More examples of how unobservable, untestable and unverifiable beliefs are passed off as science
gabriel
More examples of how beliefs that are not observable, not
testable and not verifiable are dishonestly passed off as
science. They simply pick whatever element they find in cells as
evidence this is what lead to creation of life from lifelessness
since they believe it did - since zinc is in cells, and since
they have a belief that now revolves around zinc, this circular
reasoning is now passed off as science. Used to be belief in
crystals. Now it's zinc. What next?
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/12/news-to-note-09122009#three
It's a zinc world after all?
When the Miller-Urey experiment was performed in 1953, the two
scientists generated amino acids in an environment they believed
was much like the early earth (a "reducing" atmosphere of
methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and water vapor). However, the
problem is that the conditions they used are no longer considered
to be accurate for when life supposedly arose on earth.
Nowadays, the accepted idea is that the early earth had a
"neutral" atmosphere of carbon dioxide. Performing the
Miller-Urey experiment with this type of atmosphere fails to
generate any amino acids. This is a problem for naturalists, and
it is further compounded by UV rays that often foil even the most
fantastic abiogenesis suppositions.
But naturalists have never met a problem they couldn't leave God
out of. Since God couldn't have created life (according to them),
a new explanation is needed, which is where the work of Armen
Mulkidjanian of the University of Osnabrueck, Germany, and
Michael Galperin of the U.S. National Institutes of Health comes
in.
According to the two scientists, life originated on structures
similar to deep-sea vents. Although the location is nothing new,
their explanation is:
They argue that under the high pressure of a
carbon-dioxide-dominated atmosphere, zinc sulfide structures
could form on the surface of the first continents, where they had
access to sunlight. Unlike many existing theories that suggest UV
radiation was a hindrance to the development of life,
Mulkidjanian and Galperin think it actually helped.
Why zinc? Zinc sulfide stores the energy of light and this
property means that a "zinc world" hypothesis is considered more
plausible than orgin-of-life theories that cannot account for UV
rays. Beyond this, Mulkidjanian and Galperin point out that some
proteins in modern cells contain high levels of zinc, especially
those considered "evolutionarily old."
Every year, new ways in which life could have originated pop into
existence, get media coverage, and then fade away. Life came from
rocks, mud, crystals, and now zinc. Sometimes scientists piece
theories together to give them new-well-life, as with the
deep-sea vents here, and other times they claim life came from
all of the above.
The bigger question that rarely gets asked is this: why so many
hypotheses? Naturalists would claim that science works by making
hypotheses and testing them. We agree. But abiogenesis does not
lie within the realm of science.
Take the zinc world, for example. The human body contains other
metals besides the one these researchers have focused on, and the
proteins that are supposedly "evolutionarily old" contain much
more than just zinc. But because zinc is important to this claim,
the scientists find zinc and suddenly have "proof." Why not a
"rust world" because blood contains iron? Or a "sodium world"
because the oceans contain salt?
With operational science, we can take a claim and perform
repeatable experiments. Abiogenesis research will never move past
conjecture and hints because there's nothing to test and no
first-hand account to check. Scientists can point to interesting
aspects of our chemical composition or dream up life-nurturing
scenarios, but they cannot perform scientific exploration on
imagination. Taking something that we can see (e.g., zinc in
proteins) and affixing "evolutionarily old" to the front of it
only diverts attention from the fact that spontaneous generation
goes against the laws of nature-both in the present and however
many billions of years these scientists care to throw at the
problem.
If there is one solid fact tying all these various hypotheses
about life springing up from non-life together, it is that it
must have happened. The only alternative is a Creator-and many
scientists would much rather be accountable to zinc than the God
they so desperately want to keep out of the equation.
==================================================
The new hypothesis suggests that life on Earth originated at
photosynthetically-active porous structures made of zinc sulfide
similar to deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Credit: The Institute for
Exploration, the University of Rhode Island (URI) Graduate School
of Oceanography (GSO), and the URI Institute for Archaeological
Oceanography.
The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted by chemists Stanley Miller
and Harold Urey in 1953, is the classic experiment on the origin
of life. It established that the early Earth atmosphere, as they
pictured it, was capable of producing amino acids, the building
blocks of life, from inorganic substances.
Now, more than 55 years later, two scientists are proposing a
hypothesis that could add a new dimension to the debate on how
life on Earth developed.
