvonne Boldt Ph. D. Microbiology University of Minnesota
William B. Collier Ph. D. Physical Chemistry Oklahoma State University
Edward Gade Professor Emeritus of Mathematics University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
James E. Nymann Emeritus Professor of Mathematics University of Texas at El Paso
Malcolm A. Cutchins Ph. D. Engineering Mechanics Virginia Tech
Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow Ph. D. Cell Biology & Biochemistry Rutgers University
Holger Daugaard Ph. D. Agronomy Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (Denmark)
Shieu-Hong Lin Assistant Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D., Brown University) Biola University
W. John Durfee Assistant Professor of Pharmacology Case Western Reserve University
Dominic M. Halsmer Ph. D. Mechanical Engineering UCLA
Charles B. Lowrey Ph.D. Chemistry University of Houston
Jeffrey H. Harwell Ph. D. Chemical Engineering University of Texas, Austin
Frank Cheng Associate Professor of Chemistry University of Idaho
David Heddle Ph. D. Physics Carnegie Mellon University
Yoshiyuki Amemiya Professor of Advanced Materials Science & Applied Physics The University of Tokyo
Barbara S. Helmkamp Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Louisiana State University
David C. Kem Professor of Medicine University of Oklahoma College of Medicine
C. Thomas Luiskutty Ph.D. Physics Univ. of Louisville
Wusi Maki Research Asst. Professor, Dept. of Microbiology, Mol. Biology, & Biochem. University of Idaho
A. Cordell Perkes Ph.D. Science Education Ohio State University
John D. Cook Head of Software Development (Ph.D. Mathematics, U.T. Austin) Department of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics, U. of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Tony Prato Prof. of Ecological Economics University of Missouri
Charles G. Sanny Prof. of Biochemistry Oklahoma State University Ctr. for Health Sciences
Jairam Vanamala Postdoctoral Research Associate, Faculty of Nutrition Faculty of Nutrition, TAMU, College Station
Gordon L. Wilson Ph.D. Environmental Science and Public Policy George Mason University
Robin D. Zimmer Ph.D. Environmental Sciences Rutgers University
Karl Duff Sc.D. Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David Jansson Sc.D. Instrumentation and Automatic Control Massachusetts Institute of Technology
C. Steven Murphree Professor of Biology Belmont University
Alfred G. Ratz Ph.D. Engineering Physics University of Toronto (Canada)
Chris Cellucci Associate Professor of Physics Ursinus College
Gary Maki Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho
Ronald S. Carson Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering University of Washington
Joseph A. Strada Ph.D. Aeronautical Engineering Naval Postgraduate School
Olaf Karthaus Associate Professor, Chemistry Chitose Institute of Science & Technology (Japan)
Arnold Eugene Carden Professor Emeritus of Engineering Science & Mechanics University of Alabama
John B. Marshall Professor of Medicine University of Missouri School of Medicine
Robert B. Sheldon Ph.D. Physics University of Maryland, College Park
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—17
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
B. K. Nelson Research Toxicologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Hansik Yoon Ph.D. Fiber Science Seoul National University (South Korea)
David Conover Ph.D. Health Physics Purdue University
Luis Paulo Franco de Barros D.Sc. Mechanical Engineering Pontificia Universidade Católica (Brazil)
Richard W. Pooley Professor of Surgery (retired) New York Medical College
Arthur Chadwick Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Miami
Lennart Saari Adjunct Professor, Wildlife Biology University of Helsinki (Finland)
Douglas G. Frank Ph.D. Surface Electrochemistry University of Cincinnati
James G. Tarrant Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin
N. Ricky Byrn Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Jeffrey E. Lander Ph.D. Biomechanics University of Oregon
Curtis Hawkins Asst. Clinical Professor of Dermatology Case Western Reserve Univ. School of Medicine
Mary A. Brown DVM (Veterinary Medicine) Ohio State University
Thomas H. Marshall Adjunct Professor, Food Agricultural and Biological Engineering Ohio State University
Charles H. McGowen Assistant Professor of Medicine Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Ronald R. Crawford Ed.D. Science Education Ball State University
Matti Junnila DVM, Ph.D. Veterinary Pathology University of Helsinki (Finland)
Dean Svoboda Ph.D. Electrical Engineering The Ohio State University
Ruth C. Miles Professor of Chemistry Malone College
Mark J. Lattery Associate Professor of Physics University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
William McVaugh Associate Professor of Biology Department of Natural Sciences, Malone College
Jeffrey M. Goff Associate Professor of Chemistry Malone College
Jarrod W. Carter Ph.D. Bioengineering University of Washington
David B. Medved* Ph.D. Physics University of Pennsylvania
Theodore W. Geier Ph.D. Forrest Hydrology University of Minnesota
Christian Heiss Post-Doctoral Associate Complex Carbohydrate Res. Ctr., Univ. of Georgia
G. Bradley Schaefer Professor of Pediatrics University of Nebraska Medical Center
Bruce Simat Associate Professor of Biology Northwestern College
Teresa Gonske Assistant Professor of Mathematics Northwestern College
Thomas Mundie Dean of the School of Science & Technology Georgia Gwinnett College
Scott S. Kinnes Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University
James A. Huggins Chair, Dept. of Biology & Dir., Hammons Center for Scientific Studies Union University
Jonathan A. Zderad Assistant Professor of Mathematics Northwestern College
Michael R. Egnor Professor and Vice-Chairman, Dept. of Neurological Surgery State University of New York at Stony Brook
I. Caroline Crocker Ph.D. Immunopharmacology University of Southampton (UK)
Donald J. Hanrahan Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Maryland
Gintautas Jazbutis Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
Paul S. Darby Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Georgia
Changhyuk An Ph.D. Physics University of Tennessee
L. Kirt Martin Professor of Biology Lubbock Christian University
Gerald Schroeder Ph.D. Earth Sciences & Nuclear Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Rod Rogers Ph.D. Agronomy/Plant Breeding Iowa State University
David W. Herrin Research Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering University of Kentucky
Glen Needham Associate Professor of Entomology The Ohio State University
E. Byron Rogers Professor of Chemistry; Chair, Dept. of Mathematics & Physical Sciences Lubbock Christian University
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—18
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Vladimir L. Voeikov Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)
Ricardo Leon Dean of School of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Eugene C. Ashby Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus Georgia Institute of Technology
JoAnne Larsen Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering University of South Florida, Lakeland
Douglas Axe Director (Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology) Biologic Institute
Joel Brind Professor of Biology Baruch College, City University of New York
William F. Basener Associate Professor of Mathematics Rochester Institute of Technology
L. Whit Marks Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Central Oklahoma
Jan Peter Bengtson Associate Professor (M.D., Ph.D. Intensive Care Medicine) University of Gothenburg (Sweden)
Perry Mason Professor of Mathematics and Physical Science Lubbock Christian University
Timothy A. Mixon Assistant Professor of Medicine Texas A&M University
Lawrence DeMejo Ph.D. Polymer Science and Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Charles Garner Professor of Chemistry Baylor University
Lynne Parker Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D. MIT) Distributed Intelligence Lab, University of Tennessee
Ivan M. Lang Ph.D. Physiology and Biophysics Temple University
David J. Lawrence Ph.D. Physics Washington University, St. Louis
John G. Hoey Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology City University of New York Graduate School
Theodore J. Siek Ph.D. Biochemistry Oregon State University
John P. Rickert Ph.D. Mathematics Vanderbilt University
Christian M. Loch Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Virginia
