Not to mention, my answers to quite a few of the questions would start "We don't know but this is the current theory...", which I hold as reasonable. The chances of McGrade agreeing with me would be remote though, since her questions show no understanding of any science, especially Evolution. Such questions as:
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?Other cells. It doesn't take a genius to work it out, and Laura seems to think that Evolution works by one single organism evolving at a time, when in fact the entire species evolves. She is also making the assumption that as soon as an organism evolves a new way of doing something (in this case reproduction) it immediately loses the previous way.
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code)create any NEW,IMPROVED varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)Point to note, I don't think Chinese is an improvement to English. Joking aside though, you are comparing a 26 letter alphabet with a finite number of words to a 4 letter alphabet with an infinite amount of words. Just because taking the word "Evolution" and mutating it to form "Etolltipn" doesn't make sense in English, doesn't mean that taking the DNA string "ATCGTGC" and mutating it to "AATCGGTC" won't make sense in DNA. Mutations never happen this much in short spaces of time though, and on much smaller scales.
Her last question "Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?" is neither scientific nor based on anything other than her delusions that the natural world is somehow supernatural, and that if you don't believe in gods you must therefore think that nothing exploded and formed everything.
If anyone wants to spend the time answering her other questions (which due to the multi-part nature of most probably exceeds 100) then you are welcome, but I have other things to do rather than waste my time trying to combine philosophy with science and answer unanswerable questions. Instead, I pose one single question to her:
Why, when science is unable to explain something fully (knowing that science has had precious little time as it is), do you have to resort to the wild assumption that "God" did it?
Unlike God, science is not the omnipotent being that somehow thinks that writing one book and claiming it is infallible constitutes valid proof. Science is the ever growing research into mystery that has numerous breakthroughs every single day. Never claiming to be infallible, never trying to control or force people to believe. Only going on the evidence that is presented and using the powers of logic and reason to evaluate the possible and the probably.
Which is more beautiful?
Posts
My favorite question of hers was :"Hoe did matter get so perfectly organized?"
ReplyDeleteI think she forgot a comma though: edit-"Hoe, did matter get so perfectly organized?"
My answer to that would be, "yes, matter can be complicated and in living organisms has evolved to be organized in a way so that it is better suited to its environment. Organisms that are better suited to their environment may be more organized or complicated. It is far from perfect however, otherwise earth would be perfect (or at least close to perfect). Btw, I'll only be your hoe if you agree to be my bitch. Deal?"
I might be tempted to answer her if her questions were sincere, but they are just creationist cut-and-paste jobs. Many of the same questions are here, for instance:
ReplyDeleteHoe Matter
Also, as Adrian mentions, some answers to those questions would start with qualifiers like "Current evidence suggests..." which is a fine thing to say, but Laura's whole point in asking those types of questions is to elicit admissions that scientific knowledge is incomplete--hah!
Further, there are mistaken assumptions in many of the questions, so you'd have to unpack them first. For instance, she asks, "How did the intermediate forms live?" which suggests she holds the crocoduck understanding of intemediate forms.
How did space goo turn into a rock and then into a crockaduck that became a human?
ReplyDeleteI'm not a space jam!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, all these sheep mirror what their ultimate heroes over at AiG and DI, and Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, and Lee Strobell (Who, by the way, isn't a very convincing guy).
here are some more loaded questions;
ReplyDeleteHoe are U so Stupit?
Which crackhead Creationist cite did U copy that from?
Hoe often do you collect call Kent Hovind in prison?
How much do want to sacrifice yourself to the cult of Amen Ray?
$1,000 is nothing, give everything!!! That wouldn't pay the yearly subscription to the Mental Masturbation Monthly subscription Ray has. Try giving your life, like Jesus. Or a sex slave. That should suffice.
Which is more beautiful?
ReplyDeleteTha book. Duh. ;)
In all seriousness, though, I don't see why there has to be a choice between the two. Why can't they converse?
Evolution seems, to me, to have more evidence behind it than creationism. Not saying that I am completely sold on it, but that's what it seems to me. Let that knowledge converse with the Bible.
"Gee, Genesis creation story, you look a lot like an Ancient Hebrew Poem. Can't we be friends?"
"Sure, popular theory! I'll say that God did it, and you can show them how!"
Adrian, you did try, you tried hard, and you did a good job. Just because they refuse to understand is no reflection on you. I really do believe that in some cases it is simply a refusal on their part to accept any information that contradicts what they already think they know. In other cases, it is poor education.
ReplyDeleteBen Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins: [Dinesh D'Souza, 4-18-08] "Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, 'How did life begin?' ... Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. ... Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.... In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labrynthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions....
ReplyDelete"Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.... Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
"It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens.....
"Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! ... The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET."
Expecting your arguments,
Laura