Armen Mulkidjanian of the University of Osnabrueck, Germany and
Michael Galperin of the U.S. National Institutes of Health
present their hypothesis and evidence in two papers published and
open for review in the web site Biology Direct.
The scientists suggest that life on Earth originated at
photosynthetically-active porous structures, similar to deep-sea
hydrothermal vents, made of zinc sulfide (more commonly known as
phosphor). They argue that under the high pressure of a
carbon-dioxide-dominated atmosphere, zinc sulfide structures
could form on the surface of the first continents, where they had
access to sunlight. Unlike many existing theories that suggest UV
radiation was a hindrance to the development of life,
Mulkidjanian and Galperin think it actually helped.
"The problem of the origin of life is such that you have to
answer a set of different questions to explain how life has
originated," says lead author Mulkidjanian. "We just provide
answers to the problem of energetics of the origin of life."
Altering the Early Atmosphere
According to Mulkidjanian, the debate about whether life could
arise from chemical reactions began to change when scientists
started to question the atmospheric conditions used by Miller and
Urey. In their famous experiment, Miller and Urey replicated the
early Earth atmosphere with a mixture of methane, hydrogen,
ammonia and water vapor. This mixture, along with some "sparks"
which simulated lightning, led to the formation of amino acids.
With this setup, Miller and Urey assumed that the early Earth had
a reducing atmosphere, which meant it had large amounts of
hydrogen and almost no oxygen.
However, many scientists have now abandoned the notion of a
reducing early Earth atmosphere. Instead, they believe Earth had
a neutral atmosphere, composed primarily of carbon dioxide, with
smaller amounts of nitrogen and hydrogen, similar to the modern
atmospheres of Mars and Venus. Researchers who have repeated the
Miller-Urey experiment under the new atmospheric assumptions,
including Miller, have shown that this new mixture does not
produce amino acids.
"After it became clear that the origin of the atmosphere was made
of carbon dioxide," says Mulkidjanian, "there was no physically
or chemically plausible hypothesis of the origin of life."
Living organisms can exist only if there is some form of energy
flow-solar radiation or chemical reactions, for example.
"If you have an atmosphere of carbon dioxide, you need, in
addition, a source of electrons to reduce carbon dioxide if you
want to make complex compounds," Mulkidjanian explains.
From A-biotic to Zinc
Mulkidjanian's "Zn world" hypothesis presents a different version
of the prebiotic Earth atmosphere-one in which zinc sulfide plays
a major role in the development of life. In nature, zinc sulfide
particles precipitate only at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Its
unique ability to store the energy of light has made it popular
in many modern-day devices, from various types of television
displays to glow-in-the-dark items (and zinc oxide is used in
sunscreen).
Its ability to store light makes zinc sulfide an important factor
in the discussion on life's origin. Mulkidjanian explains that,
once illuminated by UV light, zinc sulfide can efficiently reduce
carbon dioxide, just as plants do.
To test the hypothesis, Mulkidjanian and Galperin analyzed the
metal content of modern cells and found "surprisingly high levels
of zinc," particularly in the complexes of proteins with DNA and
RNA molecules.
"We have found that proteins that are considered 'evolutionarily
old' and particularly those related to handling of RNA
specifically contain large amounts of zinc," Mulkidjanian says.
The scientists say the result is evidence that the first life
forms evolved in a zinc-rich environment. But as the authors
indicate in their paper, acceptance of a new hypothesis for the
origin of life will likely require more work, particularly to
further describe the nature of life and the chemical reactions in
these zinc-rich communities.
"We cannot explain fully the properties of modern organisms
unless we understand how life has originated," says Mulkidjanian.
For astrobiologists, this new hypothesis presents a considerable
shift in the debate on the origin of life.
"If this hypothesis is adopted in the origins of life community,
it would represent a real conceptual shift, and so it would be
significant," says NASA astrobiologist Max Bernstein. "Whether it
will be adopted or not eventually I cannot say, but I expect that
many will want to see experimental evidence of the viability of
reactions consistent with the hypothesized scheme under prebiotic
conditions."
Source: Astrobio.net, by Anuradha K. Herath
Bob LeChevalier
>But naturalists have never met a problem they couldn't leave God
>out of.
Of course. That is because "God" is not an explanation. It is a
hand-waving.
>Since God couldn't have created life (according to them),
Not "according to them". Just not a useful explanation.
>The bigger question that rarely gets asked is this: why so many
>hypotheses?
Because that is what science is about.
