Creationists

[daws101]

How about multiple eyewitness accounts?

nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
(thanks for playing)

Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.

..reading comp problems?
the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc
also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
asshat!

 

[Youwerecreated]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?

So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?

I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Prove it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

how am I lying?
you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies.

It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that “I don’t know” does not constitute a 50/50 chance.

I am very grateful for Dawkins’ clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
Just because you don’t know what made that noise last night doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
Just because we don’t know who will win the World Series this year doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
Just because we don’t know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.)

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that he’s changed his position on anything? I don’t believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Let’s examine the following theology crushing rhetoric.

"I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."

*"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."

"For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."

*"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."

These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. It’s all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.

Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism.

Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that “I don’t know” implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition.

Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned.

Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term “unknowable,” but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we don’t know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.

What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.

Reference

Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
(140 in the video)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0]Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube[/ame]

The Huxley File
Created by Charles Blinderman,
Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
and David Joyce,
Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Clark University
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/

By definition an atheist and an agnostic hold different views. This is hilarious, the desperation to try and save face. Do you expect anyone to ever take you serious again ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
(thanks for playing)

Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.

..reading comp problems?
the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc
also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
asshat!

Chicken eggs when fertilized produce chickens.

Egg Layers,All turtles All tortoises All crocodilians Some lizards Iguanas Water dragons Geckos Veiled chameleons Panther chameleons Monitors Snakes All pythons Kingsnakes Milksnakes Rat snakes Corn snakes
LivebearersSome lizards Solomon Island skink Blue-tongue skink Shingle backed skink Some chameleons Jackson's chameleon Some snakes All boas All vipers Garter snakes

All eggs have to be fertilized.

All have been tested,studied and observed. What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are.

 

[daws101]

Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?

So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?

I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Prove it.

no need.

 

[daws101]

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies.

It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that “I don’t know” does not constitute a 50/50 chance.

I am very grateful for Dawkins’ clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
Just because you don’t know what made that noise last night doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
Just because we don’t know who will win the World Series this year doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
Just because we don’t know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.)

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that he’s changed his position on anything? I don’t believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Let’s examine the following theology crushing rhetoric.

"I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."

*"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."

"For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."

*"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."

These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. It’s all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.

Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism.

Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that “I don’t know” implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition.

Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned.

Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term “unknowable,” but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we don’t know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.

What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.

Reference

Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
(140 in the video)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0]Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube[/ame]

The Huxley File
Created by Charles Blinderman,
Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
and David Joyce,
Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Clark University
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/

By definition an atheist and an agnostic hold different views. This is hilarious, the desperation to try and save face. Do you expect anyone to ever take you serious again ?

right! below is the truest definiton of an agnostic:

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. It’s all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.

as allways you lose
the only desperation here is yours..
your delusion is so powerful that you can't admit when you're whipped

 

[daws101]

Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.

..reading comp problems?
the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc
also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
asshat!

Chicken eggs when fertilized produce chickens.

Egg Layers,All turtles All tortoises All crocodilians Some lizards Iguanas Water dragons Geckos Veiled chameleons Panther chameleons Monitors Snakes All pythons Kingsnakes Milksnakes Rat snakes Corn snakes
LivebearersSome lizards Solomon Island skink Blue-tongue skink Shingle backed skink Some chameleons Jackson's chameleon Some snakes All boas All vipers Garter snakes

All eggs have to be fertilized.

All have been tested,studied and observed. What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are.

another non sense answer...what does chicken fucking have to do with the viability of eyewitness testimony?

but to answer you meaningless question.... "What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are".... OK. SO WHAT IT'S NO PROOF OF A GOD ID. OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL EVENT...it would be if a humming bird lay eggs and elephants hatched out !
an event like that might make me a believer ...
NAW!
SO THE GREAT OBSERVATION IS THAT BIRDS MAKE BIRDS SNAKES MAKE SNAKES.

again it no proof of god ...or that evolution does not happen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Prove it.

no need.

That is right you believe what you wish to believe. Your claim is the basis of your argument but you don't need to prove it ? When did evolution stop ? because I have never heard of anything happening as you claimed it happened.

Just admit it, you can't prove it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies.

It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that “I don’t know” does not constitute a 50/50 chance.

I am very grateful for Dawkins’ clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
Just because you don’t know what made that noise last night doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
Just because we don’t know who will win the World Series this year doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
Just because we don’t know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.)

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that he’s changed his position on anything? I don’t believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Let’s examine the following theology crushing rhetoric.

"I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."

*"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."

"For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."

*"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."

These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. It’s all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.

Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism.

Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that “I don’t know” implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition.

Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned.

Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term “unknowable,” but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we don’t know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.

What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.

Reference

Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
(140 in the video)
Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube

The Huxley File
Created by Charles Blinderman,
Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
and David Joyce,
Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Clark University
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/

By definition an atheist and an agnostic hold different views. This is hilarious, the desperation to try and save face. Do you expect anyone to ever take you serious again ?

right! below is the truest definiton of an agnostic:

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. It’s all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.

as allways you lose
the only desperation here is yours..
your delusion is so powerful that you can't admit when you're whipped

The first atheist were Christians because they refused to worship the pagan gods and worshipped the one true God,their own God. The term atheos was used for Christians that refused to worship the pagan gods.

