The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia

[james bond]

I love it when people link to Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com. where the organization attempts to impress people with the number of scientists who are creationists, because it gives me an opening to present Project Steve.

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
​

As of April 28, 2017, 1,415 Steves have signed the statement.

And what can be inferred about the scientific community's acceptance of evolution from the fact that 1,415 Steves signed the statement?

According to data from the U.S. Census, approximately 1.6% of males and approximately 0.4% of females — so approximately 1% of U.S. residents — have first names that would qualify them to sign the statement. So it is reasonable to infer that at least 141,500 scientists would agree with the statement. ("At least" because the statement was quietly circulated to a limited number of people.)
source​

So we have at least 141,500 scientists who believe evolution is a "vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences" opposed to a handful of scientists who opt for creationism.

,

First, I'm sure if the atheists had any decent scientists, then you would be parading them around. Look how you celebrate racist Darwin Day in February the same month as Black History month. I'm proud of the Christian scientists and their accomplishments. Thus, you should be proud, too. What happened to the science is science belief ha ha?

As for ToE and evolutionary thinking, you act like the science is finished. Long way to go my friend. We'll have to see how the creation scientists respond to it all.

 

[james bond]

Creationism is non-science.

If you still believe that, then creationists have to do a better job using science to show God's work again.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They're transgender now and after that their last couple big-budget movies have flopped. I don't think they're still happy with being transgender

That is not even a sound argument, and nothing more than pure wishy-washy speculation. You don't want them to be happy like that, so you want to think they are, and are coming up some strange excuse to conclude they must not be.
And, FYI, I loved all three Matrix movies, and thought their last good one was V for Vendetta, which is still today one of my favorites. It's all subjective opinion - box office numbers mean nothing.

 

[Skwim]

First, I'm sure if the atheists had any decent scientists, then you would be parading them around.

I can only infer that you don't think any of the 1,415 Steves, and by extrapolation the 141,500 scientists are, "decent" scientists. How desperate of you. Anyway, as you read and must have already forgotten . . .

"NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"
​

So parading is not in the planning. Besides, the Steve project is far more fun, and it has its own T-shirt

Look how you celebrate racist Darwin Day in February the same month as Black History month.

And World Radio Day, Chinese New Year's Eve, Gambia Independence Day, Defender Of The Fatherland Day, Day Of Remembrance And Respect To Victims Of The Communist Regime Day, and Clean Monday Day(Greece). But to be honest, I've never done such a thing and have no plans to do so. But thanks for jumping to the conclusion. You certainly don't disappoint.

I'm proud of the Christian scientists and their accomplishments.

And isn't that a frightening thought. Not surprising, just frightening.

Thus, you should be proud, too.

To tell the truth, I really don't sit around waiting for you to come up with some silly reaction so I can emulate it. You'll have to be proud all on your own. I have too much integrity,

As for ToE and evolutionary thinking, you act like the science is finished.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????I do?????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Needs more clarification, because in terms of the nature of our physical existence science is the only reliable medium for knowledge. Venturing to the edge of science in Cosmology and Physics where our theories, hypothesis and knowledge is tenuous at best at present, and too much is unknown is not a good way to measure the over all success and reliability of scientific knowledge. Venturing the other way where the worlds of Theology and Philosophy rule the turf science cannot go and any claims of 'reliable' bearers of truth have many competitors, but not science.

Yes, I agree with you. Philosophy etc has tools and methods that are different from the tools of science. Science deals with the tangible material world and demands verification via empirical experiment. Metaphysics tend to go with circumstantial evidences because what they claim to define etc is of an non-tangible nature. I am getting redundant eh?

Considering the above I am hoping for a true TOE (one that might include metaphysics). I also dream that one day cutting edge science will prove Gods existence, or not. (I am defining 'God' as any self aware* being, power or entity that is capable of creating a universe from scratch, see joke lol). I am 99.9%>10th sure God exists, however there is still that tiny 'what if' God doesn't exist voice. I believe it's healthy to have such a voice but I often wonder if my peers would classify me as an agnostic. The universe runs on uncertainty and to my way of thinking nothing in the material universe is 100% certain, including our most cherished beliefs. Frankly I don't loose too much sleep over what my peers think because I am right...ha ha.

Anyway in closing I am pasting a old joke that I am sure many if not most of our RF members have heard that relates to this reply ~

notes....