>Naturalists would claim that science works by making
>hypotheses and testing them. We agree.
Good for you.
>But abiogenesis does not lie within the realm of science.
Wrong.
>Take the zinc world, for example. The human body contains other
>metals besides the one these researchers have focused on, and the
>proteins that are supposedly "evolutionarily old" contain much
>more than just zinc.
Yep. But do they provide a testable explanation? The reason why zinc
gains attention is *because* it provides an explanation, and *because*
that explanation can lead to testable predictions.
You provided an example in your quote. The original Miller-Urey
experiments provided an explanation as well as predictions. It
required that the environment be one in which those reactions could
take place. When there accumulated evidence of an atmosphere that
would prevent such reactions, the hypothesis was rejected. Now they
have a new one. It will be tested by seeking evidence that supports
zinc sulfide in the indicated conditions.
>But because zinc is important to this claim,
>the scientists find zinc and suddenly have "proof."
They don't have "proof". If they had "proof" it would no longer be a
hypothesis.
>Why not a "rust world" because blood contains iron?
Because it doesn't provide an explanation (and the earliest lifeforms
did not have blood that contained iron).
>Or a "sodium world" because the oceans contain salt?
Sodium does not provide a explanatory mechanism. Zinc does.
>Abiogenesis research will never move past
>conjecture and hints because there's nothing to test
Of course there is.
>and no first-hand account to check.
"First-hand" accounts are not needed.
>Scientists can point to interesting
>aspects of our chemical composition or dream up life-nurturing
>scenarios, but they cannot perform scientific exploration on
>imagination.
Wrong.
>Taking something that we can see (e.g., zinc in proteins)
We cannot see zinc in proteins.
>and affixing "evolutionarily old" to the front of it
>only diverts attention from the fact that spontaneous generation
>goes against the laws of nature
We don't know all the laws of nature.
>If there is one solid fact tying all these various hypotheses
>about life springing up from non-life together, it is that it
>must have happened.
That "fact" is no more "first-hand observable" than the "zinc world"
is. It is deduced from what evidence we have.
>The only alternative is a Creator
That is not an alternative, because it makes no useful or verifiable
predictions.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Juan M
for phenomena that they couldn't explain with their limited knowledge.
Thus, demons are imagined, the rainbow becomes a religious symbol, the
thunderbird, astrology, fiery chariots, whales, earthquakes, the
earth-centered universe, and a nearly endless collection of myths to attempt
to explain the natural world.
I'm still trying to find the recipe for changing water in a nice pinot noir.
When established religions' dogmas were threatened by new scientific
discoveries, they either persecuted the scientists (Wasn't the Inquisition
fun!) or fell back on "faith" so as not to have to adjust their world views.
BTW, isn't it nice that Galileo was finally let off the hook in the 20th
Century? Even the Pope now acknowledges evolution.
Rowley
> Since times prehistoric, mankind has had to create supernatural explanations
> for phenomena that they couldn't explain with their limited knowledge.
I don't think we will ever stop doing that....
> Thus, demons are imagined, the rainbow becomes a religious symbol, the
> thunderbird, astrology, fiery chariots, whales, earthquakes, the
> earth-centered universe, and a nearly endless collection of myths to attempt
> to explain the natural world.
> I'm still trying to find the recipe for changing water in a nice pinot noir.
I think you first have to pour the water on to the roots of some
grapevines.....
> When established religions' dogmas were threatened by new scientific
> discoveries, they either persecuted the scientists (Wasn't the Inquisition
> fun!)
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical
devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons....
Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come
in again." ~Monty Python
> or fell back on "faith" so as not to have to adjust their world views.
> BTW, isn't it nice that Galileo was finally let off the hook in the 20th
> Century? Even the Pope now acknowledges evolution.
>
You left out that at times "religion" has also been manipulated for
political purposes...
And translations and interpretations of religious writings usually tend
to be pretty subjective..
Martin
Juan M
"Rowley" <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h92lh...@news7.newsguy.com...
> Juan M wrote:
>> Since times prehistoric, mankind has had to create supernatural
>> explanations for phenomena that they couldn't explain with their limited
>> knowledge.
>
> I don't think we will ever stop doing that....
>
>> Thus, demons are imagined, the rainbow becomes a religious symbol, the
>> thunderbird, astrology, fiery chariots, whales, earthquakes, the
>> earth-centered universe, and a nearly endless collection of myths to
>> attempt to explain the natural world.
