# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/561 "2010-09-07T04:51:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The point is credibility. > > > > I actually have no difficulty particularly with some aspects of evolution, because I see it as no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent in creation. > > You realize that a contradiction of a magic wizard hypothesis is not a “problem,” do you not? You have no reason to presume a wizard in the first place, so any contradiction just shows a flaw in your assumptions, not in the actual facts of evolution. > > > [@](#): > > > > You will find the past head of the human genome project Dr Frances Collins is of a similar view. > > > > What I have a problem with is the exagerated and false claims of vindication from science. > > > > A case in point is the claim that was made here about the fruit fly experiments. Yet these are an abject failure for evolutionary biologists. > > > > I previously posted on the various hoaxes and outright deceit used to push evolution in the past. The scientific method is one to be preserved, not manipulated for ideological purposes. > > All of this is handwaving garbage. Guess who exposed the occasional hoaxes. Go on, guess. It was scientists, that’s who.the notion that if someone trie to perpetrate a hoax on scientists, that this makes all scientific methdology and accumulated knowledge invalidated is asinine beyond words. 1\> We have every reason to look for intelligence as being an agent in the orgins of ife, because we see evidence for it. When you can explain how improbable random events can produce the level of design complexity in the universe, you may be taken remotely seriously. 2\> You seem to have no understanding of the periods of time over which these hoaxes lasted, or the damage done to the scientific community. Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign after falsifying dates on fossils that he falsely claimed linked humans and Neanderthals. And how was this fraud exposed? When he tried to sell a complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States. As of 2000, there were at least 50 biology texts that stilll use Haeckel’s discredited embryo drawings. “A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199 I could go on and on, but the point is made. It matters not WHO exposes this dishonesty, it is that there is demonstrablle deceit, and the widespread use of bias and ‘psuedo-science’ in support of evolutionary claims. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/562 "2010-09-07T04:52:24Z")
[quote=“Diogenes\_the\_Cynic, post:553, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > No it doesn’t. Macroevolution refers to speciation. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. > > This is also totally incorrect. You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about, and you’re arguing with people who do. You should be aware of that. What fatuous nonsense. Your chest thumping may impress your children, but no-one else. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/563 "2010-09-07T04:53:58Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It’s illogical, if nothing else. You can have new complex functions as a result of simple variations. Then you can provide an example? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/564 "2010-09-07T04:56:23Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > It’s exactly the meaning that pretty much everyone who self-identifies as an atheist uses. If you restricted the term “atheist” to mean only someone who asserts that there cannot be any gods, there would not be any atheists. > > Yes, but that was not always the case, was it? yes, that was always the case. > [@](#): > > Because the claim of atheism, that there “is no God”, is self defeating. Atheism makes no such claim. Atheism makes no claim at all. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/565 "2010-09-07T04:58:16Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > This is gibberish, and you’re flat wrong about the definition of “agnosticism.” Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. > > > > Let me explain it very carefully to you, since you’ve obviously necer been educated on any of this before. The word “agonosticism” is not an answer to the question “do you believe that gods exist?” It is a non-sequitur with regards to that question. It is not an opinion or beliefe about whether gods exist. It is an opinion about whether their existence can be PROVEN. It is possible to be either an atheist or a theist and still be an agnostic, ok? > > Your comments have been as follows: > > “Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, but a position that the question cannot be answered with available evidence.” > > Then > > ““agnostic” is not a position on the existence of gods.”. > > Then > > “The word “agonosticism” is not an answer to the question “do you believe that gods exist?”” > > Atheism, agnosticism, theism are all positions on the existence of gods. One says ‘no’. One says ‘yes’. One says ‘don’t know’. This is factually incorrect. You are misinformed about the meanings of these words. You don’t know what you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > You’ve been caught out and are trying to run. Heh. “Caught out.” I’m just trying to educate you, son. I’m trying to help you embarrass yourself less. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/566 "2010-09-07T04:58:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > > > It’s illogical, if nothing else. You can have new complex functions as a result of simple variations. > > Yes, but I think **Aigonz** (whose user name means “God,” by the way. A humble kid, this one) is one of those creationists who believes that evolutionary theory claims that fish spontaneously grow legs or that lizards sprout wings and tuirn into birds. He thinks that’s what “macroevolution” means. I didn’t think even AIG bothered with those kinds of strawmen anymore. Actually, it’s more simple than that. Evolution poses no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent behind creation. Many theists hold such a view, its called theistic evolution. I happen to have some doubts, simply on the basis of lack of evidence. I don’t need to point to lizards spontaneously sprouting wings because I havn’t claimed they