Why do creationists refuse to answer this question? Is it because they have no answer?
maff91
wrote:
[...]
>Falsafiability is the god of science, not biology. See Karl Popper for a complete
Try http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/popper.html
>statement on the difference between them.
>For a religious explanation, I include the following:
>"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I stop
>struck with admiration at this thought. What shall I first say? Where shall I
>begin my story? Shall I show forth the vanity of the Gentiles? Shall I exalt
>the truth of our faith? The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to
>explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm anti unshaken,
>each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are
>sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant
>to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause
>presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in
>sad consequences. Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the
>origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that
>atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union,
>the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births
>and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the
>strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers
>who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little
>consistency! It is because they knew not how to say "In the beginning God
>created the heaven and the earth." Deceived by their inherent atheism it
>appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all
>was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the
>creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the
>name of God; "In the beginning God created." What a glorious order! He first
>establishes a beginning, so that it might not be supposed that the world never
>had a beginning. Then be adds "Created" to show that which was made was a very
>small part of the power of the Creator. In the same way that the potter, after
>having made with equal pains a great number of vessels, has not exhausted
>either his art or his talent; thus the Maker of the Universe, whose creative
>power, far from being bounded by one world, could extend to the infinite,
>needed only the impulse of His will to bring the immensities of the visible
>world into being. If then the world has a beginning, and if it has been
>created, enquire who gave it this beginning, and who was the Creator: or
>rather, in the fear that human reasonings may make you wander from the truth,
>Moses has anticipated enquiry by engraving in our hearts, as a seal and a
>safeguard, the awful name of God: "In the beginning God created"--It is He,
>beneficent Nature, Goodness without measure, a worthy object of love for all
>beings endowed with reason, the beauty the most to be desired, the origin of
>all that exists, the source of life, intellectual light, impenetrable wisdom,
>it is He who "in the beginning created heaven and earth."
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
>
>Basil the Great
>
>Hexaemeron: HOMILY 1 (excerpt)
--
L.P.#0000000001
David P. Johnson
<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> In article <310819992042589580%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The argument seems to go that since genetic mutations and natrual
> > selection has been observed to produce changes in biological systems,
> > that it _must_ be the only mechanism by which life developed.
> >
> Except that we have the twin nested heierarchies. This makes any
> explanation other than common descent extremely unlikely to say the
> least.
Even high improbability says nothing about whether or not it is
factual. The creation of life itself by evolutionary processes is
extremely improbable.
> > If A causes B
> > Then only A can cause B
In fact, the argument is even more tenuous than that. It goes more like
this:
A has been observed to cause B
Although it hasn't been observed, it is assumed that B can lead to C
Therefore, only A can cause C
> > The standard scientific reply is "Then what other mechanism (C?) would
> > you propose?"
> >
> > But it is a fallacy to assert that just because C cannot be identified
> > immediately it must not exist.
> >
> Science goes with the best theory until a better one comes along. What's
> wroing with that?
There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything _but_
random natural processes could be responsible for all life that exists,
and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous. This is where
scietists overstep their bounds.
> > But, I know that there is a god, as well as I know anything.
> >
> Same here. But this idea is *not* inconsistent with evolution.
Not with evolution per se, but it _is_ inconsistent with how evolution
is broadly perceived by the scientific community, _and_ with how that
perception is disseminated to the public.
Most evolutionists do not stop with saying that evolution happens, or
even with saying that everything evolved from a common ancestor. They
go on to assert that the _only_ processes governing evolution are
unguided natural forces and random chance. This exceeds scientific
observation, and moves into the realm of metaphysics. It is
unverifiable, and therefore not science.
It is metaphysics because it directly implies that life was an
accident, and has no greater meaning. Herein lies the rub.
Understandably, to theists this is anathema, as they accept that life
indeed has purpose.
So the statement that evolution is not inconsistent with theism is
misleading. It depends on what you mean by "evolution." Do you mean (a)
life came about by meaningless chance, or do you simply mean (b)
descent with modification. Under definition (b) a theistic evolutionist
is saying "maybe God used evolution to shape the biology of this
planet." Most proponents of evolution hold to definition (a), in which
case a theistic evolutionist is saying "I am an idiot." It is
definition (a) that makes it into textbooks and other general
consumption media.
> > A has never been scientifically observed
> > Therefore A does not exist.
> >
> > Again the failing grade in logic.
> >
> Actually, the above is perfectly logical.
It may or may not be a safe bet, but it is not valid logic.
> Science deals in falsifiable
> terms. "God doesn't exist" is falsifiable; to falsify it, all you have
> to do is produce God.
Science _should_ deal in falsibiable terms. The biological sciences
overstep this critical boundary when they make assertions that no
intelligence has shaped evolution.
> But "God certainly exists" is not a concept that
> can be falsified, so it cannot be scientific.
I know. I never claimed this.
> I would also submit that one can have the belief that scientifically we
> cannot say that God exists and yet still believe in God.
I thought had made that point.
--
David
->(Signature continues here)
Shane D. Killian
"David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> In article <7qkl5v$itv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
> <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> Even high improbability says nothing about whether or not it is
> factual. The creation of life itself by evolutionary processes is
> extremely improbable.
>
has *NOTHING* at all to do with "the creation of life itself"?
> > Science goes with the best theory until a better one comes along.
> > What's wroing with that?
>
> There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
> whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything
> _but_ random natural processes could be responsible for all life that
> exists, and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous.
>
That's what all the evidence says, so until/unless new evidence to the
contrary shows up, then it is perfectly reasonable and scientific to
draw that conclusion.
> > Same here. But this idea is *not* inconsistent with evolution.
>
> Not with evolution per se, but it _is_ inconsistent with how evolution
> is broadly perceived by the scientific community,
>
Uh, no. In the scientific community, exactly the opposite is the case.
It's the creationists who have gone out trying to persuade people that
this is the case.
> It is metaphysics because it directly implies that life was an
> accident, and has no greater meaning.
>
It does no such thing. God could have directed evolution, or he could
have set up the rules by which evolution can take place. Science is
completely silent on this.
> So the statement that evolution is not inconsistent with theism is
> misleading. It depends on what you mean by "evolution."
>
The scientific meaning of evolution. Any other meaning I've seen is one
concocted by creationists trying to tear down a strawman.
> > > A has never been scientifically observed
> > > Therefore A does not exist.
> > >
> > > Again the failing grade in logic.
> > >
> > Actually, the above is perfectly logical.
>
> It may or may not be a safe bet, but it is not valid logic.
>
It is perfectly valid logic.
Let's say I claim that an invisible snark is reading over your shoulder.