>> I'm still trying to find the recipe for changing water in a nice pinot
>> noir.
>
> I think you first have to pour the water on to the roots of some
> grapevines.....
I like that one. :<)
>
>> When established religions' dogmas were threatened by new scientific
>> discoveries, they either persecuted the scientists (Wasn't the
>> Inquisition fun!)
>
> "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
> surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
> fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
> fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion
> to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our
> weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
> ~Monty Python
>
>> or fell back on "faith" so as not to have to adjust their world views.
>> BTW, isn't it nice that Galileo was finally let off the hook in the 20th
>> Century? Even the Pope now acknowledges evolution.
>
> You left out that at times "religion" has also been manipulated for
> political purposes...
>
> And translations and interpretations of religious writings usually tend to
> be pretty subjective..
>
> Martin
At least Dali Lama isn't screwing with our political system.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >But naturalists have never met a problem they couldn't leave God
: >out of.
:
: Of course. That is because "God" is not an explanation. It is a
: hand-waving.
It's an explanation if it's factually true. And it's logically
undeniable we were created, even if people want to believe it was
an advanced alien race that did so in the distant past.
But meanwhile you want to hold onto the explanation "big bang did
it," which using your logic is no more of an explanation either.
:
: >Since God couldn't have created life (according to them),
:
: Not "according to them". Just not a useful explanation.
Not scientifically useful at all to believe populations of tiny
fish evolved, over generations, into hippos, giraffes, eagles and
human beings - the only use it has is to attempt to ease the
conscience of wicked sinners who are determined to kid themselves
into thinking they're not accountable to their Creator, God. But
when they face God, no amount of pleading "how was I supposed to
know I was supposed to repent? I believed we evolved from
populations of tiny fish, just like giraffes, eagles and hippos
did!" is going to save them.
Viruses adapting but remaining viruses: useful. Bacteria adapting
but remaining bacteria: useful. Populations of tiny fish evolving
over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings:
pointless science fiction.
:
: >The bigger question that rarely gets asked is this: why so many
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:47:24 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >But naturalists have never met a problem they couldn't leave God
>: >out of.
>:
>: Of course. That is because "God" is not an explanation. It is a
>: hand-waving.
>
>It's an explanation if it's factually true.
No, the mere assertion of God is not an explanation even if it were
true. Do you know what any words mean?
> And it's logically
>undeniable we were created, even if people want to believe it was
>an advanced alien race that did so in the distant past.
Oh, hogwash. Logic and undeniable are also words that you clearly do not
know how to use.
>But meanwhile you want to hold onto the explanation "big bang did
>it," which using your logic is no more of an explanation either.
The two are not comparable, but that doesn't matter to you when you make
your claims, does it. All you do is make up stuff and blame god for your
falsehoods.
>: >Since God couldn't have created life (according to them),
>:
>: Not "according to them". Just not a useful explanation.
>
>Not scientifically useful at all to believe populations of tiny
>fish evolved, over generations, into hippos, giraffes, eagles and
>human beings - the only use it has is to attempt to ease the
>conscience of wicked sinners who are determined to kid themselves
>into thinking they're not accountable to their Creator, God. But
>when they face God, no amount of pleading "how was I supposed to
>know I was supposed to repent? I believed we evolved from
>populations of tiny fish, just like giraffes, eagles and hippos
>did!" is going to save them.
You aren't even trying. If I were Christian, I would be embarrassed to
have fakes like you claiming to be a Christian, but then, fakes like you
are why I realized that Christianity is nonsense. Maybe your lies will
free others from the shackles of fraudulent religious claims.
>Viruses adapting but remaining viruses: useful. Bacteria adapting
>but remaining bacteria: useful. Populations of tiny fish evolving
>over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings:
>pointless science fiction.
Which do you think has more variation: bacteria or mammals?
...
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:47:24 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >But naturalists have never met a problem they couldn't leave God
>: >out of.
>:
>: Of course. That is because "God" is not an explanation. It is a
>: hand-waving.
>
>It's an explanation if it's factually true.
No, it isn't. Any more than "because I said so" is an explanation,
even though it may be factually true that I said so.
>And it's logically undeniable we were created,
It is quite deniable, since there is no evidence of any creator.
>But meanwhile you want to hold onto the explanation "big bang did
>it," which using your logic is no more of an explanation either.
