Comments on: The New Creationist http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/ ...biology and atheism in an overly religious world... Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:25:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jaco http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-547 Jaco Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:06:47 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-547 Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve. Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being. BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve.

Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being.

BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch

]]> By: Jaco http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-548 Jaco Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:06:47 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-548 Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve. Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being. BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve.

Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being.

BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch

]]> By: Jaco http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-549 Jaco Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:06:47 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-549 Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve. Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being. BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve.

Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being.

BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch

]]> By: Jaco http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-550 Jaco Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:06:47 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-550 Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve. Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being. BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch Most interesting to read from a complete materialist view that creation science is flawed. Never ever has anyone of the materialist view me convinced of finding missing links. There is totally no evidence for evolution from one species to another. Let alone how life has developed from dead material. Where does information came from? We have never seen in our total lifetime that it came out of nothing. How does information come out of nothing. It doesn't help if you put all kind of computerlanguage into a box, hoping that eventually after millions of years a working program will evolve.

Try to be open for more than only a materialistic worldview. I say that despite of some really bad scientific approaches of creationists. However their view of common ancestors within the area of sorts and races is a very likely model to see where so many differences within sorts come from. Take the whole sorts of dogs, foxes, wolfs, hyena's and so on. Even all kinds of cats can have a common ancestor within their kind. That helps to understand why micro-evolution within kinds or sorts can happen so fast and why there is totally no evidence for missing links between kinds or sorts. That's because a designer has put all this variation into some of computerprogram called DNA. That's a better explanation then to search for some sort of self-helping mechanism that has to explain how this alive world has come into being.

BTW if not all is correct English, that's because I'm Dutch

]]> By: barriejohn http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-405 barriejohn Wed, 13 May 2009 19:40:59 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-405 That`s nothing to what the Muslims are claiming on several blogs, as you probably know! Apparently, Old Mo was the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the Koran is full of the most amazing, detailed and verifiable scientific facts, many of which have astounded modern scientists with their accuracy!! Sadly, they really DO believe all this horse shit, so it`s no wonder that there are so many suicide bombers, in my view, as they are completely nuts!!! That`s nothing to what the Muslims are claiming on several blogs, as you probably know! Apparently, Old Mo was the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the Koran is full of the most amazing, detailed and verifiable scientific facts, many of which have astounded modern scientists with their accuracy!! Sadly, they really DO believe all this horse shit, so it`s no wonder that there are so many suicide bombers, in my view, as they are completely nuts!!!

]]> By: GrumpyBob http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-404 GrumpyBob Wed, 13 May 2009 16:05:45 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-404 I like the blog's subtitle - "Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation" I like the blog's subtitle – "Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation"

]]> By: GrumpyBob http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-403 GrumpyBob Wed, 13 May 2009 13:59:04 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-403 I think The New Creationist portrays a subtly different slant on the creationist agenda, one which uses scientific sentence structure and complicated "sciencey" words to advance their case. I am just waiting for Melanie Phillips to jump on this bandwagon. I particularly liked the stuff about "some semi-aquatic and aquatic mammals may not have been aquatic at the time of the global flood" - I suppose the aquatic animals wouldn't have snuffed it in the flood. (and where did all that water come from, and go to?) I think The New Creationist portrays a subtly different slant on the creationist agenda, one which uses scientific sentence structure and complicated "sciencey" words to advance their case. I am just waiting for Melanie Phillips to jump on this bandwagon.

I particularly liked the stuff about "some semi-aquatic and aquatic mammals may not have been aquatic at the time of the global flood" – I suppose the aquatic animals wouldn't have snuffed it in the flood. (and where did all that water come from, and go to?)

]]> By: barriejohn http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2009/05/13/the-new-creationist/comment-page-1/#comment-402 barriejohn Wed, 13 May 2009 09:05:12 +0000 http://www.robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/?p=756#comment-402 Don`t you remember those Physics experiments you used to do at school, where you knew what the required figure was (specific heat of some substance, etc), so you just worked backwards and came up with a set of experimental results that would give you that result (or were we particularly wicked at my school?). That is what these guys are doing! What on earth is the point of having "an active research agenda" and "undertaking high quality, cutting edge research" if you have already decided what the results are going to be, and that you will simply reject any inconvenient facts that contradict your previously held conclusions!! These people are cast in the mould of the old "Evolution Protest Movement", which I remember well from my own early teaching days, and which, according to Wikipedia, was set up to defend "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture...against the opposition of Science falsely so called". I know - you really couldn`t make it up!!! Don`t you remember those Physics experiments you used to do at school, where you knew what the required figure was (specific heat of some substance, etc), so you just worked backwards and came up with a set of experimental results that would give you that result (or were we particularly wicked at my school?). That is what these guys are doing! What on earth is the point of having "an active research agenda" and "undertaking high quality, cutting edge research" if you have already decided what the results are going to be, and that you will simply reject any inconvenient facts that contradict your previously held conclusions!! These people are cast in the mould of the old "Evolution Protest Movement", which I remember well from my own early teaching days, and which, according to Wikipedia, was set up to defend "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture…against the opposition of Science falsely so called". I know – you really couldn`t make it up!!!

]]>