did. A believer in macro evolution, on the other hand, has to not only demonstrate how that coould have happened but also evidence it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/567 "2010-09-07T04:59:53Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > > > Atheism is an idealogy; as is theism. As is Christianity, and so on. But that does not make them equivalent. > > > > Think of it like football. Comparing atheism to Christianity is like comparing football to an NFL game. Yes, they’re both sports. But one is a very general view, encompassing many possible rules, many possible games. There’s few rules or ideas about “football” - you can’t even say that it’s a game of playing the ball with the foot. Whereas when it comes to the NFL game, there’s lots to talk about; rules, plays, positions of players, tactical ideas, how to beat particular teams, and so on. > > > > In the same way, atheism is incredibly general. All being an athiest requires is nonbelief in gods. You can hold any number of varying doctrinal views, but none of them are guessable simply from “atheist”. Whereas being a Christian does tend to imply additional doctrinal ideas than simply “theist”. It’s not a simple answer to a simple question. Yes, both are idealogies. But that does not make them equivalent. > > The moment you stated atheism is an ideology you agreed with me. I never claimed equivalency. > > Atheism is an ideology. We agree. Atheism is not an ideology. You are both wrong. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/568 "2010-09-07T05:01:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Yes, but that was not always the case, was it? > > yes, that was always the case. > > > [@](#): > > > > Because the claim of atheism, that there “is no God”, is self defeating. > > Atheism makes no such claim. Atheism makes no claim at all. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. “Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.” Note: “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” The source? American Atheists website…[http://www.atheists.org/](http://www.atheists.org/). Now who doesn’t know what words mean eh. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/569 "2010-09-07T05:05:17Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > You realize that a contradiction of a magic wizard hypothesis is not a “problem,” do you not? You have no reason to presume a wizard in the first place, so any contradiction just shows a flaw in your assumptions, not in the actual facts of evolution. > > > > All of this is handwaving garbage. Guess who exposed the occasional hoaxes. Go on, guess. It was scientists, that’s who.the notion that if someone trie to perpetrate a hoax on scientists, that this makes all scientific methdology and accumulated knowledge invalidated is asinine beyond words. > > 1\> We have every reason to look for intelligence as being an agent in the orgins of ife, because we see evidence for it. Give an erxample of this evidence. > [@](#): > > When you can explain how improbable random events can produce the level of design complexity in the universe, you may be taken remotely seriously. Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is nothing random about it. > [@](#): > > 2\> You seem to have no understanding of the periods of time over which these hoaxes lasted, or the damage done to the scientific community. You seem to be under the impression that the scientific community was ever fooled by them, or that their exposure does any damage at all to evolutionary theory. Scientific rigor and peer review is SUPPOSED to weed out fraud. That’s what it’s for. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just spouting creationsits claptrap. None of this rebuts the hard evdience that proves evolution. Educate yourself vefore you spout. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/570 "2010-09-07T05:10:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> We have every reason to look for intelligence as being an agent in the orgins of ife, because we see evidence for it. > > Give an erxample of this evidence. > > Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is nothing random about it. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> You seem to have no understanding of the periods of time over which these hoaxes lasted, or the damage done to the scientific community. > > You seem to be under the impression that the scientific community was ever fooled by them, or that their exposure does any damage at all to evolutionary theory. Scientific rigor and peer review is SUPPOSED to weed out fraud. That’s what it’s for. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just spouting creationsits claptrap. None of this rebuts the hard evdience that proves evolution. Educate yourself vefore you spout. 1\> We begin by seeing evidneec for design. We look for a source of that design. We consider the competing claims of a purely naturalistic explanation vs. that of an intelligent agent. The intelligent agent is more plausible. 2\> The scientific community was indeed fooled by them. In same cases for decades. Scientific rigour may get there eventually, however I consider 80 odd years (in the case of Haeckel’s fraud) to be a it long for comfort. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/571 "2010-09-07T05:12:17Z")
Dio…you are making a lot of claims and then running. What is your response to the definition of atheism by American Atheists? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/572 "2010-09-07T05:13:40Z")