Of course not. But then no one ever said that the big bang created
human beings.
>: >Since God couldn't have created life (according to them),
>:
>: Not "according to them". Just not a useful explanation.
>
>Not scientifically useful at all to believe populations of tiny
>fish evolved, over generations, into hippos, giraffes, eagles and
>human beings
Of course it isn't. That is why scientists don't believe any such
thing.
>the only use it has is to attempt to ease the
>conscience of wicked sinners
There is no scientific evidence of any "conscience", or of "sin".
Those are concepts peculiar to your religion, and not to reality.
>Viruses adapting but remaining viruses: useful. Bacteria adapting
>but remaining bacteria: useful. Populations of tiny fish evolving
>over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings:
>pointless science fiction.
You have no concept of what is useful.
You are useless.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:08:24 -0400, gabriel
><gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>You aren't even trying. If I were Christian, I would be embarrassed to
>have fakes like you claiming to be a Christian,
I am a Christian, and I *am* embarrassed by idiots like gabriel.
AusShane
>
> read more »
One of the strengths of science is the ability to be able to make
credible predictions from supporting evidence. The existence of the
positron was reliably predicted long before it was observed. If the
evidence points to an inescapable conclusion, well that what the
conclusion is - inescapable unless something else just as credible
comes along to challenge it.
I really don't know what you are trying to achieve? Are you going to
individually challenge every piece of published evidence supporting
evolution over the last 150 years? Do you think you could do a better
job than the scientists in the field that have spent their whole
careers trying to do that since the theory was first proposed. If a
credible alternative to evolution had emerged during that time it
would have earned the worker a nobel prize. And guess what - the
scientific community would accept it. It would be challenged and
tested to be sure, but in the end if it proved viable we would all
just get on and work with it. Because we don't need undying belief in
a concept to make it true, nor indeed to make it false, we just need a
body of credible evidence. And your weak understanding of the subject
poor logic and inability to understand what constitutes evidence isn't
going to make a dent in the huge volume of supporting factual proof.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
: >On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:08:24 -0400, gabriel
: ><gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
:
: >You aren't even trying. If I were Christian, I would be embarrassed to
: >have fakes like you claiming to be a Christian,
:
: I am a Christian, and I *am* embarrassed by idiots like gabriel.
You call yourself a Christian, and you call others who might be
Christians idiots? You are contradicting yourself - not only are
you trying to claim the Bible is not God's Word (since the Bible
clearly contradicts the claim God made man by evolving over
generations from populations of fish and eventually ape-like
creatures), and disagree with those who say it is God's Word, to
call them "idiots" is to make it seem more likely that you're not
really a Christian. But in the end, only God can make that
determination - we can only guess by the fruits of nasty personal
attacks by those claiming to be a Christian.
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth
unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false
prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do
men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every
good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,
neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree
that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every
one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and
in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess
unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.
Matthew 7:14-23 KJVR
"Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
Psalms 34:13 KJVR
"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his
tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
James 1:26 KJVR
:
: lojbab
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
Using that definition that a prediction is suddenly science, then
creation would then be science because it makes a great many
predictions. The Cambrian Explosion is predicted perfectly by God
creating the animals just like He said He did, and the great
flood burying them in the same layer, homology, DNA similarity,
and more.
: The existence of the
: positron was reliably predicted long before it was observed. If the
: evidence points to an inescapable conclusion, well that what the
: conclusion is - inescapable unless something else just as credible
: comes along to challenge it.
It's credible and logically undeniable that a building is proof
of a builder, even if we never saw a building get built and never
met a builder. It's just as credible that the amazingly more
complex creation and life itself is that much proof of a designer
/ creator - even if a person wants to believe such a being was an
alien, and not God.
: I really don't know what you are trying to achieve? Are you going to
: individually challenge every piece of published evidence supporting
: evolution over the last 150 years? Do you think you could do a better
: job than the scientists in the field that have spent their whole
: careers trying to do that since the theory was first proposed.
Their theory is based on the world view that there is no God.
Science is impotent to make any claims about origins - even
Creation by God cannot qualify as *science* as it, too, is not
observable, not testable, and not verifiable. We can only seek to
understand His creation scientifically, but not prove
*scientifically* that He did it. The fish to man version of
evolution is also not observable (obviously) and not testable and
not verifiable. One can only believe what they want us to believe
when looking at fossils and dead bones.