David W. Rusch Sr. Research Scientist, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado
Charles A. Signorino Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Pennsylvania
Luke Randall Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology University of London (UK)
Jan Frederic Dudt Associate Professor of Biology Grove City College
Glenn A. Marsch Associate Professor of Physics Grove City College
Eduardo Sahagun Professor of Botany Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Mark A. Chambers Ph.D. Virology University of Cambridge (UK)
Gary Hook Ph.D. Environmental Science Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Daniel Howell Ph.D. Biochemistry Virginia Tech
Joel D. Hubbard Associate Professor, Dept. of Lab. Science and Primary Care Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
C. Roger Longbotham Ph.D. Statistics Florida State University
Hugh L. Henry Lecturer (Ph.D. Physics, University of Virginia) Northern Kentucky University
Jonathan D. Eisenback Professor of Plant Pathology Dept. of Plant Pathology and Weed Science Virginia Tech
Eduardo Arroyo Professor of Forensics (Ph.D. Biology) Complutense University (Spain)
Peter Silley Ph.D. Microbial Biochemistry University of Newcastle upon Tyne
E. Norbert Smith Ph.D. Zoology Texas Tech University
Peter C. Iwen Professor of Pathology and Microbiology University of Nebraska Medical Center
Paul Roschke A.P. and Florence Wiley Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University
Luman R. Wing Associate Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University
Edward F. Blick Ph.D. Engineering Science University of Oklahoma
Wesley M. Taylor Former Chairman of the Division of Primate Medicine & Surgery New England Regional Primate Research Center, Harvard Medical School
Don England Professor Emeritus of Chemistry Harding University
Wayne Linn Professor Emeritus of Biology Southern Oregon University
James Gundlach Associate Professor of Physics John A. Logan College
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—19
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Guillermo Gonzalez Associate Professor of Astronomy Iowa State University
Tim Droubay Ph.D. Physics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Gregory D. Bossart Director and Head of Pathology Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution
Barry Homer Ph.D. Mathematics Southampton University (UK)
Jiøí Vácha Professor Emeritus of Pathological Physiology Institute of Pathophysiology, Masaryk University (Czech Republic)
Richard J. Neves Professor of Fisheries, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Virginia Tech
David Deming Associate Professor of Geosciences University of Oklahoma
Gregory A. Ator Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology University of Kansas Medical Center
Erkki Jokisalo Ph.D. Social Pharmacy University of Kuopio (Finland)
John S. Roden Associate Professor of Biology Southern Oregon University
Donald W. Russell Adjunct Assistant Clinical Professor University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Neil Armitage Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of Cape Town (South Africa )
Geoff Barnard Senior Research Scientist, Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge (UK)
Richard Hassing Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Cornell University
Olivia Torres Professor-Researcher (Human Genetics) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Donald A. Kangas Professor of Biology Truman State University
Alvin Masarira Senior Lecturer for Structural Engineering and Mechanics University of Cape Town (South Africa)
George A. Ekama Professor, Water Quality Engineering, Dept of Civil Engineering University of Cape Town (South Africa)
Alistair Donald Ph.D. Environmental Science/Quaternary or Pleistocene Palynology University of Wales (UK)
Thomas C. Majerus PharmD; FCCP University of Minnesota
Ferenc Farkas Ph.D. Applied Chemical Sciences Technical University of Budapest (Hungary)
Scott A. Chambers Affiliate Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science & Engineering University of Washington
Cris Eberle Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Purdue University
Dennis M. Sullivan Professor of Biology and Bioethics Cedarville University
Rodney M. Rutland Department Head & Associate Professor of Kinesiology Anderson University
Alastair M. Noble Ph.D. Chemistry University of Glasgow (Scotland)
Robert D. Orr Professor of Family Medicine University of Vermont College of Medicine
Laverne Miller Clinical Associate Professor of Family Medicine Medical College of Ohio
Laura Burke Former Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering Lehigh University
Terry W. Spencer Former Chair, Department of Geology & Geophysics Texas A&M University
Bert Massie Ph.D. Physics University of California, Los Angeles
Mark C. Porter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology
S. Thomas Abraham Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology Campbell University School of Pharmacy
John L. Hoffer Professor of Engineering; Texas A&M University College of Engineering; (also) Professor of Anesthesiology Texas A&M Univ. Syst. Health Science Center
Herman Branover Professor of Mechanical Engineering Ben-Gurion University (Israel)
Martin Krause Research Scientist (Astronomy) University of Cambridge (UK)
James G. Bentsen Ph.D. Chemistry Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles N. Delzell Professor of Mathematics (Ph.D. Stanford) Louisiana State University
Curtis Hrischuk Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Carleton University (Canada)
Guang-Hong Chen Assistant Professor of Medical Physics & Radiology University of Wisconsin-Madison
Doug Hufstedler Ph.D. Animal Nutrition Texas A&M University
Justin Long Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Iowa State University
James E. Rankin Ph.D. General Relativity Yeshiva University (Israel)
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—20
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Donald F. Smee Research Professor (Microbiology) Utah State University
Colin R. Reeves Professor of Operational Research (Ph.D. Evolutionary Algorithms) Coventry University (UK)
Eugene K. Balon University Professor Emeritus, Department of Integrative Biology University of Guelph (Canada)
William F. Smith Ph.D. in Molecular & Cellular Biology McGill University
William A. Eckert III Ph.D. in Cell & Molecular Physiology University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Hannes Fischer Ph.D. in Molcular Biology University of Pennsylvania
Ronald D. DeGroat Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Colorado at Boulder
John R. Fritch Ph.D. in Chemistry University of California Berkeley
Emilio Cervantes Ph.D. in Molecular Biology University of Salamanca, Spain
Dave Jansson Sc.D. in Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles A. Rodenberger Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering University of Texas at Austin
William Murphy Ph.D. in Chemistry Columbia University
Valdemar W. Setzer Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics University of São Paulo, Brazil
Brandon van der Ventel Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics Stellenbosch University
Eric Montgomery Ph.D. in Physics Stellenbosch University
Neil Steiner Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering Virginia Tech
Jeffery R. Layne Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering The Ohio State University
Ferenc Tóth Ph.D. in Agricultural Sciences Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary
Christian A. Widener Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Wichita State University
Timothy H. Heil Ph.D. in Computer Engineering University of Wisconsin, Madison
Fred B. Maas Ph.D. in Agronomy Purdue University
Mike Viccary Ph.D. in Sold State Chemistry University of Bradford
Michael N. Keas Professor of History and Philosophy of Science The College at Southwestern
Gérald Pech Ph.D. in Satellite Communications & Networking Supaero (Higher Institute of Space and Aeronautics),
France
Marco Fasoli Ph.D. in Biochemistry University of Cambridge (UK)
Chrystal L. Ho Pao Assistant Professor of Biology (Ph.D. Molecular Genetics, Harvard U.) Trinity International University
Donald E. Johnson Ph.D. Computer & Information Sciences University of Minnesota
Also: Ph.D. Chemistry Michigan State University
*= Deceased since signing statement.
Note: Unless updated information has been received, positions listed are those held by signers when they signed the statement.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jackspell