…or of agnosticism being “not a position on the existence of gods.”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/573 "2010-09-07T05:15:18Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > What fatuous nonsense. Your chest thumping may impress your children, but no-one else. I think it’s appropriate that you actidentally quoted this in such a way that you appeared to be responding to yourself. I will tell you again that you don’t know what the word “macroevolution” means, and that you have misused it. You seem to believe that it refers to a taxonomic change in a single step. It does not. Macroevolution never refers to a single step. It refers to the end results, speciations and higher taxonomic changes over a period of _many_ incremental (i.e. “microevolutionary”) changes. Enough micro ends in macro, but macro is never a single mutation or adaptation. An analogy is the way languages change over time. Latin turned slowly into Italian, French an Spanish, but there was never a point at which people were speaking ne langage and it suddenly flipped over to another. The changes are so gradual that no one ever notices, but eventually you end up with completely mew languages. With eough time, you even end up with completely new language families. We are using a language that thousands of years ago was Indo-European, but no incremental change in between was ever a perceptable switch in languages to the people speaking them. It just gradually drifts and drifts and drifts and here we are. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/574 "2010-09-07T05:18:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > What fatuous nonsense. Your chest thumping may impress your children, but no-one else. > > I think it’s appropriate that you actidentally quoted this in such a way that you appeared to be responding to yourself. I will tell you again that you don’t know what the word “macroevolution” means, and that you have misused it. You seem to believe that it refers to a taxonomic change in a single step. It does not. Macroevolution never refers to a single step. It refers to the end results, speciations and higher taxonomic changes over a period of _many_ incremental (i.e. “microevolutionary”) changes. Enough micro ends in macro, but macro is never a single mutation or adaptation. > > An analogy is the way languages change over time. Latin turned slowly into Italian, French an Spanish, but there was never a point at which people were speaking ne langage and it suddenly flipped over to another. The changes are so gradual that no one ever notices, but eventually you end up with completely mew languages. With eough time, you even end up with completely new language families. We are using a language that thousands of years ago was Indo-European, but no incremental change in between was ever a perceptable switch in languages to the people speaking them. It just gradually drifts and drifts and drifts and here we are. I’m keen to engaage on this, but you have some other questions to answer first (see above). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/575 "2010-09-07T05:19:07Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > yes, that was always the case. > > > > Atheism makes no such claim. Atheism makes no claim at all. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. > > “Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.” > > Note: “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” > > The source? American Atheists website…[http://www.atheists.org/](http://www.atheists.org/). > > Now who doesn’t know what words mean eh. this actually supports me, not you. Your redaing comprehension is for shit. Notice that definition does not include a claim that atheism amounts to a positive claim that gods do not exist, only that it denotes a lack of positive belief that they [i[do\*/ Also note that the American Atheists do not speak for all atheists. Atheists do not do religious authority. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/576 "2010-09-07T05:22:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > “Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.” > > > > Note: “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” > > > > The source? American Atheists website…[http://www.atheists.org/](http://www.atheists.org/). > > > > Now who doesn’t know what words mean eh. > > this actually supports me, not you. Your redaing comprehension is for shit. Notice that definition does not include a claim that atheism amounts to a positive claim that gods do not exist, only that it denotes a lack of positive belief that they [i[do\*/ Also note that the American Atheists do not speak for all atheists. Atheists do not do religious authority. Which part of “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” don’t you understand? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/577 "2010-09-07T05:23:06Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> We begin by seeing evidneec for design. Please give a single example of this evidence. So far you’ve offered nothing. We look for a source of that design. We consider the competing claims of a purely naturalistic explanation vs. that of an intelligent agent. The intelligent agent is more plausible. > [@](#): > > 2\> The scientific community was indeed fooled by them. No, the scientific community exposed them. Yopu are misinformed. You also have a completely erroneous impression that these hoaxes somehow invalidate the mountains of evidence proving evolution and common descent beyond any reasonable refutation. To deny evolution shows either ignorance of the facts or dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/578 "2010-09-07T05:23:38Z")
“there are NO forces” NO forces… You got this wrong, and you got agnoticism wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/579 "2010-09-07T05:24:48Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > …or of agnosticism being “not a position on the existence of gods.”? Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods. It’s a position on the evidence for gds. You don’t know what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/580 "2010-09-07T05:28:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> We begin by seeing evidneec for design. > > Please give a single example of this evidence. So far you’ve offered nothing. We look for a source of that design. We consider the competing claims of a purely naturalistic explanation vs. that of an intelligent agent. The intelligent agent is more plausible. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> The scientific community was indeed fooled by them. > > No, the scientific community exposed them. Yopu are misinformed. You also have a completely erroneous impression that these hoaxes somehow invalidate the mountains of evidence proving evolution and common descent beyond any reasonable refutation. To deny evolution shows either ignorance of the facts or dishonesty. 1\> The scientific community was fooled for DECADES in some cases. 2\> Of course scientists expose most of these frauds…who else is studying the material? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=30)