The term atheist was coined around the 15th century. The term agnostic was coined by a biologist in the 18th century. The term atheist means there is no God or gods. The term agnostic means you can't say there is a god or you can't say there is not a god.

 

[Youwerecreated]

..reading comp problems?
the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc
also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
asshat!

Chicken eggs when fertilized produce chickens.

Egg Layers,All turtles All tortoises All crocodilians Some lizards Iguanas Water dragons Geckos Veiled chameleons Panther chameleons Monitors Snakes All pythons Kingsnakes Milksnakes Rat snakes Corn snakes
LivebearersSome lizards Solomon Island skink Blue-tongue skink Shingle backed skink Some chameleons Jackson's chameleon Some snakes All boas All vipers Garter snakes

All eggs have to be fertilized.

All have been tested,studied and observed. What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are.

another non sense answer...what does chicken fucking have to do with the viability of eyewitness testimony?

but to answer you meaningless question.... "What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are".... OK. SO WHAT IT'S NO PROOF OF A GOD ID. OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL EVENT...it would be if a humming bird lay eggs and elephants hatched out !
an event like that might make me a believer ...
NAW!
SO THE GREAT OBSERVATION IS THAT BIRDS MAKE BIRDS SNAKES MAKE SNAKES.

again it no proof of god ...or that evolution does not happen.

Again the basis of your argument is one group of organisms produced an egg and that egg produced a new group of organisms. That is the basis of your argument and you need to prove that happened for it to be a viable theory.

I have said it all along genetics are an enemy of your theory because you got one thing right. Chickens produce chickens and snakes produce snakes. Dogs produce dogs so on and so on. Because these animals only have the genetic information to reproduce what they themselves are.

Don't use your sarcasm with me, you are the one that made this argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and Daws the evidence for God the creator is design, which many on your side admit to.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, it begs the question of the origin of those codes. Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the system would have to recognize the information and coordinate the function."

"DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."

With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views

Creationism is religion, not science. Copying and pasting from websites that are pressing a religious agenda only devalues your claims.

And not actually addressing the ideas put forth, but instead discrediting it based on the source, devalues your intelligence.

 

[UltimateReality]

"The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."

Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.

Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.

Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.

I would call this an Ad Hominem fallacy but you really didn't argue anything. Just about all of your responses fall into this category in which you don't argue against the point on the basis of scientifc evidence, but attack the source. This make you the most science loathing poster here and shows a total lack of intelligence on your part since you seem incapable of posting a logical response based on sound evidence.

Ad Hominem

Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.

Example:

What she says about Johannes Kepler’s astronomy of the 1600′s must be just so much garbage. Do you realize she’s only fourteen years old?

This attack may undermine the arguer’s credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning. That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguer’s age or anything else about her personally.

If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy.

The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant. For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in the church. Unfortunately, many attacks are not so easy to classify, such as an attack pointing out that the candidate for church leadership, while in the tenth grade, intentionally tripped a fellow student and broke his collar bone.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's so silly.

Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.

I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.

Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.

Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.

I didn't hear YWC say that. I think yours, Daws and Holly's prejudicial filter is skewing what you hear. I heard him say Dawkins said the structures APPEARED to be design.

 

[UltimateReality]

any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?

How about multiple eyewitness accounts?

nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
(thanks for playing)

This is historical revisionism at its very core. If we apply that logic to any history, we should pitch all the history books. Hitler really didn't give the orders that resulting in millions of Jews dying. Abraham Lincoln wasn't shot by John Wilkes Booth. etc. etc. A large part of history is based on eye witness accounts that were documented at the time and lack total modern evidence of any kind.

 

[UltimateReality]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?

So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?

I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

This is UN-intellectual!!!! That is just a retro paradox as we move the question back in time... Which came first, the ancestral egg laying chicken-type bird or the ancestral chicken-like bird? Are you really so oblivious to how incredibly stupid this argument is?

 

[newpolitics]

You are a bad liar to.

how am I lying?
you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

 

[Hollie]

"Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, it begs the question of the origin of those codes. Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the system would have to recognize the information and coordinate the function."

"DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."

With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views

Creationism is religion, not science. Copying and pasting from websites that are pressing a religious agenda only devalues your claims.

And not actually addressing the ideas put forth, but instead discrediting it based on the source, devalues your intelligence.

Nobody has unlimited time to spend on message boards. I also have no interest in "refuting" post after post of YouTube videos. I have less than no interest in spending time being barrage with dishonest claims from religious fundies making absolute claims of authority to subject matters they have no training in.

As is so often the case with religious fundies representing such organizations as the ICR (which, btw is a religious front for Christian fundies), they will twist, falsifying and manipulate data to fit their preconceptions. It's simply dishonest and manipulative to bring to the table data that has been carefully altered to fit a preconceived conclusion.

That directly calls into question your honesty and credibility when you insist on shilling for these groups.

 

[Youwerecreated]

how am I lying?
you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

 

[Hollie]

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.