Brian37 wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Kapkao wrote:

...and at the end of the day, The Big Invisible Everglorious Magician Himself™ fails to to pass on the secret causative factor behind his creation methods on to his idiot, Bronze Age/Iron Age followers. My, my, my...

Out of curiousity, how does the big bang come to be?

Why should he even try when he knows we lack the capacity to comprehend, especially the lower forms of intelligence such as yourself

There is a HUGE difference between saying "You are full of shit" and "You are a piece of shit". No one here is judging YOU, we are judging your arguments. But if you want us to really hate you as an individual, keep this up.

Now as far as claims go, IT IS A SHITTY CLAIM to me to claim babies can magically be born without a second set of DNA. DO NOT blame me for a book I did not write.

Just like it is a shitty claim to claim you'll get 72 virgins in a non existent after life. Just like it was shitty for humans to believe the sun rotated around the earth.

It was more understandable back then because humans didn't know better. But to expect us today, with our modern scientific knowledge to placate your emotions about clearly ABSURD claims about talking snakes, talking bushes, adults magically popping out of dirt, IS ABSURD.

You have no right to try to demonize us for merely saying that the moon is not made of cheese.

No one is going to hate you for playing Dungeons and Dragons, but don't expect us to play the game just because you fell for it. MAYBE there is a reason we are questioning you having NOTHING do do with hating you.

 

 

 

You know, I keep telling myself, I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to your vacuous rants.  Actually, I tried to stop even reading them because I can feel myself getting dumber just from the exposure to your nonsense.   However, some new information was brought to my attention.  You actually, realistically, literally are retarded.  And now, my opinion of you has changed drastically! I now think you are an inspiration! I mean, anyone who manages to post as much as you do, while confined to a straight-jacket, in an asylum, and possess an extra chromosome, is motivational, even if what you are posting not taken seriously by any educated readers. 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm still waiting on one of

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4114
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

 

 

 Uh oh.  What's this?

 

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritu     ....( snip )....
Donald E. Johnson Ph.D. Computer & Information Sciences University of Minnesota
Also: Ph.D. Chemistry Michigan State University
*= Deceased since signing statement.
Note: Unless updated information has been received, positions listed are those held by signers when they signed the statement.

 

   Quite an impressive list.  Let me know when these illustrious individuals number in the MAJORITY.      

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4114
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:I'm still

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

 

       What the hell does cowardice have to do with anything ?  Do you think in depth knowledge of scientific theory is something that is shared equally among all atheists ?  Does every fucking Christian who professes faith in the Bible have a degree in theology and speak Greek and Hebrew ?   

  You still offer nothing to validate how God actually "creates".   Got any proof yet ?

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Listen Jackass

 

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

 

why don't you tell us your version of how everything came to be - and explain how it all happened - empirically.

You don't get to wave vaguely in the direction of bible and make truth claims suggesting it contains cogent points about material reality yet not offer up a single supported hypotheses for your silly version of events.

Tell us how god did it in your next post or we will know that all you have are these endless appeals to complexity...it's all such a mystery to me so my opinion is that god did it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: ....  

jackspell wrote:

....

 

HAHAHAHAHA.

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.

Please... is this all you have?

Go fuck yourself you piece of shit creationist.

You are so fucking stupid. Now I know why Brian37 is so fucking militant all the time. People like you post bullshit you KNOW is bullshit and you try to pass it off as legit information.

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:I'm still

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

Go fuck yourself you two bit con.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

 

why don't you tell us your version of how everything came to be - and explain how it all happened - empirically.

You don't get to wave vaguely in the direction of bible and make truth claims suggesting it contains cogent points about material reality yet not offer up a single supported hypotheses for your silly version of events.

Tell us how god did it in your next post or we will know that all you have are these endless appeals to complexity...it's all such a mystery to me so my opinion is that god did it...

 

AE,

He's playing a game. He knows he is incorrect. All his dreams of going to heaven and getting his wings have been dashed.

It's like a kid who believes in santa who learns about the truth before they are ready for it. They get disgruntled. They are disappointed.

They turn to lying and that weepy sadness where they reject society, lock their selves up in the basement and watch reruns of the 700 club.

Jack has no intention of ever proving anything.

 


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Good! I wouldn't debate faith neither. Since faith is a BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that would be stupid. My foundation is not based on assumption. Its based on fact, that has been documented in writing, is textually pure, has been around for 1000's of years, is the eyewitness accounts of many, my own personal experience with God, and arguments that contemporary science CONFIRMS. What is your belief of naturalism based on?

LMAO!

I was going to continue this debate on the use of faith by jackanoff to prove their "god" but I couldn't pass up this opportunity to show some silliness of these religious people.

Any one see it in jack's post above? anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Something U-R-E? Anyone?

LMAO this is awsome...

"Textually pure"

OK. When I saw this I knew what a weird choice of words to use when describing your sources. So I opened up Google and searched for the words. I made sure to put the quotes around it so I could filter out unwanted results. Guess what I found?

5,220 results, but that isn't the funny part.

The first thing I noticed about the search was the large number of bible related results. The first page was all bible results with each page after that the results were no lower than 8 out of 10 for the first 10 pages of results. I wrote down the number of results out of 100 and I got a 93% return.

The other thing I noticed while doing this little experiment was that the results returned people claiming the bible was X% pure or X% accurate. I didn't see any thing lower than 98.5%, but there were some 100%'s sprinkled in there.

Oh, and I noticed one other thing. Robert E Howard's Conan the Barbarian seems to be "textually pure" but that is another story...

Now back to "faith".

If the bible is "textually pure" then it must have a reference to compare it to; such as Robert E Howard's writings.

See Robert E Howard lived up until 1936, so his original writings are almost all available for review. When his stuff was published people, collectors now, got printed copies of his original stories. This information can be compared to originals thus showing "textually pure" writings.

Now, for people who follow christianity.... Where do they compare the bible to? I know there is a 1600 year old bible available but it isn't complete and the most amazing thing (which no one ever seems to talk about) is that there are numerous "books" and "passages" which have been removed. So how can the bible be 98% textually pure?

The answer is that the bible isn't; and they don't have the originals to compare to so calling any thing "textually pure" is the reason why they use faith to support their claims of god, jesus and the virgin mary.

 

The Bible: A brief history

Although earlier fragments of the Bible have survived the passage of time, the Codex Sinaiticus is so significant because it is by far the most complete. The full text that has been discovered so far contains virtually all of the New Testament and about half of the Old Testament.

But whenever an ancient version of the holy book is found, it often raises questions about the evolution of the Bible and how close what we read today is to the original words of Christ and his early followers.

The Old Testament was written largely in Hebrew (with the odd Aramaic exception) but it is by no means a homogenous entity. Protestant and more recent Catholic versions of the Bible tend to use the Masoretic Text, a variation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was copied, edited and distributed by Jewish Masorete scholars between the 7th and 11th centuries. Earlier Catholic translations and the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches use the Septuagint, an ancient Greek version of the Hebrew text that was translated between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC.

In studying the early history of the New Testament, historians have about 5,650 handwritten copies in Greek on which they can draw, many of which are distinctly different. As Christianity consolidated its power through the first millennia, the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John came to form the key elements of the New Testament.

But other apocryphal writings were discarded along the way. The Shepherd of Hermas, for instance, is a Christian literary work of the 2nd century which appears in the Codex Sinaiticus and was considered part of the Bible by some early Christians but was later expunged. The most well-known apocryphal gospel is that of Thomas, a collection of 114 numbered sayings attributed to Jesus that was discovered in 1945. As it never refers to Jesus as "Christ", "Lord" or the "Son of Man" (and lacks any mention of the miracles attributed to Jesus in the other gospels) it is perhaps not surprising that it never made it into later versions of the Bible.

Link to article on 1600 year old bible

 

Wow "Fallacy Finder"! I would think that someone who attempts to point out the fallacious reasoning of everyone else wouldn't himself post such a straw man based argument. But when I reflect, I am reminded all of your accusations are false. Furthermore, I wonder if this particular straw man stems from your ignorance, or intent to deceive? In the case of ignorance, it is common among those who try DESPERATELY to suppress the truth (atheists). The improper inference on your part is due to your perception of the Bible as 'ONE BOOK'. It is, however, a collection of historical writings of many, independent sources. So textual purity is a measurement of the consistency of the 10000 to 30000 manuscripts that exist. These manuscripts come from a wide range of geographical distribution, language, and culture. Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? I'm not surprised. As I undeniably established in my thread on Jesus' resurrection, myths and legends require several generations to accumulate the exagerations of the original account. In the case of Christianity, over 80% of professional historians surveyed agree that the gospels were written in the generation of Jesus. Therefore, the gospels had insufficient time to develop the legendary qualities of a mythical story. The forged apocryphal gospels were written in later centuries by what is believed by historians to be a cult that broke from Christianity. There are non-biblical writings from that time that confirm this.