You can't prove that there is no snarg, but I could conceivably prove it
if I had an Invisible Snark Detector. Or I found some other way of
producing the snark.
My claim would be ridiculous; your claim would be logical. Mine isn't
falsifiable; yours is.
This fallacy of logic is why so many people believe in UFOs, psychic
powers, ghosts, etc.
> > Science deals in falsifiable terms. "God doesn't exist" is
> > falsifiable; to falsify it, all you have to do is produce God.
>
> Science _should_ deal in falsibiable terms.
>
*ALL* science deals in falsifiable terms.
> The biological sciences overstep this critical boundary when they make
> assertions that no intelligence has shaped evolution.
>
Why? That assertion is completely falsifiable! Just produce the
intelligence! The opposite--that an intelligent creator *must* have
formed all life--is *not* falsifiable, and therefore is not scientific.
Get it?
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
wf...@ptd.net
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
>whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything _but_
>random natural processes could be responsible for all life that exists,
>and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous. This is where
>scietists overstep their bounds.
>
uh, where did it ever do this? unfortunately creationists have never
given ANY reason why creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
they have produced no data. they have produced NO mechanism for
creation EVER. let them tell us HOW creation happens, just like
evolution DOES tell us HOW evolution happens.
if they CANT then its not science.
as to 'scientists overstepping their bounds' this is a meaningless
generalization like saying all christians hate jews.
>
>Most evolutionists do not stop with saying that evolution happens, or
>even with saying that everything evolved from a common ancestor. They
>go on to assert that the _only_ processes governing evolution are
>unguided natural forces and random chance. This exceeds scientific
>observation, and moves into the realm of metaphysics. It is
>unverifiable, and therefore not science.
what they say is that evolution studies nature and natural causes.
unless you can find some difference in the methods of evolutionary
biology and physics, you have no argument. NEITHER assumes 'guided'
forces or 'intelligent design' or other undefined concepts.
>
>It is metaphysics because it directly implies that life was an
>accident, and has no greater meaning. Herein lies the rub.
>Understandably, to theists this is anathema, as they accept that life
>indeed has purpose.
ok tell us what meaning nuclear physics assigns to life. if
evolutionary biology ISNT a science because it assumes life is an
accident, then physics which IS a science must assign a meaning to
life.
what is it?
>
>Science _should_ deal in falsibiable terms. The biological sciences
>overstep this critical boundary when they make assertions that no
>intelligence has shaped evolution.
hardly. if you'll tell us how to test an intelligence science would do
it. we cant even define intelligence in humans let alone god.
but dont let that stop you. tell us how to scientifically test for
'intelligent design'.
David P. Johnson
<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> In article <030919991233042724%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> > In article <7qkl5v$itv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
> > <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> >
> > Even high improbability says nothing about whether or not it is
> > factual. The creation of life itself by evolutionary processes is
> > extremely improbable.
> >
> *Sigh*...How many times do creationists need to be told that evolution
> has *NOTHING* at all to do with "the creation of life itself"?
This is an assertion on your part with no factual basis. Although I
have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the vast majority
of evolutionists, and indeed the scientific community at large (like
the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that random variation and
selective processes brought life about in the first place, and shaped
it subsequently. And as such, life has no deeper meaning. No creative
intelligence was involved. Have you read any of Huxley's writings? He
asserts just this over and over again. Theists must take exception to
this.
> > > Science goes with the best theory until a better one comes along.
> > > What's wroing with that?
> >
> > There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
> > whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything
> > _but_ random natural processes could be responsible for all life that
> > exists, and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous.
> >
> That's what all the evidence says, so until/unless new evidence to the
> contrary shows up, then it is perfectly reasonable and scientific to
> draw that conclusion.
You're not getting it. What evidence can you cite that no intelligence
has ever been involved in the creative/evolutionary processes? What
evidence can you cite that only random mutations and natural selective
processes have ever been involved?
> > It is metaphysics because it directly implies that life was an
> > accident, and has no greater meaning.
> >
> It does no such thing. God could have directed evolution, or he could
> have set up the rules by which evolution can take place. Science is
> completely silent on this.
Or it should be. That's the point. It is in fact not. Try the Huxleys,
Steven J. Gould, Kenneth Miller or any other vocal proponent of
evolution. No serious scientist would propose in a scientific journal
that there is even a possibility that God directed evolution. (That
would be a good joke.) Many, many serious scientists take pot shots at
anyone smelling like a theist.
> > So the statement that evolution is not inconsistent with theism is
> > misleading. It depends on what you mean by "evolution."
> >
> The scientific meaning of evolution. Any other meaning I've seen is one
> concocted by creationists trying to tear down a strawman.
Ok. Tell me what the scientific meaning is. Kenneth Miller, author of
_Biology_ states "evolution is random and undirected." Evolutionists
(like yourself?) that state that evolution could have been directed are
in such a vast minority that their view is not even heard
professionally. Where's the strawman?
> > > > A has never been scientifically observed
> > > > Therefore A does not exist.
> > > >
> > > > Again the failing grade in logic.
> > > >
> > > Actually, the above is perfectly logical.
> >
> > It may or may not be a safe bet, but it is not valid logic.
> >
> It is perfectly valid logic.
It is not perfectly valid logic. I can only assume that you have never
formally studied logic. Here is a valid argument:
All green dogs fly.
Henry is a green dog.
Therefore, Henry flies.
This is called a valid syllogism. Give the two premises, the conclusion
_must_ follow.
A leads to B
Therefore, only A leads to B
A has never been observed.
Therefore, A does not exist.
These are two perfect examples of fallacious arguments.
> Let's say I claim that an invisible snark is reading over your shoulder.
> You can't prove that there is no snarg, but I could conceivably prove it
> if I had an Invisible Snark Detector. Or I found some other way of
> producing the snark.
As a scientist, I _must_ admit that there is a possibility that there
is a snarg(k) reading over my shoulder. If I cannot detect or falsify
it, then I must remain silent on the issue. I may be skeptical, but I
cannot deny the possibility.
> > > Science deals in falsifiable terms. "God doesn't exist" is
> > > falsifiable; to falsify it, all you have to do is produce God.
> >
> > Science _should_ deal in falsibiable terms.
> >
> *ALL* science deals in falsifiable terms.
I have shown this to be otherwise. Go back to Miller's statement in a
scientific textbook: "evolution is random and undirected." I can easily
conceive of situations in which this statement is _not_ falsifiable.
There is no way to prove this or to controvert it.
