"God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

"God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 am


Anybody who reads this can use these sources to debunk it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 221300256X
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... /specht_05
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-birds-bee ... alize.html
https://geniussschmenius.wordpress.com/ ... n-hawking/
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/c ... ab6f4a5475
https://biology.stackexchange.com/quest ... pider-webs
https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/04 ... l-compass/
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/hoist-on ... nt-page-2/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District
https://emperorpenguinsproject.weebly.c ... ution.html
https://quailandaardvark.wordpress.com/ ... bridget-b/
https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-new ... rium-47144
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... PcU6EUpBTs
https://prezi.com/m/lzndrcr_qr9e/evolut ... gler-fish/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti ... Early_eyes
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/i ... iller-Urey
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/y ... 2beaed322b
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... OD4xbU2nov
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... origin.php

If anyone is willing to debunk this chapter by chapter, they are welcome to do so.
Last edited by ryu289 on Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:04 am

Let's look at p.82-84 for something that really annous me.
Here is a quote from the book that sums up the authors beliefs:
The disciples of Chuckie Darwin now “require” us to believe that the Spontaneous
Soviet Soup of Comrades Oparin and Urey blindly wrote a recipe for amino acids,
and a separate recipe for making proteins from the amino acids, and a separate
recipe for combining the proteins with other essential elements, and finally, an
actual book with perfect grammar, no typos, and built in duplication and
modification capabilities - all after the Great Rolex Watch that is the Universe was
formed by Blind Big Bangs and “coalescing” matter that came from nowhere!
Ok, first of all, DNA being a language is a metaphor, you don't take it this literly! https://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsret ... -computer/
https://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress ... ot-a-code/
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... h-text.php

Second these morons aren't aware of current science.
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... origin.php
Well put! You see folks, thanks to the discoverers of DNA, we now know that
even Darwin’s single cell “Universal Common Ancestor” was not the “simple”
creature which had been imagined after all. It’s more like a computer micro-chip.
Even single cell amoebas have complex DNA code. For some unknown reason, an
amoeba cell actually contains more DNA codes than a single human cell!
Really? We know the first common ascestor wasn't this.
Are we to believe this complex
language was written, amended and rewritten - millions of times- by blind forces?
Can an explosion in a print shop yield a perfect copy of the U.S. Constitution;
followed by subsequent writing explosions for each of the 10 Amendments (Bill of
Rights) which then followed?
This isnt the same as the english language! http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:29 am

From p. 42
In spite of the international hype, the two Frankensteins did not create a life form,
nor did they create an actual protein. The amino acids which they engineered were
only the building blocks of protein; which in turn are only one of the four building
blocks of living cells, along with carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids. This is
like saying, “We figured out how to make some bricks, sort of. Therefore, we now
know how the skyscraper came about, by chance.”
Not so fast my soupy scammers. Tell us how the blueprint for the skyscraper came
to be, and how the foundation was laid, and how the elaborate matrix of steel
beams and trusses was manufactured and secured into place, and how the concrete
floors were made, and how the elevators were installed, and how the bricks were
held together, and the bolts, rivets and welding, and how the glass windows were
set into place, and how the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical
wiring were installed – all by blind random chance.
What am I missing here gentlemen?
It’s actually worse than that because we really do not even have that simple “brick”
until the amino acids spontaneously combine to form an actual protein. You see,
the amino acid is not an actual structure. It’s just a building block
They weren't seeting out to prove what you think. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evo ... bility.php
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/i ... iller-Urey

They were only looking to prove the first step and nothing more! (If i am wrong on this pls let me know)

Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:52 am

From Chapter 11:

This may, or may not, account for Huxley’s odd obsession with passionately promoting a theory that had no evidence behind it, other than the minor variations in finch beaks. For his fanatical promotion of Evolution, the blustering biologist became known as “Darwin’s Bulldog

Why would a scientific truth need a “bulldog” to promote and defend it anyway? As the Philosopher St. Augustine once observed, “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.' (9) After a century and a half of searching for millions of magical missing links, Darwinism still requires a whole pack of “bulldogs” to defend it.
Tell me, why do you nedd to defend Christanity if it's true?
Also Darwin had much more evidence: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-con ... -evolution

Oh and chapter 11 has this error: http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/marx-capital/

Has No Life
Posts: 18923
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:01 am

Train wreck is a good description.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:22 am