To summarize, textual purity is the measurement of variance of the tens of thousands of manuscripts that the Bible is composed of.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 

 

 Uh oh.  What's this?

 

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritu     ....( snip )....
Donald E. Johnson Ph.D. Computer & Information Sciences University of Minnesota
Also: Ph.D. Chemistry Michigan State University
*= Deceased since signing statement.
Note: Unless updated information has been received, positions listed are those held by signers when they signed the statement.

 

   Quite an impressive list.  Let me know when these illustrious individuals number in the MAJORITY.      

This is only those that have already signed the list. The number is growing constantly. Now, surely you've got evidence to back up your claim that the majority of scientists are against intelligent design, right? What am I saying, of course you do! You wouldn't appeal to faith! I'm so stupid for doubting you! Go ahead, put me in my place and post your list of all the scientists that make up the majority that accept naturalism. I can't wait. Even though I'm still waiting for your, among others accounts of how everything began to exist, I'm sure you won't cowardice from this too.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

 

       What the hell does cowardice have to do with anything ?  Do you think in depth knowledge of scientific theory is something that is shared equally among all atheists ?  Does every fucking Christian who professes faith in the Bible have a degree in theology and speak Greek and Hebrew ?   

  You still offer nothing to validate how God actually "creates".   Got any proof yet ?

  

So in other words, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE, RIGHT? That is fair enough. Unlike most on here, I am logically ironclad with my claims. I am not going to appeal to ignorance and claim victory just because none of you can give me a plausible explanation. I understand that it does not follow from that logically that God exist. However, I was challenged to attempt an explanation of creation, which I answered. I made very clear that this was based on pure speculation, as I have never claimed to be so arrogant as to understand exactly how the mechanisms of a infinitely superior being work. I'm nothing but one of His many creations. I am perfectly okay with admitting when I don't know. But I explicitly said that if anyone wants to mock my attempted explanation, at least have the balls to give your own. I am delighted to say, none have answered my challenge. It's funny how most atheist appeal to LOGIC and REASON and claim to be RATIONAL until they come across a Christian with a scientific background and the ability for proper inference.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Great

jackspell wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

 

       What the hell does cowardice have to do with anything ?  Do you think in depth knowledge of scientific theory is something that is shared equally among all atheists ?  Does every fucking Christian who professes faith in the Bible have a degree in theology and speak Greek and Hebrew ?   

  You still offer nothing to validate how God actually "creates".   Got any proof yet ?

  

So in other words, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE, RIGHT? That is fair enough. Unlike most on here, I am logically ironclad with my claims. I am not going to appeal to ignorance and claim victory just because none of you can give me a plausible explanation. I understand that it does not follow from that logically that God exist. However, I was challenged to attempt an explanation of creation, which I answered. I made very clear that this was based on pure speculation, as I have never claimed to be so arrogant as to understand exactly how the mechanisms of a infinitely superior being work. I'm nothing but one of His many creations. I am perfectly okay with admitting when I don't know. But I explicitly said that if anyone wants to mock my attempted explanation, at least have the balls to give your own. I am delighted to say, none have answered my challenge. It's funny how most atheist appeal to LOGIC and REASON and claim to be RATIONAL until they come across a Christian with a scientific background and the ability for proper inference.

 

We've always agreed we don't comprehend the nature of first cause and abiogenesis and now you cheerily admit you don't know anything either and base all your argument on speculation! This is possibly the most pivotal moment in the whole history of debating on RRS. We know nothing! I feel breathless with excitement. Maybe now we can agree on a standard of material evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

....

 

HAHAHAHAHA.

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.

Please... is this all you have?

Go fuck yourself you piece of shit creationist.

You are so fucking stupid. Now I know why Brian37 is so fucking militant all the time. People like you post bullshit you KNOW is bullshit and you try to pass it off as legit information.

 

 

Awe, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you angry by posting all this stuff that interferes with your suppression of the truth? It'll be alright. God still loves you, even if you have intentionally lied to yourself and everyone else in an attempt to validate your position. This is a common theme among those that try to suppress the truth of something. Morally, your conscious is screaming out to you. So what do you do? You try your best to validate your position by getting the approval of others. You want them to tell you that what you are doing is okay. Now, you can be at piece with your conscious that was trying desperately to remind you of the moral law God wrote in your heart. That is, until someone makes you uncomfortable by reminding you that the thing you are suppressing, is the TRUTH.

And like I said, that number is now in the thousands, and growing. You cannot assume that those who have YET to sign the list are on your side. Unless you have documentation they support Darwinism, you lose.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 jackspell wrote:Awe, I'm

 

jackspell wrote:

Awe, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you angry by posting all this stuff that interferes with your suppression of the truth? It'll be alright. God still loves you, even if you have intentionally lied to yourself and everyone else in an attempt to validate your position. This is a common theme among those that try to suppress the truth of something. Morally, your conscious is screaming out to you. So what do you do? You try your best to validate your position by getting the approval of others. You want them to tell you that what you are doing is okay. Now, you can be at piece with your conscious that was trying desperately to remind you of the moral law God wrote in your heart. That is, until someone makes you uncomfortable by reminding you that the thing you are suppressing, is the TRUTH.

 

This is assertion, ad hominem and assertion.

 

jackspell wrote:

And like I said, that number is now in the thousands, and growing. You cannot assume that those who have YET to sign the list are on your side. Unless you have documentation they support Darwinism, you lose.

 

Appeal to authority. And it's not 'Darwinism'. It's the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. If we could be bothered we could find statistics showing vast numbers of scientists accept the modifiable hypothesis of evolutionary theory.

But what's the point? Would it realign your motivated reasoning? I think not. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

jackspell wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

 

       What the hell does cowardice have to do with anything ?  Do you think in depth knowledge of scientific theory is something that is shared equally among all atheists ?  Does every fucking Christian who professes faith in the Bible have a degree in theology and speak Greek and Hebrew ?   

  You still offer nothing to validate how God actually "creates".   Got any proof yet ?

  

So in other words, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE, RIGHT? That is fair enough. Unlike most on here, I am logically ironclad with my claims. I am not going to appeal to ignorance and claim victory just because none of you can give me a plausible explanation. I understand that it does not follow from that logically that God exist. However, I was challenged to attempt an explanation of creation, which I answered. I made very clear that this was based on pure speculation, as I have never claimed to be so arrogant as to understand exactly how the mechanisms of a infinitely superior being work. I'm nothing but one of His many creations. I am perfectly okay with admitting when I don't know. But I explicitly said that if anyone wants to mock my attempted explanation, at least have the balls to give your own. I am delighted to say, none have answered my challenge. It's funny how most atheist appeal to LOGIC and REASON and claim to be RATIONAL until they come across a Christian with a scientific background and the ability for proper inference.

 

We've always agreed we don't comprehend the nature of first cause and abiogenesis and now you cheerily admit you don't know anything either and base all your argument on speculation! This is possibly the most pivotal moment in the whole history of debating on RRS. We know nothing! I feel breathless with excitement. Maybe now we can agree on a standard of material evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely. How about this common definition is material.

[edit]Adjective
material (comparative more material, superlative most material)
Having to do with matter.
This compound has a number of interesting material properties.
Worldly, as opposed to spiritual.
Don't let material concerns get in the way of living a good life.
Significant.
You've made several material contributions to this project.
This is the most material fact in this lawsuit.