In fact, science can repeatedly show observations, tests AND
verifications that populations of [dogs] only ever, over
generations, produce more [dogs] no matter how much they adapt,
and never animals that are clearly no longer [dogs] at all. And
you can replace [dogs] with any animal known to man in that
sentence. So actual science repeatedly disproves the fish to man
version of evolution: that populations of tiny fish evolved,
eventually over generations, into hippos, giraffes, eagles and
human beings (among everything else).
: If a
: credible alternative to evolution had emerged during that time it
: would have earned the worker a nobel prize. And guess what - the
: scientific community would accept it.
Not if that truth happens to center around God, they most
certainly would not accept it. Irrelevant, as what they do accept
is not science anyway: that populations of fish over generations
evolved into eagles and humans.
: It would be challenged and
: tested to be sure, but in the end if it proved viable we would all
: just get on and work with it. Because we don't need undying belief in
: a concept to make it true, nor indeed to make it false, we just need a
: body of credible evidence. And your weak understanding of the subject
: poor logic and inability to understand what constitutes evidence isn't
: going to make a dent in the huge volume of supporting factual proof.
The problem is not the evidence, but for people's refusal to
consider what the evidence more logically points to. Homology,
DNA similarity, meaningfully encoded information and the ability
for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, consciousness,
life, irreducible complexity, all point to a common designer than
that populations of tiny fish evolved over generations into every
other animal known to man. But no beliefs about origins can
qualify as science by its limiting definition. However, that we
were created is logically undeniable - the only faith part is was
it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Or was it aliens (which
even Dawkins alluded to at one point)?
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:00:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>: >On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:08:24 -0400, gabriel
>: ><gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>:
>: >You aren't even trying. If I were Christian, I would be embarrassed to
>: >have fakes like you claiming to be a Christian,
>:
>: I am a Christian, and I *am* embarrassed by idiots like gabriel.
>
>You call yourself a Christian, and you call others who might be
>Christians idiots?
You are a liar who mocks God with your foolish doctrines. Why would
anyone think you are a Christian?
Well, you have demonstrated that your religion is vain. You have chosen
to lie rather than learn in humility. Your hubris has betrayed you.
Juan M
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:encfc5lu4ni557gcv...@4ax.com...
Using Biblical quotes to validate an argument has no more rhetorical value
than quoting the Sayings of Buddha, the Vedas or the Koran.
All of these texts are storehouses of wisdom, but the purpose of each is to
validate its own religion.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:00:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>: >On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:08:24 -0400, gabriel
>: ><gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>:
>: >You aren't even trying. If I were Christian, I would be embarrassed to
>: >have fakes like you claiming to be a Christian,
>:
>: I am a Christian, and I *am* embarrassed by idiots like gabriel.
>
>You call yourself a Christian,
Yes.
>and you call others who might be Christians idiots?
If they are idiots, then I call them what they are.
>You are contradicting yourself
No.
>not only are you trying to claim the Bible is not God's Word
The Bible is man's word ABOUT God.
>(since the Bible clearly contradicts the claim God made man by evolving over
>generations from populations of fish and eventually ape-like
>creatures),
The Bible does no such thing.
>and disagree with those who say it is God's Word, to call them "idiots"
Not hardly. Only those who claim that it justifies denying reality.
>is to make it seem more likely that you're not
>really a Christian.
You apparently have a skewed version of what a Christian is.
Though that is not surprising.
From today's Parade magazine
http://www.parade.com/news/2009/10/04-how-spiritual-are-we.html
only 69% of Americans even believe in God and 59% said all religions
are equally valid.
Yet more than 80% claim to be Christian. Apparently to speakers of
American English, the word "Christian" doesn't mean anything like what
you think it does.
Hint: Christianity was founded, and became the dominant religion in
the Roman Empire over a period of 250 years when there was no Bible.
Christianity survived and thrived for over a millennium at a time when
only a tiny portion of believers could read, and the Scriptures
existed and were read aloud only in Latin, which even fewer of the
believers could understand. While sometimes useful, the Bible is
utterly unnecessary for Christianity.
And it is useless for science.
>But in the end, only God can make that determination
Of course.
>- we can only guess by the fruits of nasty personal
>attacks by those claiming to be a Christian.
Don't want to be attacked? Then stop posting idiotic off-topic crap.
>"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth
>unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false
>prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
>they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Your fruits are all rotten.
>"Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
>Psalms 34:13 KJVR
Why don't you try it sometime.