* .......... 'God' as any self aware*... I would find a deistic God or a Spinoza type (Einstein) less fulfilling but more probable. This is why I to compartmentalize religion as different, requiring faith not proof or evidence. In Christian belief faith is ar more important than evidence and that's why its so difficult for a science minded person to accept or believe in a God described by religion. I had helpers to become religious without those helpers I would still be a 'hard agnostic'(leaning far more towards atheism) or an atheist. Helpers are defined by my NDE, and a way of thinking and meditating (once called TM or transcendental meditation) by eastern religion techniques etc.


THE OLD JOKE AS PROMISED

'God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him, “God, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing – in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”

“Oh, is that so? Explain…” replies God. “Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

“Well, that’s very interesting… show Me.”

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man. “No, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.”

FROM THE WEB ; {>

 

[shunyadragon]

If you still believe that, then creationists have to do a better job using science to show God's work again.

I believe from the Baha'i perspective of the spiritual principle of 'Harmony of science and religion' does do a better job,' which teaches we must not mold God and science in our image.

Science is merely descriptive of the nature of the physical world around us, and not God. Science is the natural human view of the natural processes of God's attributes, Creation, and Revelation are manifested in our physical existence for eternity.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Today, we have more theoretical science and it's on the side of evolution and BBT. If you want an experiment to show there is a God, then the fact that people have come up with the scientific method and can do experiments is God's work. It's not like the giant arm and hand of God comes down, picks you up and body slams you or drops a million dollars on your desk. God may inspire you or give you the idea of how to make a million dollars such as writing the next best seller or inventing the next great smartphone. Other days, we may find a new invisible particle. Instead of appreciating the sun came up this morning for another day, people have to test God with an experiment. That's pretty small-minded thinking.

Hi Bond...James Bond...lol...I am a christian and probably one that fire and brimstone young earth creationists rail against. I feel the earth is billions of years old etc but with God a day is as a thousand years. However of course God may have created the universe in seven days but its beyond my faith to believe that. I do envy those that have the faith to believe such things and God bless you for your love of God and his word. That said I feel most of the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct, but don't think it deserves theory status because it lacks evidences in key areas. It also relies heavily on language and how things are labeled. For an lack of evidence example I don't think a bird could evolve into a human with the time constraints our universe provides. BTW before all you anti religious types blaze off ridicule and insult I was using the bird human example for effect only.

You didn't ask for advice but you might want to pick your battles better. I have learned activist atheists* use techniques and tactics in debate that would make Patton proud. I would be happy to send you some excellent reading suggestions that show we believes how to produce an unassailable position for your base and how to develop sorties that strikes at the soft underbelly of many activist atheistic* tactics. The truth is atheists or agnostic top scientists far out number Christian scientists. It is true that in the last oh, ten years some very good highly educated christian apologists have been winning debates against the Anthony Flews** of our world. Then there are biologists that challenge Darwin such as Behe. So I would suggest as I said a different strategy unless you really like butting heads. God bless you James I do consider you a brother in arms.

*.....Define activist atheist ; An activist atheist is a person that or the most part feels most religions are harmful to toxic. It sometimes seems like their life's goal is demonizing Christianity and to a lesser extent other religions. Activist atheist's are more abrasive than an atheist apologist which are usually fair minded and respectful. Lastly I will say Atheist apologists are an healthy addition to debate but activist atheists are like their Christian counterparts and rarely add to productive debate.

** Anthony Flew ....Flew was labeled as the worlds most notorious atheist. He recently converted from atheism to deism but was the go to bad boy that made Dawkins pale in comparison imo.

; (>

 

[Revoltingest]

Today, we have more theoretical science and it's on the side of evolution and BBT. If you want an experiment to show there is a God, then the fact that people have come up with the scientific method and can do experiments is God's work. It's not like the giant arm and hand of God comes down, picks you up and body slams you or drops a million dollars on your desk. God may inspire you or give you the idea of how to make a million dollars such as writing the next best seller or inventing the next great smartphone. Other days, we may find a new invisible particle. Instead of appreciating the sun came up this morning for another day, people have to test God with an experiment. That's pretty small-minded thinking.

I'll allow that belief in God, Thor, Cthulu or _____ can inspire scientists.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you still believe that, then creationists have to do a better job using science to show God's work again.

If they try harder, I'll check it out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you still believe that, then creationists have to do a better job using science to show God's work again.

"Again"?

When did they do it the first time?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Guys, do yourselves a favour: just ignore james bond. They are just trolling for attention and trying to irritate everyone.

A strategy which consistently backfires.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Guys, do yourselves a favour: just ignore james bond. They are just trolling for attention and trying to irritate everyone.