Alrighty, I submit my first piece of evidence, the New Testament Gospels. They no doubt for this 'material evidence' description.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

jackspell wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

I'm still waiting on one of you to man up, ask your mother for permission to use your nuts, and tell me your version of how everything came to be.  Surely there is at least one among you that's not a coward? So, let's hear it chicken-$hit.

 

       What the hell does cowardice have to do with anything ?  Do you think in depth knowledge of scientific theory is something that is shared equally among all atheists ?  Does every fucking Christian who professes faith in the Bible have a degree in theology and speak Greek and Hebrew ?   

  You still offer nothing to validate how God actually "creates".   Got any proof yet ?

  

So in other words, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE, RIGHT? That is fair enough. Unlike most on here, I am logically ironclad with my claims. I am not going to appeal to ignorance and claim victory just because none of you can give me a plausible explanation. I understand that it does not follow from that logically that God exist. However, I was challenged to attempt an explanation of creation, which I answered. I made very clear that this was based on pure speculation, as I have never claimed to be so arrogant as to understand exactly how the mechanisms of a infinitely superior being work. I'm nothing but one of His many creations. I am perfectly okay with admitting when I don't know. But I explicitly said that if anyone wants to mock my attempted explanation, at least have the balls to give your own. I am delighted to say, none have answered my challenge. It's funny how most atheist appeal to LOGIC and REASON and claim to be RATIONAL until they come across a Christian with a scientific background and the ability for proper inference.

 

We've always agreed we don't comprehend the nature of first cause and abiogenesis and now you cheerily admit you don't know anything either and base all your argument on speculation! This is possibly the most pivotal moment in the whole history of debating on RRS. We know nothing! I feel breathless with excitement. Maybe now we can agree on a standard of material evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely. How about this common definition is material.

[edit]Adjective
material (comparative more material, superlative most material)
Having to do with matter.
This compound has a number of interesting material properties.
Worldly, as opposed to spiritual.
Don't let material concerns get in the way of living a good life.
Significant.
You've made several material contributions to this project.
This is the most material fact in this lawsuit.

Alrighty, I submit my first piece of evidence, the New Testament Gospels. They no doubt for this 'material evidence' description.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

Awe, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you angry by posting all this stuff that interferes with your suppression of the truth? It'll be alright. God still loves you, even if you have intentionally lied to yourself and everyone else in an attempt to validate your position. This is a common theme among those that try to suppress the truth of something. Morally, your conscious is screaming out to you. So what do you do? You try your best to validate your position by getting the approval of others. You want them to tell you that what you are doing is okay. Now, you can be at piece with your conscious that was trying desperately to remind you of the moral law God wrote in your heart. That is, until someone makes you uncomfortable by reminding you that the thing you are suppressing, is the TRUTH.

 

This is assertion, ad hominem and assertion.

 

jackspell wrote:

And like I said, that number is now in the thousands, and growing. You cannot assume that those who have YET to sign the list are on your side. Unless you have documentation they support Darwinism, you lose.

 

Appeal to authority. And it's not 'Darwinism'. It's the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. If we could be bothered we could find statistics showing vast numbers of scientists accept the modifiable hypothesis of evolutionary theory.

But what's the point? Would it realign your motivated reasoning? I think not. 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution_by_natural_selection

Nice try slick. I don't deny this definition. But I made it very clear I was arguing common ancestry, common dissent, aka Darwinism, and naturalism, abiogenesis, etc.

How about you produce the list and let's find out?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4114
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: This is

jackspell wrote:

 

This is only those that have already signed the list. The number is growing constantly.

 

One would have to wonder why do they feel the need to organize themselves against "Darwinism" if they are already the majority opinion ?  Why are they screaming to be heard if they already speak with such a loud voice within the scientific community ?  They certainly behave as if they are a minority.  Why is it important that their "numbers are growing" ?  WHY ?

 

jackspell wrote:
Now, surely you've got evidence to back up your claim that the majority of scientists are against intelligent design, right?
  

 

  Ask your self how many major universities issue Ph. D's in Creationism ?   Why don't you get that statistic for me "slick" ?

 

jackspell wrote:
Go ahead, put me in my place and post your list of all the scientists that make up the majority that accept naturalism. I can't wait.

 

  Go ahead and put me in my place and show me that the majority of scientists believe in Intelligent design.  Your previous list was numerically insignificant as was pointed out.  Your scientific training apparently failed to notice that minor detail. 

 

jackspell wrote:
Even though I'm still waiting for your, among others accounts of how everything began to exist, I'm sure you won't cowardice from this too.

 

  I'm still waiting for you to actually explain your own CREATION theories with something other than your admittedly COMPLETE SPECULATION.    Come on COWARD.   MAN UP AND LAY OUT THE EVIDENCE FOR US AND PLEASE TRY AND ELEVATE YOUR ARGUMENT ABOVE YOUR ADMITTEDLY COMPLETE SPECULATION.  YOU COWARDLY, COWARD WHO BEHAVES COWARDLY !!!!! 

 

  ( ....you like calling people "cowards" so I thought I would employ your own eloquent debate methods.   Very effective. )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(wall of text

Quote:
(wall of text concerning a creationistic thinktank)

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Awe, I'm

jackspell wrote:
Awe, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you angry by posting all this stuff that interferes with your suppression of the truth?

Quote:
It'll be alright. God still loves you

Quote:
even if you have intentionally lied to yourself and everyone else in an attempt to validate your position.

Kinda like yer Holy Book, yeah?

Quote:
This is a common theme among those that try to suppress the truth of something.

Quote:
Morally, your conscious is screaming out to you.

Quote:
So what do you do? You try your best to validate your position by getting the approval of others.

Quote:
You want them to tell you that what you are doing is okay. Now, you can be at piece with your conscious that was trying desperately to remind you of the moral law God wrote in your heart.

Well, sometimes I want a really nice piece of someone's Godly body, but...

Quote:
That is, until someone makes you uncomfortable by reminding you that the thing you are suppressing, is the TRUTH.

Quote:
And like I said, that number is now in the thousands, and growing. You cannot assume that those who have YET to sign the list are on your side. Unless you have documentation they support Darwinism, you lose.

Personally... I give your quaint little thinktank the

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Appeal to authority. And it's not 'Darwinism'. It's the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. If we could be bothered we could find statistics showing vast numbers of scientists accept the modifiable hypothesis of evolutionary theory.

But what's the point? Would it realign your motivated reasoning? I think not. 

AE,

I stumbled on to this PROJECT STEVE which is a parody of the "creationist list". Basically they are asking any scientist who are named Steve (or a variation of the name Steve) to sign the list supporting evolution.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

They are way ahead of the creationist list with only this small portion of scientists.

 

I also found the following:

Inspired by Project Steve, and motivated by media coverage of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwinism" list, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, R. Joe Brandon initiated a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution in October 2005. During the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of verifiable scientists.During the four days of the petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism received signatures at a rate 697,000 percent higher than the Discovery Institute's petition, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, according to archaeologist R. Joe Brandon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_For_Darwinism

 

In four days in the fall of 2005, starting on September 28, 2005 and ending at 4:09 pm Eastern Time, October 1, 2005, the petition supporting "Darwinism" gathered 7,733 verified signatures from concerned scientists. Of these, 6,965 were US residents and 4,066 had PhDs. The "Four Day Petition" was carried out with no outside funding or assistance of any professional society. The effort was carried out by e-mail and word-of-mouth.

