Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aberdeen · 07-23-2003, 07:26 AM

Here are three articles that compare science to the Bible--maybe you can figure out where the author is wrong and why. If you can, please email me back because I am the author. It is my opinion that most modern athiests are not nearly skeptical enough of either science or religion, which is why they are athiests. A true skeptic would seriously question the entire idea of evolution by Natural selection as being no better than a poorly contrived fairytale; there is no empirical evidence for "selectively mutating" "self-selecting" processes. Such nonesense is far harder to believe than all of the other religions (note the word "other") of history combined.

Of God and Monkey Business:
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...ybusiness.html

The Myth of Modern Science
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommonsense/science.html

A-Z Random Primer of Science and the Bible
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...dthebible.html

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 07-23-2003, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
Here are three articles that compare science to the Bible--maybe you can figure out where the author is wrong and why. If you can, please email me back because I am the author.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I sincerely hope you're prepared for the responses your articles will generate.

Quote:

THE ABERDEEN
FOUNDATION $10,000
REWARD CHALLENGE

The Aberdeen Foundation is currently offering a $10,000 reward to any scientist, educator or other individual who can rationally prove by use of the Scientific Method, that the Grand Design of the Universe formed or is forming, by "natural" or other processes without the aid or input from a Grand Designer.

I'm afraid Kent Hovind beat ya to it, and he's offering $250,000 for the same question. And I'm sure that your panel of judges is just as fair and objective as his.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-23-2003, 08:22 AM

I'll raise you $10,000 for any rational proof that the Universe WAS formed by an intelligent "Grand Designer".

Jack the Bodiless · 07-23-2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Natural selection as being no better than a poorly contrived fairytale; there is no empirical evidence for "selectively mutating" "self-selecting" processes. Such nonesense is far harder to believe than all of the other religions (note the word "other") of history combined.

I suggest you do some homework. "Selective mutation" is Intelligent Design stuff, not something we atheists are into. But, if "self-selecting" means "natural selection", then you're talking out of your posterior orifice if you say there's no evidence for THAT.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-23-2003, 08:56 AM

...Well, the server was rather slow, but I've finally read those "aberdeen" articles.

Tyoical creationist/ID drivel. Very off-topic for this thread, but if they were reposted in Evolution/Creation, they'd be shredded immediately.

Mostly, they're just statements of pure baloney (I lost count of the factual errors) interspersed with excuses for the author to vent. All those who disagree with the author's viewpoint are Neanderthals, baboons and suchlike.

In fact, I see material here for at least two threads: the author also makes many erroneous claims about what the Bible teaches.

Probably a drive-by, but we'll see.

Doctor X · 07-23-2003, 04:31 PM

Indeed:

Quote:

A true skeptic would seriously question the entire idea of evolution by Natural selection as being no better than a poorly contrived fairytale; . . .

Other than the fact their is evidence for natural selection and none for his fairy tale?

Quote:

. . . there is no empirical evidence for "selectively mutating" "self-selecting" processes.

Never met a bacterium?

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy · 07-23-2003, 05:27 PM

aberdeen,
Have you tried posting that on the Evolution vs Creation forum here at IIDB? I'm sure we can accomodate your questions there.

And while you're at it, why don't you also post your Jeshua is the founder of Human and Civil Rights theory (from your website) to the Political Discussions forum or maybe at General Religious Discussions forum.

Doctor X · 07-23-2003, 06:44 PM

I received a PM from aberdeen.

I can only imagine why one would respond privately rather than publically to a post.

I generally do not like people to post PM messages without permission; thus, without his permission I can only say that I had yet another opportunity to instruct upon fallacies and raise a point I had hoped I would never have to raise on this board.

--J.D.

River · 07-23-2003, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
A true skeptic would seriously question the entire idea of evolution by Natural selection as being no better than a poorly contrived fairytale; there is no empirical evidence for "selectively mutating" "self-selecting" processes. Such nonesense is far harder to believe than all of the other religions (note the word "other") of history combined[/url]

Whats wrong with Natural selection?

aberdeen · 07-23-2003, 08:33 PM

Rather than asking what is wrong with Natural Selection, a better question might be what is right about it? At least it would be a much shorter answer.

For starters, Natural Selection provides no explanation for primary cause. It hasn't a clue as to where the process itself came from or where the 'stuff' came from to naturally select from. No matter how far one goes back, even before the theorized 'big bang', Natural Selection provides no satsifactory answer (actually no answer at all) as to how the universe happens to exist.