From pg. 151-152
He explains that if He does not come away impressed with man’s condition, He
will obliterate the Planet into a trillion pieces and start from scratch. So, dear
reader, it’s up to you to serve as humanity’s advocate, and Mr. G’s tour guide. The
fate of humanity rests in your hands. You had better not screw this up!
Now, you must approach this little exercise with no preconceptions in mind. Forget
about what various religious and cultural traditions have said about God. Forget
your own opinions and prejudices. Just pretend you know nothing about any of the
world’s religions and nothing about what Mr. G’s own tastes and opinions are. All
that you know for sure is that He is who He says He is; nothing else. Remember
now, this isn’t about your opinions; it’s about you persuading Mr. G to spare the
rest of us.
On Day 1 of your Divine Odyssey, Mr. G asks to be introduced to the world’s
greatest men of Science and Invention, past or present. If He deems them to be up
to his intellectual standards, He will spare the world for another day. At a café
down the block, Messrs. Archimedes, Newton, Roentgen, Edison, Tesla and von
Braun are enjoying a lively discussion of classical science; everything from
buoyancy to gravity to electricity to astronomy to X-Rays to light bulbs to the
commercial uses of electricity.
Meanwhile, at a park up the block, Theoretical Scientists Darwin, Oparin,
Hawking, Dawkins and Nye are conducting a mathematical circle-jerk over
Evolution, Soup-ism, Big Bang-ism, and time warps. Where would you take Mr.
G? Be honest now!
On Day 2, Mr. G asks you to take him to an Art Museum. If He deems the
assembled works to be up to His Divine standards of beauty, He will spare the
world for yet another day. Would you take Him to the Louvre Museum in Paris
and the Hermitage in Russia? Or would you guide Him through New York’s
Museum of Modern Art, where the imbecilic “in crowd” stares in amazement at
twisted pieces of metal and random paint blotches spilled on canvas? Be honest!
On Day 3, Mr. G asks to meet a healthy family. Do you go ‘Norman Rockwell’
traditional; hard working dad, stay at home mom, 3 kids, dog, home with a white
picket fence? (Something very hard to find in today’s Marxist-Progressive Era of
heavy taxes, debt based currency and ceaseless inflation) Or do you go “modern
family”; two homosexuals sharing an apartment with a divorced lesbian friend and
two adopted children; one of them “transgendered”? Be honest!
On Day 4, Mr. G wants to attend a concert. You might go Classical (Andrea
Bocelli, Mozart), smooth Jazz (Kenny G), or even take a chance with Rhythm &
Blues (Luther Van Dross.) But you know damn well you wouldn’t take Him to see
Beyonce the Glorified Pole Dancer breathlessly rap-panting about her all night sex
sessions with her one-time drug-dealer husband, ‘Jay Z’. (Drunk in Love).
So no rock and roll, progressive rock, or rock opera? How about Deviantart? How about the fact gay people are harmless: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.e ... n-parents/
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/new- ... parenting/
How about all the evidence above you ignore because it's "theoretical science"
I would ask this being if art is about beauty only, or if it can be used to make statements about the human condition? http://artistmyth.com/the-beauty-myth/
Your questions are all loaded with false dilemmas. But lets go on to the next pages...

On Day 5, Mr. G asks to see the local medical facilities at work. You might take
him to the Emergency Room to see medical heroes in action, or perhaps a local eye
doctor, ear doctor or dentist. But you sure wouldn’t take Him to an abortion clinic
to see sentient 3-9 month old fetuses being dismantled and discarded. Would you?
On Day 6, Mr. G asks to meet with the great rulers and statesmen of the world,
past or present. You might introduce Him to Solon, Pericles, Cicero, Marcus
Aurelius, Charlemagne, Bismarck, and George Washington. But would you really
want to show off the likes of Bill Clinton, George Bush, Dick Cheney, John
McCain, Tony Blair, Obongo or Hillary Clinton to Him?
On Day 7, Mr. G wants to take in a movie. Do you opt for Gone With the Wind, or
would you take Him to the latest degenerate, violent, borderline pornographic filth
churned out by Marxist Hollywood? Fifty Shades of Grey, Mr. G? I think not!
On Day 8, Mr. G wants to see how humanity pays homage to Him. You might
bring him to an Eastern Orthodox Church to witness the solemn ceremonial
splendor of its mass; or perhaps to a Mosque full of humbled men on prayer-mats;
or to a Baptist Church for some good ole fire & brimstone admonitions to avoid
evil. But it is highly doubtful that you would want Him to witness some fast-
talking, multi-millionaire, book-selling, jet-setting TV preacher in a $3000 suit
spewing empty ‘feel good’, motivational fluff.
I would show him the greatest superhero movies, Blade Runner, multiple Disney Animated features,

I would show him the evidence for the holocaust and how Hitler was a Christain: holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com
I would show him how multiple religions protect sex abusers and ask if this is what he wanted.
https://www.guernicamag.com/when-we-let ... get-raped/
I would remind him of all the nude drawings christanity made over the years and ask why they aren't 'degenerate' or offensive.
I would show him abortion in the bible, https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/2560 ... ion-rights
Or how Christain charities steal children from intact families: https://newrepublic.com/article/127311/ ... n-movement
Oh wait, perhaps I shouldn't, after all, he could destroy the world...