For instance, let us suppose that some little green men planted, in the
genetic code of simple life forms, the potential for all life we now
observe. Let us further suppose that they placed these life forms on
earth a long time ago, and then vanished from our galaxy. Or, let us
suppose that a God exists that directs the development of life, but who
has the desire, and the capability, to remain undetected by scientific
observation.
> > The biological sciences overstep this critical boundary when they make
> > assertions that no intelligence has shaped evolution.
> >
> Why? That assertion is completely falsifiable! Just produce the
> intelligence!
This argument is pure silliness. It reminds me of the movie "Oh God!".
Theists have discovered that you can know something by other than
scientific means. That is what faith is, and revelation. Just because I
know that God exists, does not mean that I can produce him for
inspection.
> The opposite--that an intelligent creator *must* have
> formed all life--is *not* falsifiable, and therefore is not scientific.
>
> Get it?
Speaking of straw men.. I am not, nor have I ever, asserted that an
"intelligent creator *must* have formed all life."
All I wish is that evolutionists would cut creationists a bit of slack.
I am not a "creation scientist" because they are all goofballs, as I
have said before. Young earth creationists are not using their brains.
But, I would so dearly love to be able to talk with an evolutionist
that didn't think I was a complete idiot when I tell him that I know
that God lives, and that he, by whatever means, created us.
David P. Johnson
> On 3 Sep 1999 13:32:53 -0400, "David P. Johnson"
> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
> >whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything _but_
> >random natural processes could be responsible for all life that exists,
> >and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous. This is where
> >scietists overstep their bounds.
> >
>
> uh, where did it ever do this? unfortunately creationists have never
> given ANY reason why creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
that intelligent creation did not happen.
> they have produced no data. they have produced NO mechanism for
> creation EVER. let them tell us HOW creation happens, just like
> evolution DOES tell us HOW evolution happens.
>
> if they CANT then its not science.
>
> as to 'scientists overstepping their bounds' this is a meaningless
> generalization like saying all christians hate jews.
Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
random variation and natural selection?
> what they say is that evolution studies nature and natural causes.
> unless you can find some difference in the methods of evolutionary
> biology and physics, you have no argument. NEITHER assumes 'guided'
> forces or 'intelligent design' or other undefined concepts.
Yes. And it is an elegant and beautiful theory. The problem arises when
biologists quit thinking of it as a theory, and assert that it is fact.
See my reply to Mr. Killian for more on this..
Jim Cowling
>
>I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
>It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
>that intelligent creation did not happen.
It did not happen. That's the baseline; it's now up to you to provide
evidence to support a theory.
Oh, but it has no place as a theory! Then it has no place in a science class.
>Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
>saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
>random variation and natural selection?
That's not overstepping their bounds -- that's their mandate.
>Yes. And it is an elegant and beautiful theory. The problem arises when
>biologists quit thinking of it as a theory, and assert that it is fact.
>See my reply to Mr. Killian for more on this..
It is both a theory and a fact. Read the FAQ.
-------
Jim Cowling, Unaligned Merchant of Menace/Writer/Atheist/Geek
The Plains of Amaterasu: more original Clan War stuff than you could ever use at
http://members.home.com/scowling -- scow...@home.com
-------
Jim Cowling
>
>You're not getting it. What evidence can you cite that no intelligence
>has ever been involved in the creative/evolutionary processes?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; such an intelligence cannot
be directly observed, and as such it is an extraordinary claim. The onus is
on *you* to provide sufficient evidence that an intelligence has been involved
in the evolutionary process.
> What
>evidence can you cite that only random mutations and natural selective
>processes have ever been involved?
Read the FAQ.
>> Let's say I claim that an invisible snark is reading over your shoulder.
>> You can't prove that there is no snarg, but I could conceivably prove it
>> if I had an Invisible Snark Detector. Or I found some other way of
>> producing the snark.
>
>As a scientist, I _must_ admit that there is a possibility that there
>is a snarg(k) reading over my shoulder. If I cannot detect or falsify
>it, then I must remain silent on the issue. I may be skeptical, but I
>cannot deny the possibility.
You're absolutely right. And by that token, since one cannot deny the
possibility that my future self wil create a time machine and I will go back
and seed the primordial earth with active cultures, then it should be
mentioned in scientific journals, and taught in schools as a possibility for
the origin of life.
>I have shown this to be otherwise. Go back to Miller's statement in a
>scientific textbook: "evolution is random and undirected." I can easily
>conceive of situations in which this statement is _not_ falsifiable.
>There is no way to prove this or to controvert it.
There's no way to prove anything but mathematics. We have a theory; that
theory has held up. Until something comes along to pop that theory like an
overinflated balloon, that's what we work with.
Can you provide any evidence that the current evolutionary theories are wrong?
>But, I would so dearly love to be able to talk with an evolutionist
>that didn't think I was a complete idiot when I tell him that I know
>that God lives, and that he, by whatever means, created us.
I don't think you're an idiot. I don't agree with you, though -- and I
wouldn't want your opinion to be taught to children on my tax dollar -- but I
don't think you're an idiot. For one thing, you're well-spoken. :)
Keith Littleton
Craig <cra...@dasia.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:08:18 GMT, Shane D. Killian
><sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>snip
>>There are many such examples in the fossil record. The
>>creationists can only rebut Piltdown Man and Nebraska
>>Man, which the scientists revealed to be a hoax long
>>ago.
>
>Oh, how you lie, oh deceitful one.
Before he falsesly accuses others of deceit, Mr. Craig
needs to make sure that he has his facts straight.
Although not lying himself, in his accusation, Mr. Craig
is wrong about many of his claims. Now, let's see how
badly he has his facts wrong.
>Now let's see. We have Heidelberg Man,
The Heidelberg Man is not a hoax. It is a bon fida
hominid fossil. Information about the Heidelberg Man
can be found at:
"Heidelberg Man"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mauer.html
There: Jim Foley states:
"Discovered by gravel pit workers in 1907 near Heidelberg
in Germany. Estimated age is between 400,000 and 700,000
years. This find consisted of a lower jaw with a receding
chin and all its teeth. The jaw is extremely large and
robust, like that of Homo erectus, but the teeth are
at the small end of the erectus range. It is therefore
identified as erectus on the basis of its age, but could
be an archaic sapiens."
The Heidelberg Man is a valid fossil hominid. It is
factually incorrect to imply that it is a hoax.
>Peking Man (here the evidence "disappeared", an
>outright fraud)' The arguments that Peking Man
is a colossal fraud by Malcolm Bowden is discussed
and refuted at:
"Creationist Arguments: The Lost Peking Man Skeletons"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lostskels.html .