And again, thousands of experiments on fruit flies and other species of short generational span clearly indicate that species do not evolve outside of Family "types". Likewise, the known observable evidence suggests much more that sepecies arise from several or even thousands of primary sources rather than from a single primary source. There is no conclusive evidence that species come from a single source and a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is no evidence whatsoever that "selective mutational" "self-organizing" processes cause the observable reality to come into being. There is overwhelming evidence that what we can observe was deliberately and very intrincantly designed. No rational being believes that the pyramids or the Taj Mahal appeared on their own by self-organizing processes. Yet Natural Selectionists invent a completely preposterous fairytale that purports that the entire universal reality self-organized all by itself...

For much more information, see
Of God and Monkey Business
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...ybusiness.html

--Aberdeen
www.AberdeenFoundation.org

07-23-2003, 07:26 AM	#1
aberdeen Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Prescott Posts: 24	Bible and Science Here are three articles that compare science to the Bible--maybe you can figure out where the author is wrong and why. If you can, please email me back because I am the author. It is my opinion that most modern athiests are not nearly skeptical enough of either science or religion, which is why they are athiests. A true skeptic would seriously question the entire idea of evolution by Natural selection as being no better than a poorly contrived fairytale; there is no empirical evidence for "selectively mutating" "self-selecting" processes. Such nonesense is far harder to believe than all of the other religions (note the word "other") of history combined. Of God and Monkey Business: http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...ybusiness.html The Myth of Modern Science http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommonsense/science.html A-Z Random Primer of Science and the Bible http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...dthebible.html

07-23-2003, 08:33 PM	#10
aberdeen Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Prescott Posts: 24	What is right about Natural Selection? Rather than asking what is wrong with Natural Selection, a better question might be what is right about it? At least it would be a much shorter answer. For starters, Natural Selection provides no explanation for primary cause. It hasn't a clue as to where the process itself came from or where the 'stuff' came from to naturally select from. No matter how far one goes back, even before the theorized 'big bang', Natural Selection provides no satsifactory answer (actually no answer at all) as to how the universe happens to exist. And again, thousands of experiments on fruit flies and other species of short generational span clearly indicate that species do not evolve outside of Family "types". Likewise, the known observable evidence suggests much more that sepecies arise from several or even thousands of primary sources rather than from a single primary source. There is no conclusive evidence that species come from a single source and a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise. There is no evidence whatsoever that "selective mutational" "self-organizing" processes cause the observable reality to come into being. There is overwhelming evidence that what we can observe was deliberately and very intrincantly designed. No rational being believes that the pyramids or the Taj Mahal appeared on their own by self-organizing processes. Yet Natural Selectionists invent a completely preposterous fairytale that purports that the entire universal reality self-organized all by itself... For much more information, see Of God and Monkey Business http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...ybusiness.html --Aberdeen www.AberdeenFoundation.org

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2003, 08:22 AM	#3
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I'll raise you $10,000 for any rational proof that the Universe WAS formed by an intelligent "Grand Designer".

07-23-2003, 08:56 AM	#5
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	...Well, the server was rather slow, but I've finally read those "aberdeen" articles. Tyoical creationist/ID drivel. Very off-topic for this thread, but if they were reposted in Evolution/Creation, they'd be shredded immediately. Mostly, they're just statements of pure baloney (I lost count of the factual errors) interspersed with excuses for the author to vent. All those who disagree with the author's viewpoint are Neanderthals, baboons and suchlike. In fact, I see material here for at least two threads: the author also makes many erroneous claims about what the Bible teaches. Probably a drive-by, but we'll see.

07-23-2003, 05:27 PM	#7
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	aberdeen, Have you tried posting that on the Evolution vs Creation forum here at IIDB? I'm sure we can accomodate your questions there. And while you're at it, why don't you also post your Jeshua is the founder of Human and Civil Rights theory (from your website) to the Political Discussions forum or maybe at General Religious Discussions forum.

07-23-2003, 06:44 PM	#8
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I received a PM from aberdeen. I can only imagine why one would respond privately rather than publically to a post. I generally do not like people to post PM messages without permission; thus, without his permission I can only say that I had yet another opportunity to instruct upon fallacies and raise a point I had hoped I would never have to raise on this board. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.