So what do you have to say about your strawman laden questions thst can only be answered if we follow your assumptions and ignore other possibilities
You know which choices you would make. And I know that you know which
options you would select. But exactly how did you know which options would save
the Earth from the righteous wrath of Mr. G?
It’s simple. You just followed, out of necessity, your God given HNS (Human
Navigational System). It’s one part “gut instinct” and one part “conscience”; the
universal human conscience which expresses itself in the unique cultural forms of
the world’s various religions. This is what the snooty, snarky, snobby, intolerant,
spiritually illiterate dogmatic Atheist can never understand
Again I am making choices you never give. Only a close minded bigot thinks art equals beauty, or that there cannot be any other options.
I am giving an honest answer, while you belive a gut feeling aligns with your preconcieved notions of what a deity wants.

Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:58 am

From pg 132.
Not one of those bones mentioned in Johnson’s little ditty, in addition to the
hundreds of others which he missed, can function without any other of the others
already in place. The system had to have come together all at once. That’s the
“integrated complexity” which so moved the philosopher Anthony Flew to
convert from Atheism to Deism. If the components of the skeletal system
“evolved”, then how could separate entities “know” in advance that they would
eventually fit in with other complex parts?
Indeed, as that anonymous student once asked our Professor Melski, “Which
“evolved” first? The eye-ball or the eye-socket? We can do an entire album of
songs relating to the subject of complex interrelated parts working together. Sing it
with me!
Dem veins, dem veins, dem dry veins, dem arteries, dem arteries, dem dry arteries,
dem ligaments, dem ligaments, dem dry ligaments, dem muscles, dem muscles,
dem dry muscles, dem organs, dem organs, dem dry organs, dem DNA codes, dem
DNA codes, dem dry DNA codes.
All this assumes that these forms were predetermined...and ignores why irreducible complexity fails: https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... -debunked/
All the parts can be modified to suit a different purpose, not to mention evolution doesn't have an end goal!

Also as for eyes, many species manage to survive with significantly less-advanced eyes. Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark;the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement;the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates. Judging by this, the eye evolved first
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-first ... rie-Devine
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... _0/eyes_06

P. 117-118
In 2012, the aforementioned Dr. Benjamin Carson got a taste of that good ole
“tolerance”. Carson had been invited to deliver the commencement address at
Emory University. Prior to the speech, nearly 500 professors, student and alumni
signed a “letter of concern”, expressing dismay over Carson’s rejection of
Darwinian Evolution. The letter itself was full of the same old tired Logical
Fallacies and Cognitive Biases we have reviewed in Chapter 3. (Author’s
comments in bold parenthesis):
“Dr. Carson argues that there is no evidence for evolution, that there are no
transitional fossils that provide evidence for the evolution of humans from a
common ancestor with other apes (not just apes - also maggots, trees, ants etc)
….that evolution is a wholly random process, and that life is too complex to have
originated by the natural process of evolution. (Yes. DNA code is too complex to
randomly pop up)
….All of these claims are incorrect. (Says who?/ Case Closed Trick)
….The evidence for evolution is overwhelming: (Evidence is Overwhelming Trick)
…ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate, (extinct
ape species, at best. What about amoeba to man? Marilyn & the Maggot? Got
any proof of that?)
….and the processes by which organisms evolve new and more complex body plans
are now known to be caused by relatively simple alterations of the expression of
small numbers of developmental genes (only “now known” through the magic of
‘Theoretical Biology’)
…..The theory of Evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity. (Case
Closed Fallacy / The Theory of Gravity does not require ‘Theoretical Physics’ to
prove itself. Go jump off of your Ivory Tower and see what I mean).
……Dismissing evolution disregards the importance of science and critical
thinking to society. (Red Herring, Ad hominem) (3) (emphasis added)
Ok first off, evolution isn't "ameoba to man" or "marilyn from maggot" this is flawed thinking referencing "the great chain of being"

Second if you are curious how we can have the same common ancesor, zsk why life fits so well into nested hirearchies involving physology, dna, ect: https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2014 ... n-descent/
Only descent with modification can make such patterns.
Second you seem to focus on fossil gaps...https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... ossils.php

User avatar
True Skeptic
Posts: 10889
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by landrew » Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:34 am

Someone ask a creationist: "Do you really think God would be pleased that you chose to use the brain you were given to believe in such codswallop?"
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23657
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:14 am

I "engage" my SoBap relatives on the family forum, but they don't like it much.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.