The claim by Malcolm Bowden that evidence has disappeared
lacks any credible evidence to back it up. In fact, Bowden
ignores critical evidence that suggest that the
"disappeared" evidence was nothing more than an imaginative
newspaper reporter being greatly confused over what was
found at Zhoukoudian Cave near Bejing. Mr. Jim Foley
explains this in detail at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lostskels.html
A good example of the imaginative misunderstandings which
get printed in newspapers was the headline about a flying
saucier having crashed at Roswell, New Mexico.
The Peking Man is *not* a hoax. Rather it is a valid
fossil hominid belonging to Homo erectus. For additional
information see:
"Peking Man"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html
"Picture Gallery of Fossil Hominoids and Hominids from
China (Page 3)"
http://www.cruzio.com/~cscp/pics3.htm
"Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian"
http://www.unesco.org/whc/sites/449.htm
A good book to read on Peking Man is
Lanpo, Jia and Huang Weiwen (1990) The Story of Peking
Man. Oxford University Press.
The documented story of the Peking Man as given in this book
soundly refutes the false claims made by various creationists
about these fossils.
For more recent research on the Peking Man, see:
Tattersall, I. and G. J. Sawyer (1996) The skull of
'Sinanthropus' from Zhoukoudian, China: a new
reconstruction. Journal of Human Evolution. vol. 31,
pp. 311-314.
>Then, let's see. There was Neanderthal Man 1958 (Oops,
>that was just an old man suffering from arthritis.
This claim about the Neanderthal Man is nothing than
more creationist misinformation about hominid fossils.
"Creationist Arguments: Neandertals"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html
There, Jim Foley writes:
"Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise,
most creationists still believe that Neandertals were
merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as
rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means
all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health
problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many
distinctive features, and there is no reason why these
diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone
all, of these features on even one, let alone many,
individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also
contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of
Neandertal features."
Jim Foley goes on to provide detailed reasons to support
his claim. He than states;
"Ironically enough, one of the best refutations of
the idea that Neandertalism is caused by diseases such
as rickets, syphilis or arthritis, is by a creationist
author, Jack Cuozzo (1998, pp.275-279). As Cuozzo
documents, the symptoms of these diseases bear very
little resemblance to the features of Neandertals.
(See also a review of Cuozzo's book Buried Alive
by Colin Groves.)"
references Cited;
Cuozzo J. W. (1998): Buried alive: the startling truth
about Neanderthal man. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master
Books.
However, there are other, numerous problems with what
this book has to say about the Neanderthal Man. A
good review of this book can be found at:
"Review: Buried Alive"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html
This review has been published as:
Groves C. (1999): Book review: Buried alive: the startling
truth about Neanderthal man. Reports of the National Center
for Science Education. vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27-9. (Jan/Feb 1999)
(this publication can be obtained from National Center for
Science Education at http://www.natcenscied.org/ )
>Oh, don't forget this oldie but goodie
>Java Man 1922 with teeth of an orangutan.
Again, more creationist misinformation and fantasy about
a hominid fossil. None of the fossils of Java Man found
contained the teeth of an orangutan. for some factual
information about Java Man, Homo erectus, a person can
go to:
"Creationist Arguments: Java Man"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html
"Java Man and Turkana Boy"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html
"The Java Man skullcap"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html
"Creationist Arguments: Overview"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_overview.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/scripts/search/query2.idq?Cmd=java+man&How=simple
>Sorry Shane. You evolutionist are a deceitful bunch
>and NOT to be trusted.
>Try again, buddy boy, only this time try to tell the truth.
Mr. Craig forgets that it was his fellow creationists who
gave us such bogus "fossils" as the "Burdick Prints"
(which are carved folkart); the "Glen Rose Man" (which
are fish teeth); and the "Malachite" / "Moab" man (which
is a prehistoric Native American skeleton). Creationists
had have severe problems in getting their facts straight
concerning these false fossils and often fail to correct
their own mistakes as the "Glen Rose Man" and the
"Malachite Man" illustrate. Creationists should be as
embarrassed about these fake fossils as they want
evolutionists to be about the Piltdown Man and Nebraska
Man.
+++ "Glen Rose Man" +++
If creationists want to expose all of the errors, not just
pick and choose the errors that make them look good, they
need to discuss the so-called "Glen Rose Man" along with
the "Nebraska Man." Creationists trumpeted the discovery
of the "Glen Rose Man" and claimed it to be real. What
creationists want evolutionists to forget is that they made
the same mistake as did the conventional anthropologist.
In case of the "Glen Rose Man," instead of mistaking a
peccary tooth for a primate tooth, creationists mistook
a fish tooth for a human tooth. It happened when the
Rev. Carl Baugh, of Paluxy mantracks fame, mistook a
*fish* tooth for a human tooth. From two teeth, the
Rev. Baugh of the "Creation Evidences Museum" deduced
the existence of "Humanus Davidii Glen Rosi", otherwise
called affectionately "Little David." Rev. Baugh claimed
that these teeth came from a species of "prediluvium man"
that lived with dinosaurs. The examination of these
alleged human teeth by paleontologists proved that the
teeth came from extinct Cretaceous fish.
A summary can be found at:
"Glen Rose Man"
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/glen_rose_man.html
Some written references are:
Hastings, Ronnie J. (1987a) Creationists' Tooth Claim
Evolve Into a New "Fish Story. Creation/Evolution
Newsletter. vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 18-21.
Hastings, Ronnie J. (1987b) Glen Rose Man -- Creationists'
'Nebraska Man'. Creation/Evolution Newsletter. vol. 7,
no. 4, pp. 15-16. "Creation/Evolution" was published by the
National Center for Science Education, P.O. Box 9477
Berkeley, CA 94709-0477. ( http://WWW.NatCenSciEd.org/ )
Hastings, Ronnie J. (1989) Creationists' "Glen Rose Man"
Proves to be a Fish Tooth (As Expected). NCSE Reports.
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 14-15.
Hastings, Ronnie J. (1992) For Your Information; a
Creationist Blunder Table. Bulletin Houston Geological
Society. vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 39-41.
Hastings, Ronnie J. (1995) A Tale of Two Teeth.
Creation/Evolution. Issue 36, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-14
(NOTE: the National center for Science Education, which
published "NCSE Reports" and "Creation/Evolution Newsletter"
can be contacted at http://WWW.NatCenSciEd.org/ .
On-line Information About the "Glen Rose Man" can be
found in "A Tale of Two Teeth or, The Best of Teeth,
the Worst of Teeth" at:
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/tooth.htm
At least the "evolutionists" was right about the tooth
belonging to a mammal which even the creationist, the
Rev. Baugh was wrong about.