>"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his
>tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
>James 1:26 KJVR
More description of your behavior.
You damn yourself with the words you quote.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:00:47 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
><qua...@live.com> wrote:
>: > read more �
>: One of the strengths of science is the ability to be able to make
>: credible predictions from supporting evidence.
>
>Using that definition that a prediction is suddenly science,
False paraphrase. You left out the "credible" and the "supporting
evidence". And it wasn't a definition of science, but a strength of
science.
Do you really think Jesus approves of your lies?
>: The existence of the
>: positron was reliably predicted long before it was observed. If the
>: evidence points to an inescapable conclusion, well that what the
>: conclusion is - inescapable unless something else just as credible
>: comes along to challenge it.
>
>It's credible and logically undeniable that a building is proof
>of a builder,
It is not proof of anything, except the ability for some human to
attach the word "building" to some referent.
>: I really don't know what you are trying to achieve? Are you going to
>: individually challenge every piece of published evidence supporting
>: evolution over the last 150 years? Do you think you could do a better
>: job than the scientists in the field that have spent their whole
>: careers trying to do that since the theory was first proposed.
>
>Their theory is based on the world view that there is no God.
No.
>In fact, science can repeatedly show observations, tests AND
>verifications that populations of [dogs] only ever, over
>generations, produce more [dogs] no matter how much they adapt,
>and never animals that are clearly no longer [dogs] at all. And
>you can replace [dogs] with any animal known to man in that
>sentence.
See previous posts indicating that you can replace [dogs] with
something else in EVERY example in the three speciation cites that
have repeatedly been offered to you.
>: If a
>: credible alternative to evolution had emerged during that time it
>: would have earned the worker a nobel prize. And guess what - the
>: scientific community would accept it.
>
>Not if that truth happens to center around God, they most
>certainly would not accept it.
When you produce evidence that there is a God, then they might accept
it. But of course you cannot.
>But no beliefs about origins can
>qualify as science by its limiting definition.
False, because you do not understand the definition.
>However, that we were created is logically undeniable
Of course it is deniable. And there is no logical support for such a
claim except by assuming the conclusion, which is simply silly.
Pastor Dave
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Evidence? Hmmm... see below.
>: The existence of the
>: positron was reliably predicted long before it was observed. If the
>: evidence points to an inescapable conclusion, well that what the
>: conclusion is - inescapable unless something else just as credible
>: comes along to challenge it.
>
>It's credible and logically undeniable that a building is proof
>of a builder, even if we never saw a building get built and never
>met a builder. It's just as credible that the amazingly more
>complex creation and life itself is that much proof of a designer
>/ creator - even if a person wants to believe such a being was an
>alien, and not God.
>
>: I really don't know what you are trying to achieve? Are you going to
>: individually challenge every piece of published evidence supporting
>: evolution over the last 150 years? Do you think you could do a better
>: job than the scientists in the field that have spent their whole
>: careers trying to do that since the theory was first proposed.
>
>Their theory is based on the world view that there is no God.
Note that he says "every piece of published evidence".
What evidence?!? Claiming something "could have"
is not "evidence"! Making up new scenarios every
time something is disproved, is only evidence that
they had no evidence for their made up scenario!
They claim that Christians believe in made up fantasies
and yet, all they offer is made up fantasies!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
1 Corinthians 1:7-8
7) So that *YE* come behind in no gift;
WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST:
8) Who shall also confirm YOU unto the end,
that *YE* may be blameless in the day of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
gabriel
<juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:
So we should throw out all historical books as well since they
also have no value using that logic?
Of course not - and there are thousands of manuscript backing up
what's in the bible compared to any other book that even comes
close in age (which is astonishing considering many rulers went
out of their way to try to completely destroy all copies of it).
And present-day evidence backs up the historical record in the
Bible, even as recent as the past week: realizing we have
discovered the gold coins of Joseph from Egypt in the book of
Genesis.
Psalms 46:10 KJVR Be still, and know that I am God: I will be
exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
People who care about science and learning routinely throw out claims
that have proven false.
>Of course not - and there are thousands of manuscript backing up
>what's in the bible compared to any other book that even comes
>close in age (which is astonishing considering many rulers went
>out of their way to try to completely destroy all copies of it).
What nonsense you claim.
>And present-day evidence backs up the historical record in the
>Bible, even as recent as the past week: realizing we have
>discovered the gold coins of Joseph from Egypt in the book of
>Genesis.