Nine of the ten accusations against Jimmy Wales do not seem relevant to me, however however I can understand why a conservative might see anime porn hosted by wiki commons as a reason to boycott the site. Its definitely not a conservative move, and its offensive. I would not call it 'Child porn' as its not photographic, however it is immoral. What could be considered moral about it? Clearly it skirts the laws against child porn as closely as possible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi Bond...James Bond...lol...I am a christian and probably one that fire and brimstone young earth creationists rail against. I feel the earth is billions of years old etc but with God a day is as a thousand years. However of course God may have created the universe in seven days but its beyond my faith to believe that. I do envy those that have the faith to believe such things and God bless you for your love of God and his word. That said I feel most of the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct, but don't think it deserves theory status because it lacks evidences in key areas. It also relies heavily on language and how things are labeled. For an lack of evidence example I don't think a bird could evolve into a human with the time constraints our universe provides. BTW before all you anti religious types blaze off ridicule and insult I was using the bird human example for effect only.

non-science shock effect is not convincing.

You didn't ask for advice but you might want to pick your battles better. I have learned activist atheists* use techniques and tactics in debate that would make Patton proud. I would be happy to send you some excellent reading suggestions that show we believes how to produce an unassailable position for your base and how to develop sorties that strikes at the soft underbelly of many activist atheistic* tactics. The truth is atheists or agnostic top scientists far out number Christian scientists. It is true that in the last oh, ten years some very good highly educated christian apologists have been winning debates against the Anthony Flews** of our world. Then there are biologists that challenge Darwin such as Behe. So I would suggest as I said a different strategy unless you really like butting heads. God bless you James I do consider you a brother in arms.

As far as 'winning debates' and the arguments of Creationists like Behe for intelligent design are highly questionable. As far as the debates Napoleon did not win the Battle of Waterloo. Behe is a qualified scientist, and accurate in 'some' of his descriptions of problems with a natural evolution, but it remains he is 'arguing from ignorance,' claiming science cannot currently explain this and that therefore . . .

*.....Define activist atheist ; An activist atheist is a person that or the most part feels most religions are harmful to toxic. They have made defending atheism and demonizing Christianity and to a lesser extent other religions. I define a activist atheist as being more abrasive than an atheist apologist which are usually moderate kind souls. Lastly I will say Atheist apologists are an healthy addition to debate even if I disagree with them most of the time, lol.

Well, at least you acknowledge a range of how atheists argue their belief, but I still detect a bias and overstatement as to the 'toxic and harmful' nature of some atheist apologists. To me the most 'toxic and harmful' are most definitely 'Young Earth Creationists' that trash science,

As far as the actual science goes there is not much difference, if any at all, in the science of atheists, agnostics and the diversity of Theist scientists.

** Anthony Flew ....Flew was labeled as the worlds most notorious atheist. He recently converted from atheism to deism but was the go to bad boy that made Dawkins pale in comparison imo.

Hi Bond...James Bond...lol...I am a christian and probably one that fire and brimstone young earth creationists rail against. I feel the earth is billions of years old etc but with God a day is as a thousand years. However of course God may have created the universe in seven days but its beyond my faith to believe that. I do envy those that have the faith to believe such things and God bless you for your love of God and his word. That said I feel most of the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct, but don't think it deserves theory status because it lacks evidences in key areas. It also relies heavily on language and how things are labeled. For an lack of evidence example I don't think a bird could evolve into a human with the time constraints our universe provides. BTW before all you anti religious types blaze off ridicule and insult I was using the bird human example for effect only.

You didn't ask for advice but you might want to pick your battles better. I have learned activist atheists* use techniques and tactics in debate that would make Patton proud. I would be happy to send you some excellent reading suggestions that show we believes how to produce an unassailable position for your base and how to develop sorties that strikes at the soft underbelly of many activist atheistic* tactics. The truth is atheists or agnostic top scientists far out number Christian scientists. It is true that in the last oh, ten years some very good highly educated christian apologists have been winning debates against the Anthony Flews** of our world. Then there are biologists that challenge Darwin such as Behe. So I would suggest as I said a different strategy unless you really like butting heads. God bless you James I do consider you a brother in arms.

*.....Define activist atheist ; An activist atheist is a person that or the most part feels most religions are harmful to toxic. They have made defending atheism and demonizing Christianity and to a lesser extent other religions. I define a activist atheist as being more abrasive than an atheist apologist which are usually moderate kind souls. Lastly I will say Atheist apologists are an healthy addition to debate even if I disagree with them most of the time, lol.