Among the signatories were 21 U.S. National Academy of Science members, nine MacArthur Fellowship awardees, and a Nobel laureate. According to Brandon's analysis, of those who signed his petition, there were

3,385 with biology in their title

850 with anthropology/archaeology

680 with evolutionary & ecology

394 from the field of genetics

270 from geology and related fields

234 from the fields of physics, astronomy, or space sciences

111 chemists

110 psychologists

75 computer scientists

50 engineers

Therefore, about 68 percent of those signing the Brandon petition work in biology-related fields (using the first four categories from the list above).[1]

This "Scientific Support" petition collected signatures at a rapid pace. The responses to the Brandon petition arrived at a rate 697,000% faster than the signatures collected on the Discovery Institute Darwin Dissent petition.

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15645
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jack, how many fucking times

Jack, how many fucking times do I have to explain that there is a HUGE difference between someone objective and a salesmen.

A scientist goes where the evidence leads, not where they want it to go. The salesmen doesn't give a shit and is simply out to make a buck. In the case of a Christian or Muslim or Jewish apologist, they are trying to SELL you the false idea that science props up their myth.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a tool, not a person. It is why you and I are typing on these computers. It is why we have put humans on the moon. It is why we know that the earth rotates around the sun. It is why both you and I can know what DNA is beyond our personal labels.

ANY IDIOT claiming science proves the christian god is NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE an objective person. Anyone trying to use science to prop up Allah is not an objective person. Anyone trying to use science to prop up Mayan little green men crap, or big foot, or crop circles ARE SALESMEN ......SNAKE OIL SALESMEN.

Elaborate tripe is still elaborate tripe. I am sorry you fell for it. I hope you find your way out of it. But scientific method will ALWAYS be independent of personal labels, ALWAYS.

It is not our fault that some ignorant people invented a god you desperately want to be real. YOU need to understand what year it is and our progress as a species since those myths were invented.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15645
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Appeal to authority. And it's not 'Darwinism'. It's the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. If we could be bothered we could find statistics showing vast numbers of scientists accept the modifiable hypothesis of evolutionary theory.

But what's the point? Would it realign your motivated reasoning? I think not. 

AE,

I stumbled on to this PROJECT STEVE which is a parody of the "creationist list". Basically they are asking any scientist who are named Steve (or a variation of the name Steve) to sign the list supporting evolution.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

They are way ahead of the creationist list with only this small portion of scientists.

 

I also found the following:

Inspired by Project Steve, and motivated by media coverage of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwinism" list, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, R. Joe Brandon initiated a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution in October 2005. During the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of verifiable scientists.During the four days of the petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism received signatures at a rate 697,000 percent higher than the Discovery Institute's petition, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, according to archaeologist R. Joe Brandon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_For_Darwinism

 

In four days in the fall of 2005, starting on September 28, 2005 and ending at 4:09 pm Eastern Time, October 1, 2005, the petition supporting "Darwinism" gathered 7,733 verified signatures from concerned scientists. Of these, 6,965 were US residents and 4,066 had PhDs. The "Four Day Petition" was carried out with no outside funding or assistance of any professional society. The effort was carried out by e-mail and word-of-mouth.

Among the signatories were 21 U.S. National Academy of Science members, nine MacArthur Fellowship awardees, and a Nobel laureate. According to Brandon's analysis, of those who signed his petition, there were

3,385 with biology in their title

850 with anthropology/archaeology

680 with evolutionary & ecology

394 from the field of genetics

270 from geology and related fields

234 from the fields of physics, astronomy, or space sciences

111 chemists

110 psychologists

75 computer scientists

50 engineers

Therefore, about 68 percent of those signing the Brandon petition work in biology-related fields (using the first four categories from the list above).[1]

This "Scientific Support" petition collected signatures at a rapid pace. The responses to the Brandon petition arrived at a rate 697,000% faster than the signatures collected on the Discovery Institute Darwin Dissent petition.

 

 

 

It is a dirty and completely immoral tactic to turn science into a popularity contest. While it is true that REAL objective scientists don't interject their personal labels into their work, agree with the core majority at the top of the fields, we cant allow snake oil salesman to try to drag objective science into their bullshit.

If scientific method were a popularity contest and not based on what it is, in that of testing, falsification and independent peer review then any fucking quack could use buzz words from science, make up their own bias "tests" and make up their own conclusions.

It is 2012 not 329, our universal knowledge of the reality of the nature of life and the universe is blowing ALL human invented myths out of the fucking water. It is time for our species to grow up. Santa was fun as a kid, but when you become an adult and  still believe in fairy tales, you look STUPID,

We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Appeal to authority. And it's not 'Darwinism'. It's the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. If we could be bothered we could find statistics showing vast numbers of scientists accept the modifiable hypothesis of evolutionary theory.

But what's the point? Would it realign your motivated reasoning? I think not. 

AE,

I stumbled on to this PROJECT STEVE which is a parody of the "creationist list". Basically they are asking any scientist who are named Steve (or a variation of the name Steve) to sign the list supporting evolution.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

They are way ahead of the creationist list with only this small portion of scientists.

 

I also found the following:

Inspired by Project Steve, and motivated by media coverage of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwinism" list, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, R. Joe Brandon initiated a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution in October 2005. During the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of verifiable scientists.During the four days of the petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism received signatures at a rate 697,000 percent higher than the Discovery Institute's petition, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, according to archaeologist R. Joe Brandon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_For_Darwinism

 

In four days in the fall of 2005, starting on September 28, 2005 and ending at 4:09 pm Eastern Time, October 1, 2005, the petition supporting "Darwinism" gathered 7,733 verified signatures from concerned scientists. Of these, 6,965 were US residents and 4,066 had PhDs. The "Four Day Petition" was carried out with no outside funding or assistance of any professional society. The effort was carried out by e-mail and word-of-mouth.

Among the signatories were 21 U.S. National Academy of Science members, nine MacArthur Fellowship awardees, and a Nobel laureate. According to Brandon's analysis, of those who signed his petition, there were

3,385 with biology in their title

850 with anthropology/archaeology

680 with evolutionary & ecology

394 from the field of genetics

270 from geology and related fields

234 from the fields of physics, astronomy, or space sciences

111 chemists

110 psychologists

75 computer scientists

50 engineers

Therefore, about 68 percent of those signing the Brandon petition work in biology-related fields (using the first four categories from the list above).[1]

This "Scientific Support" petition collected signatures at a rapid pace. The responses to the Brandon petition arrived at a rate 697,000% faster than the signatures collected on the Discovery Institute Darwin Dissent petition.

 

 

 

It is a dirty and completely immoral tactic to turn science into a popularity contest. While it is true that REAL objective scientists don't interject their personal labels into their work, agree with the core majority at the top of the fields, we cant allow snake oil salesman to try to drag objective science into their bullshit.

If scientific method were a popularity contest and not based on what it is, in that of testing, falsification and independent peer review then any fucking quack could use buzz words from science, make up their own bias "tests" and make up their own conclusions.

It is 2012 not 329, our universal knowledge of the reality of the nature of life and the universe is blowing ALL human invented myths out of the fucking water. It is time for our species to grow up. Santa was fun as a kid, but when you become an adult and  still believe in fairy tales, you look STUPID,

We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

I was fighting fire with fire. I couldn't let it pass with out being proven inaccurate and incorrect.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 

This is only those that have already signed the list. The number is growing constantly.

 

One would have to wonder why do they feel the need to organize themselves against "Darwinism" if they are already the majority opinion ?  Why are they screaming to be heard if they already speak with such a loud voice within the scientific community ?  They certainly behave as if they are a minority.  Why is it important that their "numbers are growing" ?  WHY ?

 

jackspell wrote:
Now, surely you've got evidence to back up your claim that the majority of scientists are against intelligent design, right?
  

 

  Ask your self how many major universities issue Ph. D's in Creationism ?   Why don't you get that statistic for me "slick" ?

 

jackspell wrote:
Go ahead, put me in my place and post your list of all the scientists that make up the majority that accept naturalism. I can't wait.