The fish tooth can be found in:
Huggins, Henry H (1990) Phyllodont (Paralbulinae)
Fish Toothplates from the Lower Cretaceous Glen Rose
Formation of Central Texas. The Texas Journal of
Science. vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 77-81.
(To be fair, both the peccary tooth and fish teeth do
resemble human teeth. So both cases were really honest
mistakes.)
+++ "Malachite Man" +++
To be "fair", they creationists should admit to their other
bogus human fossil claims. One case is the "Malachite
Man" which was at one time was called the "Moab Man." The
Malachite Man, once called the "Moab Man." It is the
skeleton of a prehistoric Native American who found buried
in a prehistoric turquoise mine. In the late 1980's some
of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of
210 +/- 70 years. In addition, charcoal associated with
another skeleton found in the same deposits yielded an
uncorrected radiocarbon date of 1450+/-90 BP (Beta-42178
- January 24, 1991). Still, various creationists claim
that the Moab Man is contemporaneous with the dinosaurs.
These remains are discussed in detail by Arthur Strahler
(1989).
On-line article by Glen Kuban can be found at:
"The Life and Death of Malachite Man"
http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm
Coulam and Schroedl (1995) have studied the "Malachite
Man" and other human remains found at the Keystone
Azurite Mine, also called the "Big Indian Mine." They
have concluded that the "... human remains from the
Keystone Azurite Mine are the remains of ancestral
Puebloan miners who were either deliberately interred
or were accidentally buried while mining for azurite
in the 6th or 7th century A.D." Clearly, there is no
evidence that the "Malachite Man" and other human
remains found at the Keystone Azurite / Big Indian Mine
were contemporaneous with the dinosaurs. Yet, a number
of creationists keep perpetrating this error.
Citations Cited:
Coulam, Nancy J., and A. R. Schroedl, III (1995) The
Keystone Azurite Mine in Southeastern Utah. Utah
Archaeology. vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-122.
Strahler, Arthur N. (1987) Science and Earth history;
the evolution/ creation controversy. Prometheus Books.
Buffalo, New York, 552 pp.
+++ "Burdick Print" +++
Finally, for information on the "Burdick Print" a person
can read "The "Burdick Print"" by Glen Kuban and Gregg
Wilkerson at:
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/wilker5.htm
Also, go to:
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/paluxy.htm
Some references are:
Godfrey, Laurie R. (1985) Foot Notes of An Anatomist.
Creation/Evolution, issue XV, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 16-21.
Godfrey, Laurie R., and John R. Cole, (1986) Blunder in
Their Footsteps. Natural History, vol. 95, no. 8, pp.
4-12. (Aug. 1986)
For more about deceit in the evolution-creation
controversy, go to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-dishonesty.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
.... text deleted ...
Yours,
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
"Lest you believe that an open mind is a good
thing, let me suggest that it's not. A totally
open mind is like a refuse container in that it
will accept anything you put into it! What one
really needs is an open portal to the brain
flanked by two little armed guards named
Skepticism and Analysis. These little fellows
work together to make sure that "it all gets
in there", then gets scrutinized very closely!"
---Inform America web site
Rich Daniel
> ...How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
> saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
> random variation and natural selection?...
Reference?
--
Rich Daniel
Rich Daniel
> ..."Review: Buried Alive"
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html ...
"View document info" on this page shows a date of 14-Jul-99, but it
doesn't show up on the "What's New" page. Could somebody do an "ls -ltR"
and post it here? (Or, if you're feeling especially ambitious, update
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/whats-new.html.
Thanks,
Rich Daniel
Shane D. Killian
Keith Littleton <litt...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh, how you lie, oh deceitful one.
>
> Before he falsesly accuses others of deceit, Mr. Craig
> needs to make sure that he has his facts straight.
>
just ignores it and continues to post as if no one said anything.
> Although not lying himself, in his accusation, Mr. Craig
> is wrong about many of his claims.
>
He was simply wrong the first time. Now that he has been corrected
(numerous times!), he is now officially lying.
> >Oh, don't forget this oldie but goodie
>
> >Java Man 1922 with teeth of an orangutan.
>
> Again, more creationist misinformation and fantasy about
> a hominid fossil.
>
when I asked him for a source on this, he ran away.
> >Sorry Shane. You evolutionist are a deceitful bunch
> >and NOT to be trusted.
>
> >Try again, buddy boy, only this time try to tell the truth.
>
> Mr. Craig forgets that it was his fellow creationists who
> gave us such bogus "fossils" as the "Burdick Prints"
> (which are carved folkart); the "Glen Rose Man" (which
> are fish teeth); and the "Malachite" / "Moab" man (which
> is a prehistoric Native American skeleton).
>
Don't forget Paluxy and Tuba City. And that misinformation of the
bombardier beetle. And their lies about the second law of
thermodynamics. And any of the numerous other lies, frauds, and
strawment I could mention that could fill volumes.
Shane D. Killian
"David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> In article <7qph5d$4ch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
> <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> > *Sigh*...How many times do creationists need to be told that
> > evolution has *NOTHING* at all to do with "the creation of life
> > itself"?
>
> This is an assertion on your part with no factual basis.
>
in evolution *EVER* says the *SKIGHTEST* thing about the origin of
life!!!!!
> Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
> vast majority of evolutionists, and indeed the scientific community at
> large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that random
> variation and selective processes brought life about in the first
> place, and shaped it subsequently.
>
No, the current theori is that life was brought about through
abiogenesis.
Go and *learn* something about the subject before you start railing
against it.
> And as such, life has no deeper meaning.
>
Evolution also says nothing aout the meaning of life, one way or the
other.
For that matter, neither does gravity. Why aren't you posting to the
Usenet railing against gravity?
> > That's what all the evidence says, so until/unless new evidence to
> > the contrary shows up, then it is perfectly reasonable and
> > scientific to draw that conclusion.
>
> You're not getting it. What evidence can you cite that no intelligence
> has ever been involved in the creative/evolutionary processes?
>
No science says this. Evolution is completely silent on this issue. It's
compeltely outside its realm.
Why do you insist on sticking things into the evolutionary theory that
don't go there?
> What evidence can you cite that only random mutations and natural
> selective processes have ever been involved?
>
None, because no one is saying it's random except for lying
creationists.
> > It does no such thing. God could have directed evolution, or he
> > could have set up the rules by which evolution can take place.
> > Science is completely silent on this.
>
> Or it should be. That's the point.
>
It *IS*. *THAT*'s the point.
> No serious scientist would propose in a scientific journal that there
> is even a possibility that God directed evolution.
>
Of course not. Such a claim is unscientific. Your point?