** Anthony Flew ....Flew was labeled as the worlds most notorious atheist. He recently converted from atheism to deism but was the go to bad boy that made Dawkins pale in comparison imo.

I am not a fan of emotional trashing of atheist and agnostics, such as using terms like 'notorious.' Anthony Flew is too often cited as a converted 'atheist,' when in reality he did not so to speak convert until he was quite elderly, and Deism is hardly a conversion to anything close to Theism. It is vague belief in a God? that is totally uninvolved in Creation, no Revelation, almost the same as no God at all.

Actually I would be a strong agnostic/weak atheist if it not were for the Baha'i Faith offering a more inclusive universal relationship with Creation and Revelation with humanity. Agnosticism is the most rational logical position. Beyond agnosticism there is atheism which makes the philosophical assumption that nothing exists beyond our physical existence, because there is no objective verifiable evidence. Atheism is no more illogical nor irrational than Theistic worldviews making the assumption that other worlds and God(s) exist beyond our physical existence.

The problem of the Theist perspective is the inconsistency on the belief in God(s) and other worlds often justified by ancient mythology, which gives those that do not believe more ammunition to seriously question Theism, as Flew still objected to until he died.

 

[viole]

If you still believe that, then creationists have to do a better job using science to show God's work again.

Good luck.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

First, I'm sure if the atheists had any decent scientists, then you would be parading them around.

What about R. Feynman and S. Weinberg? Just to make a few obvious examples.

I'm proud of the Christian scientists and their accomplishments.

You should. Kenneth Miller is doing an excellent job in destroying the claims of creationists, ID/SD supporters and other pseudo scientists.

I mean, even superstar Christian apologists/phylosophers like W.L.Craig think that YEC is a disgrace. A total embarassment for all Christians and Christianity. One of the few times I agree with him.

So, if you Christians really want to hope to give us a hard time, I suggest you first start to get your acts together and come to us with at least a basic agreement of quite basic stuff. As long as you come to us by proposing things, like the age of the Universe, that differ by six orders of magnitude, depending on who you ask, you will never be taken seriously.

If different scientists would propose things that have such a margin of error, you will be the first to crucify them. And rightly so.

Ciao

- viole

 

[suncowiam]

If you still believe that, then creationists have to do a better job using science to show God's work again.

You know the only way to prove creationism is to prove God exists and then he needs to prove that he created all the animals.

 

[james bond]

You know the only way to prove creationism is to prove God exists and then he needs to prove that he created all the animals.

Baraminology, the new creation science of plants and animals.

 

[YmirGF]

Baraminology, the new creation science of plants and animals.

Here I thought it was a olive branch to show that creationists had a sense of humor. They are serious? Too funny!

 

[suncowiam]

Baraminology, the new creation science of plants and animals.

Uhmm..

This is taking similarities from two independent sources and asserting correlation because of the similarities.

Now, all baraminologists need to do, is prove that the Bible came from God.

 

[james bond]

What about R. Feynman and S. Weinberg? Just to make a few obvious examples.



You should. Kenneth Miller is doing an excellent job in destroying the claims of creationists, ID/SD supporters and other pseudo scientists.

I mean, even superstar Christian apologists/phylosophers like W.L.Craig think that YEC is a disgrace. A total embarassment for all Christians and Christianity. One of the few times I agree with him.

So, if you Christians really want to hope to give us a hard time, I suggest you first start to get your acts together and come to us with at least a basic agreement of quite basic stuff. As long as you come to us by proposing things, like the age of the Universe, that differ by six orders of magnitude, depending on who you ask, you will never be taken seriously.

If different scientists would propose things that have such a margin of error, you will be the first to crucify them. And rightly so.

Ciao

- viole

Speaking of total embarrassment. You named physicists. We're talking ToE and human evolution as some atheists just want to discuss. Ayala, the guy who wrote the Britannica article is fine. I've emailed Craig. He sent me:

Concordism
Concordism | Reasonable Faith.

Confused about Concordism | Reasonable Faith

Debates Ayala
Evolution without God | Reasonable Faith

Heh. Here's one article on what Craig said about atheists.

Will God’s Judgement Be More Tolerable for Atheists than for Young Earth Creationists? | Reasonable Faith

YEC is what's correct in my view. I'm not sure what direction they will go. So far, they have been making arguments on websites and Talk Origins. They need to get articles published in Britannica on Baraminology and YEC views of Genesis if you ask me. We do not want just Bible of the Gaps.

Evidences for a Young Earth