No, we have not.
>Psalms 46:10 KJVR Be still, and know that I am God: I will be
>exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
You mock God with your commitment to lies.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:37:59 -0700, "Juan M"
><juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:
>: than quoting the Sayings of Buddha, the Vedas or the Koran.
>: All of these texts are storehouses of wisdom, but the purpose of each is to
>: validate its own religion.
>:
>
>So we should throw out all historical books as well since they
>also have no value using that logic?
They have no value as proving anything other than what some author
said a long time ago.
Given what they are, they can serve as EVIDENCE of what was known or
thought about in a given culture in a given time period.
The rules of inference in historical or literary analysis are not the
same as those used in science, and reasoning is not held to the same
standards.
>Of course not - and there are thousands of manuscript backing up
>what's in the bible
Nope.
>And present-day evidence backs up the historical record in the
>Bible, even as recent as the past week: realizing we have
>discovered the gold coins of Joseph from Egypt in the book of
>Genesis.
The article you cited was far more tentative than you, and even so
relies on the quite unproven assertion that a cow on a coin is a
reference to a Biblical quote, that a name on a coin is that of the
Biblical patriarch, etc.
AusShane
>of a builder, even if we never saw a building get built and never
>met a builder. It's just as credible that the amazingly more
>complex creation and life itself is that much proof of a designer
>/ creator - even if a person wants to believe such a being was an
>alien, and not God.
You and Gabriel rant on about this point constantly and it still makes
no sense. The molecules of life are NOT a building they happily self
replicate without the requirements of intervention - when was the last
time you saw a building or a watch giving birth or reproducing by
binary splitting?. Trying to apply human social and psychological
prejudices to the natural world have never worked. Nature works quite
happily without us. I could try convincing you that hawaii was a
building - it has structure it has form it provides shelter and people
live in it and on it. Ergo a building that just happened to have torn
up out of the sea floor by natural forces. I didn't see it get there,
never saw it built but it seems perfectly formed as an environment for
human habitation as well designed as a condo. But I would never argue
that someone started at the bottom of the sea floor with a trowel some
cement and a few (well quite a few) rocks.
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
: It's credible and logically undeniable that a building is proof
: >of a builder, even if we never saw a building get built and never
: >met a builder. It's just as credible that the amazingly more
: >complex creation and life itself is that much proof of a designer
: >/ creator - even if a person wants to believe such a being was an
: >alien, and not God.
:
: You and Gabriel rant on about this point constantly and it still makes
: no sense. The molecules of life are NOT a building they happily self
: replicate without the requirements of intervention -
Yes, more astonishing than any mere building, which only proves
the point that they are proof of a builder/designer, even if you
refuse to believe that builder/designer was God.
: when was the last
: time you saw a building or a watch giving birth or reproducing by
: binary splitting?
If a building was so complex in its design that it could pull off
such amazing feats like cells do, it would be even *more* proof
of a builder, as opposed to now being no proof of a builder and
instead that such a more advanced building "just happened" if
given enough time, which is the anti-logic evolutionists want to
employ.
:. Trying to apply human social and psychological
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:18:09 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
><qua...@live.com> wrote:
>
>: It's credible and logically undeniable that a building is proof
>: >of a builder, even if we never saw a building get built and never
>: >met a builder. It's just as credible that the amazingly more
>: >complex creation and life itself is that much proof of a designer
>: >/ creator - even if a person wants to believe such a being was an
>: >alien, and not God.
>:
>: You and Gabriel rant on about this point constantly and it still makes
>: no sense. The molecules of life are NOT a building they happily self
>: replicate without the requirements of intervention -
>
>Yes, more astonishing than any mere building, which only proves
>the point that they are proof of a builder/designer, even if you
>refuse to believe that builder/designer was God.
>
>
>: when was the last
>: time you saw a building or a watch giving birth or reproducing by
>: binary splitting?
>
>If a building was so complex in its design that it could pull off
>such amazing feats like cells do, it would be even *more* proof
>of a builder, as opposed to now being no proof of a builder and
>instead that such a more advanced building "just happened" if
>given enough time, which is the anti-logic evolutionists want to
>employ.
It appears to me that you never took a chemistry class, let alone a
biochemistry class. If you had, you would know that you are talking
total nonsense.
Please continue to embarrass yourself while spewing your ignorance at
us. Please continue to mock God with your foolishness.