 

  Go ahead and put me in my place and show me that the majority of scientists believe in Intelligent design.  Your previous list was numerically insignificant as was pointed out.  Your scientific training apparently failed to notice that minor detail. 

 

jackspell wrote:
Even though I'm still waiting for your, among others accounts of how everything began to exist, I'm sure you won't cowardice from this too.

 

  I'm still waiting for you to actually explain your own CREATION theories with something other than your admittedly COMPLETE SPECULATION.    Come on COWARD.   MAN UP AND LAY OUT THE EVIDENCE FOR US AND PLEASE TRY AND ELEVATE YOUR ARGUMENT ABOVE YOUR ADMITTEDLY COMPLETE SPECULATION.  YOU COWARDLY, COWARD WHO BEHAVES COWARDLY !!!!! 

 

  ( ....you like calling people "cowards" so I thought I would employ your own eloquent debate methods.   Very effective. )

The reason they feel the need to organize is to stop the teaching of a wild extrapolation that has never been observed, let alone repeated. Darwinian evolution is as far from scientific as French class. THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OPENLY REJECTED DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FROM SCIENTIFIC!!!! That's why. I never said I could explain or understand God's mechanisms. At least I tried. Which is more than you, coward. I never said the majority of scientists were intelligent design theorists. I simple produced a list of the ones I know for certain are. Unfortunately for you, it's thousands more than you produced that back up your view. And this last part is gonna be so easy it's almost not even worth doing. Kind of like, playing basketball with a kid with Down Syndrome and calling double dribble on him. Oh well, I can't resist. Here is the first thing I got from Google on "theology degrees". Good Schools in the U.S. with Ph.D. Programs in Theology School Name Total Student Enrollment Address Phone Number Boston University 31,766 1 Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215 (617) 353-2000 Harvard University 26,496 Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (617) 495-1000 Duke University 14,060 103 Allen Bldg., Durham, NC 27708 (919) 684-2813 Emory University 12,755 408 Administration Building, 201 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA 30322 (404) 727-6123 University of Notre Dame 11,731 Notre Dame, IN 46556 (574) 631-5000 Yale University 10,192 New Haven, CT 06520 (203) 432-1333 Catholic University of America 6,705 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, D.C. 20064 (202) 319-5000 Fuller Theological Seminary in California 2,957 135 N. Oakland Ave., Pasadena, CA 91182 (626) 584-5200 Trinity International University 2,694 2065 Half Day Rd., Deerfield, IL 60015 (847) 945-8800 Dallas Theological Seminary 2,024 3909 Swiss Ave., Dallas, TX 75204 (214) 824-3094 Westminster Theological Seminary 727 2960 W. Church Rd., Glenside, PA 19038 (215) 887-5511 Concordia Seminary 522 801 Seminary Place, Saint Louis, MO 63105 (314) 505-7000 Concordia Theological Seminary 382 6660 N. Clinton St., Fort Wayne, IN 46825 (260) 452-2100 Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 318 616 N. Highland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15206 (412) 362-5610 Columbia Theological Seminary 269 701 S. Columbia Dr., Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 378-8821 Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia 268 7301 Germantown Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19119 (215) 248-4616 Union Theological Seminary 245 3041 Broadway, New York, NY 10027 (212) 662-7100 Graduate Theological Union 234 2400 Ridge Rd., Berkeley, CA 94709 (510) 649-2400 Chicago Theological Seminary 210 5757 S. University Ave., Chicago, IL 60637 (773) 752-5757 Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry 149 311 11th St,, Ambridge, PA 15003 (724) 266-3838 Show me suggested schools Related To Top Schools With Theology PHD Programs: List Of Schools That's just a quick search that is only for the U.S. Since your corner has the towel in his hand anyway, I might as well give the crowd a knockout and ask, surely you have a list of all the schools with doctorate degrees in Darwinism and atheism, right? What??? No? You mean to tell me that prestigious universities like Yale, Harvard actually have departments that's main focus is dedicated to teaching a myth? Say it ain't so!

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The reason they feel

Quote:
The reason they feel the need to organize is to stop the teaching of a wild extrapolation that has never been observed, let alone repeated.

Again... kinda like Genesis, yes?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
 here's another juicy

 

here's another juicy morsel;

Quote:
I never said I could explain or understand God's mechanisms.

 

I've been trying for 28 years and for some odd reason, I have empty hands in terms of "(valid) explanations". I'll be honest for a few more sentences; Jack, don't ever give up what you think is 'right', regardless of our criticisms. It's because of assholes like you, fundamentalists, pedophile/exploitative ministers, The Pope/Vatican, Sharia Law, the Ten commandments, Leviticus, etc... that we atheists are in business and growing rapidly in numbers to begin with. I want you to stay and post more of your... eloquent thoughts with us as it aids in deconversion. I also think you'd make a nice atheist yourself. However, I know better. I think it's safe bet you'll never give up on 'faith' until all your friends have said "fuck it" and either died or decided Christianity wasn't a proper fit for them.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jack, how many

Brian37 wrote:

Jack, how many fucking times do I have to explain that there is a HUGE difference between someone objective and a salesmen.

A scientist goes where the evidence leads, not where they want it to go. The salesmen doesn't give a shit and is simply out to make a buck. In the case of a Christian or Muslim or Jewish apologist, they are trying to SELL you the false idea that science props up their myth.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a tool, not a person. It is why you and I are typing on these computers. It is why we have put humans on the moon. It is why we know that the earth rotates around the sun. It is why both you and I can know what DNA is beyond our personal labels.

ANY IDIOT claiming science proves the christian god is NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE an objective person. Anyone trying to use science to prop up Allah is not an objective person. Anyone trying to use science to prop up Mayan little green men crap, or big foot, or crop circles ARE SALESMEN ......SNAKE OIL SALESMEN.

Elaborate tripe is still elaborate tripe. I am sorry you fell for it. I hope you find your way out of it. But scientific method will ALWAYS be independent of personal labels, ALWAYS.

It is not our fault that some ignorant people invented a god you desperately want to be real. YOU need to understand what year it is and our progress as a species since those myths were invented.

 

 

 

 

PAY ATTENTION.  THIS IS THE MAN SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SHOWING WHY ANYONE CLAIMING DARWINISM IS SCIENTIFIC, LOOKS LIKE AN ASS. 

 

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.&quotEye-wink

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jackie

I see no reason to continue this conversation.

1. You lied.  You claimed to have a PhD and it is painfully obvious that you don't.  I don't lie and I am not impressed by people who do lie.

2. You persist in not reading any information that provides an explanation for the questions you have asked.  The answers are out there.  Many on the internet from reliable sources.  And free from your local library.  It is not my problem that the subject requires many years of study in a number of scientific disciplines.  It is your problem that you don't even try to so some elementary research.

3. Appeals to authority are a waste of your time and mine.  My lists are longer than yours, anyway, so give it up.

4. POSTING IN ALL CAPS IS PRETTY JUVENILE, DON'T YOU THINK?

5. Since you refuse to learn and you are resorting to name calling, I'm out of here.  This is my last post on this thread.  I am not going to read any more posts here, so don't bother trying to get to me.  You won't.

And consider this - even if your god existed, I would refuse to spend any time with you and people like you in so-called heaven.  The thought of an eternity with people like you ensures I would never willingly spend a moment there as that would be truly hell.  If you goal was to ensure my separation from your god, you succeeded admirably.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jack, how many

Brian37 wrote:

Jack, how many fucking times do I have to explain that there is a HUGE difference between someone objective and a salesmen.