> > The scientific meaning of evolution. Any other meaning I've seen is
> > one concocted by creationists trying to tear down a strawman.
>
> Ok. Tell me what the scientific meaning is.
>
The change in allele frequencies in a population over a period of time.
> > It is perfectly valid logic.
>
> It is not perfectly valid logic.
>
> I can only assume that you have never formally studied logic.
>
You assume wrong.
> > Let's say I claim that an invisible snark is reading over your
> > shoulder. You can't prove that there is no snarg, but I could
> > conceivably prove it if I had an Invisible Snark Detector. Or I
> > found some other way of producing the snark.
>
> As a scientist, I _must_ admit that there is a possibility that there
> is a snarg(k) reading over my shoulder.
>
No, because that position is unfalsifiable. The only unfalsifiable
position is "there is no snark," therefore that is the only scientific
conclusion until/unless you produce the snark.
> > *ALL* science deals in falsifiable terms.
>
> I have shown this to be otherwise.
>
No, you haven't. You can't even get the *definitions* right!
> For instance, let us suppose that some little green men planted, in
> the genetic code of simple life forms, the potential for all life we
> now observe. Let us further suppose that they placed these life forms
> on earth a long time ago, and then vanished from our galaxy. Or, let
> us suppose that a God exists that directs the development of life, but
> who has the desire, and the capability, to remain undetected by
> scientific observation.
>
Then it's not unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
> > Why? That assertion is completely falsifiable! Just produce the
> > intelligence!
>
> This argument is pure silliness.
>
No, it smegging well isn't! It's how science *WORKS*!!!
Go and learn something aout the subject before you come back.
> > The opposite--that an intelligent creator *must* have
> > formed all life--is *not* falsifiable, and therefore is not
> > scientific.
> >
> > Get it?
>
> Speaking of straw men.. I am not, nor have I ever, asserted that an
> "intelligent creator *must* have formed all life."
>
I'm not saying you have. I'm just illustrating a point.
> All I wish is that evolutionists would cut creationists a bit of
> slack.
>
We'll do that when they stop lying and actually produce some evidence of
their own, which they have so far failed to do.
> But, I would so dearly love to be able to talk with an evolutionist
> that didn't think I was a complete idiot when I tell him that I know
> that God lives, and that he, by whatever means, created us.
>
I believe that, too. But the assertion that God couldn't have produced
the world's life through evolution is ridiculous.
Shane D. Killian
>
> > uh, where did it ever do this? unfortunately creationists have never
>
> I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
> It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
> that intelligent creation did not happen.
>
> > they have produced no data. they have produced NO mechanism for
> > creation EVER. let them tell us HOW creation happens, just like
> > evolution DOES tell us HOW evolution happens.
> >
> > if they CANT then its not science.
> >
> > as to 'scientists overstepping their bounds' this is a meaningless
> > generalization like saying all christians hate jews.
>
> Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
> saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
> random variation and natural selection?
>
Not radom. Chemistry is *not* random.
> > what they say is that evolution studies nature and natural causes.
> > unless you can find some difference in the methods of evolutionary
> > biology and physics, you have no argument. NEITHER assumes 'guided'
> > forces or 'intelligent design' or other undefined concepts.
>
> Yes. And it is an elegant and beautiful theory. The problem arises
> when biologists quit thinking of it as a theory, and assert that it is
> fact.
>
It is both theory *and* fact. The *fact* is that evolution occurs. The
*theory* (or, more accurately, *theories*) deals with the mechanisms by
which evolution occurs.
David P. Johnson
<scow...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <070919991228027868%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>, "David P. Johnson"
> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> >
> >I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
> >It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
> >that intelligent creation did not happen.
>
> It did not happen.
This is an unscientific claim. There is absolutely zero evidence to
support it. It would be impossible to show that intelligence had
nothing to do with our existence.
> That's the baseline; it's now up to you to provide
> evidence to support a theory.
Again, I have nowhere advocated that the existence of God should be a
scientific theory. You are missing the point entirely. (Missing the
point.)
> Oh, but it has no place as a theory! Then it has no place in a science class.
I have nowhere advocated that creationism should be taught in schools.
I have already stated that so-called creation science (a la Gish) is
for morons.
I have no problems with evolution being taught in schools as long as it
is not also stated that evolution is purely the result of chance, and
therefore there is no God. This is unverifiable.
To say that species can be modified with descent is a demonstrated and
acceptable fact. To say that because there is modification with
descent, then nothing was ever created by any god is rediculous, and
_is not science_.
> >Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
> >saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
> >random variation and natural selection?
>
> That's not overstepping their bounds -- that's their mandate.
Their mandate is to intrude on religion? The statement that no god
exists is beyond the ken of science.
> >Yes. And it is an elegant and beautiful theory. The problem arises when
> >biologists quit thinking of it as a theory, and assert that it is fact.
> >See my reply to Mr. Killian for more on this..
>
> It is both a theory and a fact. Read the FAQ.
I have read the FAQ and beg to differ.
David Johnston
> > <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
> > >whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything _but_
> > >random natural processes could be responsible for all life that exists,
> > >and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous. This is where
> > >scietists overstep their bounds.
> > >
> >
>
> I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
> It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
> that intelligent creation did not happen.
>
> > creation EVER. let them tell us HOW creation happens, just like
> > evolution DOES tell us HOW evolution happens.
> >
> > if they CANT then its not science.
> >
> > as to 'scientists overstepping their bounds' this is a meaningless
> > generalization like saying all christians hate jews.
>
> saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
> random variation and natural selection?
>
> > unless you can find some difference in the methods of evolutionary
> > biology and physics, you have no argument. NEITHER assumes 'guided'
> > forces or 'intelligent design' or other undefined concepts.
>
> biologists quit thinking of it as a theory, and assert that it is fact.
Why is that a problem? Most well-established theories are thought of
as fact until they are displaced.
> See my reply to Mr. Killian for more on this..
>
wf...@ptd.net
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>In article <FecB3.642$7F1....@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>, Jim Cowling
><scow...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <070919991228027868%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>, "David P. Johnson"
>> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
>> >It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
>> >that intelligent creation did not happen.
>>
>> It did not happen.
>
>This is an unscientific claim. There is absolutely zero evidence to
>support it. It would be impossible to show that intelligence had
>nothing to do with our existence.
except, again, it is the creationists NOT the scientists making that
claim
>
>
>I have no problems with evolution being taught in schools as long as it
>is not also stated that evolution is purely the result of chance, and
>therefore there is no God. This is unverifiable.
no one ever said this in a science class ever. no biology journal said
this ever. no scientist published this in a peer reviewed journal ever
can we say paranoia boys and girls?