A scientist goes where the evidence leads, not where they want it to go. The salesmen doesn't give a shit and is simply out to make a buck. In the case of a Christian or Muslim or Jewish apologist, they are trying to SELL you the false idea that science props up their myth.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a tool, not a person. It is why you and I are typing on these computers. It is why we have put humans on the moon. It is why we know that the earth rotates around the sun. It is why both you and I can know what DNA is beyond our personal labels.

ANY IDIOT claiming science proves the christian god is NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE an objective person. Anyone trying to use science to prop up Allah is not an objective person. Anyone trying to use science to prop up Mayan little green men crap, or big foot, or crop circles ARE SALESMEN ......SNAKE OIL SALESMEN.

Elaborate tripe is still elaborate tripe. I am sorry you fell for it. I hope you find your way out of it. But scientific method will ALWAYS be independent of personal labels, ALWAYS.

It is not our fault that some ignorant people invented a god you desperately want to be real. YOU need to understand what year it is and our progress as a species since those myths were invented.

 

 

 

 

 

How can someone such as yourself, who believes that from nothing came everything, non-life created life, random produced fine-tuning, from chaos came order, from unreason came reason, and unconsciousness produced consciousness, constantly ridicule people like me who oppose everyone of these illogical beliefs you hold, and instead believe the documented accounts of eyewitnesses who were willing to die for the truth of these claims? Not for what they were told, what they saw with their own eyes.  Tell me this, do you believe in dark matter? What about dark energy? How about the higgs boson?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Quote:The

Kapkao wrote:

Quote:
The reason they feel the need to organize is to stop the teaching of a wild extrapolation that has never been observed, let alone repeated.

Again... kinda like Genesis, yes?

Agreed.  It is a religion and has no place in science text books. 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj... this is too fucking tempting

cj wrote:

I see no reason to continue this conversation.

1. You lied.  You claimed to have a PhD and it is painfully obvious that you don't.  I don't lie and I am not impressed by people who do lie.

Everything I say is a lie*, and yet you seem oddly impressed with a few of the things I say.

*save for this statement being a lie

Quote:
2. You persist in not reading any information that provides an explanation for the questions you have asked.  The answers are out there.

I've yet to find an answer to "why should I give a shit about philosophy or aristotle", and I doubt I ever will.

Quote:
My lists are longer than yours, anyway, so give it up.

Probably are. : /

Quote:
you are resorting to name calling, I'm out of here

Nuttin' wrong with blasting someone off of your monitor, from time to time. Eye-wink

 

Quote:
This is my last post on this thread.  I am not going to read any more posts here, so don't bother trying to get to me.  You won't.

...

............

........................I know you better than that, and you know me better than that. I can yank the hate straight out of our keyboard, if need be. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
And consider this - even if your god existed, I would refuse to spend any time with you and people like you in so-called heaven.

 

 

Quote:
The thought of an eternity with people like you ensures I would never willingly spend a moment there as that would be truly hell.  If you goal was to ensure my separation from your god, you succeeded admirably.

Here, here!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Kapkao

jackspell wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Quote:
The reason they feel the need to organize is to stop the teaching of a wild extrapolation that has never been observed, let alone repeated.

Again... kinda like Genesis, yes?

Agreed.  It is a religion and has no place in science text books. 

You've taken 1 step in the right direction. Take another: the bible is allegorical.

Or don't. Time will tell.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4114
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:The reason

jackspell wrote:

The reason they feel the need to organize is to stop the teaching of a wild extrapolation that has never been observed, let alone repeated.

 

     How many people observed God create the universe ?    How many people observed God create Adam and Eve as full grown adults ?  Has it ever been repeated ?

 

jackspell wrote:
Darwinian evolution is as far from scientific as French class. THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OPENLY REJECTED DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FROM SCIENTIFIC!!!! That's why.
 

 

       .....so by default he accepted your "creation science" instead ?

 

jackspell wrote:
I never said I could explain or understand God's mechanisms. At least I tried.

 

    ..and yet you still can't understand why that should arouse suspicion ?

 

 

jackspell wrote:
Which is more than you, coward.
 

 

    No you offered us nothing and you just admitted it by claiming that you can neither explain or understand "God's mechanisms".   Your attempts at imagining about God put you closer to  L. Ron Hubbard than any legitimate scientist.

 

jackspell wrote:
I never said the majority of scientists were intelligent design theorists.

 

 Ever wonder why ?

 

jackspell wrote:
I simple produced a list of the ones I know for certain are.

 

    And what percentage of all scientists did that list represent again ?  What was that ratio again ?  

 

jackspell wrote:
Unfortunately for you, it's thousands more than you produced that back up your view.

 

  Your supplied list of creationist fanboys numbered in the thousands

 

jackspell wrote:
And this last part is gonna be so easy it's almost not even worth doing. Kind of like, playing basketball with a kid with Down Syndrome and calling double dribble on him. Oh well, I can't resist. Here is the first thing I got from Google on "theology degrees". Good Schools in the U.S. with Ph.D. Programs in Theology School Name Total Student Enrollment Address Phone Number Boston University 31,766 1 Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215 (617) 353-2000 Harvard University 26,496 Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (617) 495-1000 Duke University 14,060 103 Allen Bldg., Durham, NC 27708 (919) 684-2813 Emory University 12,755 408 Administration Building, 201 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA 30322 (404) 727-6123 University of Notre Dame 11,731 Notre Dame, IN 46556 (574) 631-5000 Yale University 10,192 New Haven, CT 06520 (203) 432-1333 Catholic University of America 6,705 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, D.C. 20064 (202) 319-5000 Fuller Theological Seminary in California 2,957 135 N. Oakland Ave., Pasadena, CA 91182 (626) 584-5200 Trinity International University 2,694 2065 Half Day Rd., Deerfield, IL 60015 (847) 945-8800 Dallas Theological Seminary 2,024 3909 Swiss Ave., Dallas, TX 75204 (214) 824-3094 Westminster Theological Seminary 727 2960 W. Church Rd., Glenside, PA 19038 (215) 887-5511 Concordia Seminary 522 801 Seminary Place, Saint Louis, MO 63105 (314) 505-7000 Concordia Theological Seminary 382 6660 N. Clinton St., Fort Wayne, IN 46825 (260) 452-2100 Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 318 616 N. Highland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15206 (412) 362-5610 Columbia Theological Seminary 269 701 S. Columbia Dr., Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 378-8821 Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia 268 7301 Germantown Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19119 (215) 248-4616 Union Theological Seminary 245 3041 Broadway, New York, NY 10027 (212) 662-7100 Graduate Theological Union 234 2400 Ridge Rd., Berkeley, CA 94709 (510) 649-2400 Chicago Theological Seminary 210 5757 S. University Ave., Chicago, IL 60637 (773) 752-5757 Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry 149 311 11th St,, Ambridge, PA 15003 (724) 266-3838 Show me suggested schools Related To Top Schools With Theology PHD Programs: List Of Schools That's just a quick search that is only for the U.S.

 

      That's a bunch of fucking religious schools, moron.   Did you completely miss my point ?

 

 

 

jackspell wrote:
  Since your corner has the towel in his hand anyway, I might as well give the crowd a knockout and ask, surely you have a list of all the schools with doctorate degrees in Darwinism and atheism, right? What??? No? You mean to tell me that prestigious universities like Yale, Harvard actually have departments that's main focus is dedicated to teaching a myth? Say it ain't so!

 

   Well jackass, all that you've shown us is that

 A.)  you really like lists.

 B.)  you really like creation "science" even though you can offer us no evidence other than what "popped into your head"

 C.)  you really, really like the word "coward".

 

   Yes, jackass, I predict that you, with your eloquent defense of "creationism", will have all those secular universities tossing out their science textbooks and replacing them with Bibles in no time.  How could they resist, the evidence is just too compelling !  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.