>
>To say that species can be modified with descent is a demonstrated and
>acceptable fact. To say that because there is modification with
>descent, then nothing was ever created by any god is rediculous, and
>_is not science_.
except that to say god did it is not science. the evidence is that
ONLY natural processes were involved. and thats what scientists say.
>
>> >Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
>> >saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
>> >random variation and natural selection?
>>
>> That's not overstepping their bounds -- that's their mandate.
>
>Their mandate is to intrude on religion? The statement that no god
>exists is beyond the ken of science.
except they never said that.
wf...@ptd.net
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>In article <37d2d056....@news.ptd.net>, <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3 Sep 1999 13:32:53 -0400, "David P. Johnson"
>> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
>> >whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything _but_
>> >random natural processes could be responsible for all life that exists,
>> >and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous. This is where
>> >scietists overstep their bounds.
>> >
>>
>> uh, where did it ever do this? unfortunately creationists have never
>> given ANY reason why creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
>
>I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
>It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
>that intelligent creation did not happen.
they dont and they cant because its not scientific. but creationists
maintain it IS scientific, so scientists have no choice.
sorry you've got the sides mixed up. if you doubt it, go to the ICR
homepage and read what creationists say about science.
>
>> they have produced no data. they have produced NO mechanism for
>> creation EVER. let them tell us HOW creation happens, just like
>> evolution DOES tell us HOW evolution happens.
>>
>> if they CANT then its not science.
>>
>> as to 'scientists overstepping their bounds' this is a meaningless
>> generalization like saying all christians hate jews.
>
>Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
>saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
>random variation and natural selection?
this is in response to creationist claims that god interfering in
science is science
please place things in context.
>
>> what they say is that evolution studies nature and natural causes.
>> unless you can find some difference in the methods of evolutionary
>> biology and physics, you have no argument. NEITHER assumes 'guided'
>> forces or 'intelligent design' or other undefined concepts.
>
>Yes. And it is an elegant and beautiful theory. The problem arises when
>biologists quit thinking of it as a theory, and assert that it is fact.
>See my reply to Mr. Killian for more on this..
evolution is a fact. see the numerous responses on the nature of facts
and theories.
wf...@ptd.net
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>This is an assertion on your part with no factual basis. Although I
>have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the vast majority
>of evolutionists, and indeed the scientific community at large (like
>the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that random variation and
>selective processes brought life about in the first place, and shaped
>it subsequently
because thats what the evidence shows. if you have evidence to the
contrary, feel free to produce it
.. And as such, life has no deeper meaning. No creative
>intelligence was involved. Have you read any of Huxley's writings? He
>asserts just this over and over again. Theists must take exception to
>this.
>
prove it. huxley was not in the NAS. you have your facts mixed up.
>> That's what all the evidence says, so until/unless new evidence to the
>> contrary shows up, then it is perfectly reasonable and scientific to
>> draw that conclusion.
>
>You're not getting it. What evidence can you cite that no intelligence
>has ever been involved in the creative/evolutionary processes? What
>evidence can you cite that only random mutations and natural selective
>processes have ever been involved?
because science doesnt operate this way, nor does logic. the burden of
proof in both cases is on the affirmative. if you're trying to make a
case its up to you to prove it. we SEE natural processes ONL:Y
involved in evolution. we have NEVER seen an intelligent/transcendent
process involved. so if you think there IS, PROVE IT.
>
Many, many serious scientists take pot shots at
>anyone smelling like a theist.
paranoic rhetoric
>
>Ok. Tell me what the scientific meaning is. Kenneth Miller, author of
>_Biology_ states "evolution is random and undirected." Evolutionists
>(like yourself?) that state that evolution could have been directed are
>in such a vast minority that their view is not even heard
>professionally. Where's the strawman?
>
fine. show it's directed. show a predictable course of evolution. if
you disagree with him, prove him wrong. thats how science is done.
>
>I have shown this to be otherwise. Go back to Miller's statement in a
>scientific textbook: "evolution is random and undirected." I can easily
>conceive of situations in which this statement is _not_ falsifiable.
>There is no way to prove this or to controvert it.
>
incorrect. nonrandom events in nature exist. in fact its fairly hard
to find a NONRANDOM event.
>For instance, let us suppose that some little green men planted, in the
>genetic code of simple life forms, the potential for all life we now
>observe. Let us further suppose that they placed these life forms on
>earth a long time ago, and then vanished from our galaxy. Or, let us
>suppose that a God exists that directs the development of life, but who
>has the desire, and the capability, to remain undetected by scientific
>observation.
>
in which case the laws of science would suffice to describe evolution
and intelligence would be undetectable by science and therefore not be
scientific.
>
>All I wish is that evolutionists would cut creationists a bit of slack.
why? they're liars and misinformed. why should they be cut slack?
>I am not a "creation scientist" because they are all goofballs, as I
>have said before. Young earth creationists are not using their brains.
>
>But, I would so dearly love to be able to talk with an evolutionist
>that didn't think I was a complete idiot when I tell him that I know
>that God lives, and that he, by whatever means, created us.
>
ROLFMAO!! thats EXACTLY what i used to believe when I was a christian
and i didnt think THEN, nor do i think NOW that i was an idiot. so
quit setting up scientists as strawmen for your own silly view of
them.
Dick C.
>In article <37d2d056....@news.ptd.net>, <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
>> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
>> >whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything _but_
>> >random natural processes could be responsible for all life that exists,
>> >and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous. This is where
>> >scietists overstep their bounds.
>> >
>>
>> uh, where did it ever do this? unfortunately creationists have never
>> given ANY reason why creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
>
>I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
>It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
>that intelligent creation did not happen.
Do you have any valid evidence for your creator? If you do, then why has
it not been presented?
Oh, and evolution is part of science. As such the tho TOE is the best
scientific explanation of the diversity of life. So far, abiogenesis is looking
like it will be the best scientific explanation of the origin of life. Where in
all of this should science say anything about a religious idea?
>> as to 'scientists overstepping their bounds' this is a meaningless
>> generalization like saying all christians hate jews.
>
>Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
>saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
>random variation and natural selection?
Well, what would you expect scientists to say?
That even though there is much evidence pointing to the theories that
science has, and absolutely none pointing to any of the thousands of
religious beliefs in the world, that one of them must be valid?
>
>> what they say is that evolution studies nature and natural causes.
>> unless you can find some difference in the methods of evolutionary
>> biology and physics, you have no argument. NEITHER assumes 'guided'
>> forces or 'intelligent design' or other undefined concepts.
>
>Yes. And it is an elegant and beautiful theory. The problem arises when
>biologists quit thinking of it as a theory, and assert that it is fact.
>See my reply to Mr. Killian for more on this..
>
No, the problem is when religious people don't know, and refuse to learn,
the difference between fact and theory.
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
red
David P. Johnson <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote in message
news:070919991830384366%
>
> I have no problems with evolution being taught in schools as long as it
> is not also stated that evolution is purely the result of chance, and
> therefore there is no God. This is unverifiable.
But it is irrelevant. The only reason god gets introduced into human
thinking is to explain the unexplainable. Seeing as many of the things that
taxed our ancestors are now explicable, making a case for a redundant idea
like this is about the same as arguing for the reintroduction of the stone
axe. God is not 'disproved' = just irrelevant.
> To say that species can be modified with descent is a demonstrated and
> acceptable fact. To say that because there is modification with
> descent, then nothing was ever created by any god is rediculous, and
> _is not science_.
Well, given that we have a perfectly explicable mechanism to explain
evolution, why would we even entertain the idea that god was incvilved (or
exists)? Do you also think that god started your car this morning, rather
than turning the key?
>
> > >Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
> > >saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
> > >random variation and natural selection?
> >
> > That's not overstepping their bounds -- that's their mandate.
>
> Their mandate is to intrude on religion? The statement that no god
> exists is beyond the ken of science.
In the sentence above, the prir poster made reference to life, NOT god. If
you CHOOSE to interpret a scientific observation as critical of your
superstition, TOO BAD. That is not my or any scientists problem. If you
did not have a fixed opinion about the origin of life, the scientific
opinion above woulod NOT bother you. Do not blame others for your
prejudices.
Stazelvis
firmly on the perfect inspired word of god.evolution is is for infidels who do
not want judgement from an allmighty,holy,sovereign god."the fool hath said in
heart there is no god."psalm 14:1.scientists may have created a lot of
questions that intrigue the mind,but jesus christ the almighty king answers
all the sceptics with his virgin birth,his death on the cross,his burial in a
borrowed tomb,his bodily resurrection .evolution is a false teaching created by
those who think they will escape the consequences of their sin,but your sin
will find you out george strouth.
Jim Lovejoy
Stazelvis wrote:
> born again christians like myself have an answer for all unbelievers .we stand
> firmly on the perfect inspired word of god.
Fine. Now to fellow Christian, would you show where in the Bible it says that
evolution is wrong?
Another question. Most Christians believe that God created the universe. Thus, in
a very real sense, the universe is the "word of God". When one part of the word of
God contradicts *your interpretation* of the other part of the word of God (the
universe), why should we believe your interpretation of the Bible, rather than his
other work?
> evolution is is for infidels who do
> not want judgement from an allmighty,holy,sovereign god."the fool hath said in
> heart there is no god."psalm 14:1.scientists may have created a lot of
> questions that intrigue the mind,but jesus christ the almighty king answers
> all the sceptics with his virgin birth,his death on the cross,his burial in a
> borrowed tomb,his bodily resurrection .evolution is a false teaching created by
> those who think they will escape the consequences of their sin,
Do you have any evidence of the motive for those who developed the theory of
evolution, or is this just slander? Please look at Romans I to see what the Church
Fathers thought about slander, or the ten commandments under "Bearing False
Witness."
David P. Johnson
<sdg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ====================================================
> Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
> ----------------------------------------------------
This is a cute saying, but totally indefensible, as man has survived
for millenia without it.
Dr. Necrophage
"David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> In article <37D6B4...@worldnet.att.net>, Stephen Grossman
> <sdg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > ====================================================
> > Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
> > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a cute saying, but totally indefensible, as man has survived
> for millenia without it.
First - Attacking someone's sig' file does not constitute an reasoned
response to that person's argument.
Second - While I am no great fan of Rand, she did make many good points,
the quote above is one of them.
Third - It is precisely because the human animal is capable of observing
its environment and drawing logical and rational conclusions from those
observations that it has survived as well as it has over time. Reason
allowed the development of tools, reason allowed the development of
language, reason allowed the creation of the very device you are using
to denigrate reason with.
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything it has it
has stolen' - Nietzsche
Dr. Necrophage
staz...@cs.com (Stazelvis) wrote:
> born again christians like myself have an answer for all unbelievers
> for infidels who do not want judgement from an
> allmighty,holy,sovereign god."the fool hath said in heart there is no
> god."psalm 14:1.scientists may have created a lot of questions that
> intrigue the mind,but jesus christ the almighty king answers all the
> sceptics with his virgin birth,his death on the cross,his burial in a
> borrowed tomb,his bodily resurrection .evolution is a false teaching
> created by those who think they will escape the consequences of their
All I see are threats and anger and assertions. Where is the
empirical experimentally validated evidence that any of these assertions
actually pertain to reality and not just some fable you read in a book?
First (and most important) - produce this 'god' thing itself for study
and examination under stringent laboratory conditions.
Second - provide clear and convining evidence that *it* and it alone was
the particular 'god' thing that dictated word for word the writtings you
claim that it did.
It's 'word' is not enough, neither are the 'words' of any human agency
that claims to speak 'for' such an entity. Only empirical, physical
evidence which can be examined under laboratory conditions and subjected
to repeated experiment will begin to cone close to enough.
David P. Johnson
<dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <090919990959347556%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> > In article <37D6B4...@worldnet.att.net>, Stephen Grossman
> > <sdg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > ====================================================
> > > Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
> > > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This is a cute saying, but totally indefensible, as man has survived
> > for millenia without it.
>
> First - Attacking someone's sig' file does not constitute an reasoned
> response to that person's argument.
Ouch!
I was doing nothing so nefarious as you suggest. I was simply making a
wry observation.
> Second - While I am no great fan of Rand, she did make many good points,
> the quote above is one of them.
>
> Third - It is precisely because the human animal is capable of observing
> its environment and drawing logical and rational conclusions from those
> observations that it has survived as well as it has over time. Reason
> allowed the development of tools, reason allowed the development of
> language, reason allowed the creation of the very device you are using
> to denigrate reason with.
Who's denigrating reason? Calm down. You are jumping to conclusions in
a most unreasonable way. (Repeat to yourself "humor is the best
medicine" five times.)
Besides, there are countless creatures that have survived for far
longer than man has, without tools, language, computers, denigration of
reason. Amoebas, for example. In fact, Darwin said don't confuse
fitness with intelligence, strength, or any other admirable quality. It
is merely the ability to propagate.
That is one of the points of evolution. It requires no rational
intelligence.
Please don't reply to this post. If you see truth in this, so be it. If
you do not, consider it tongue in cheek.
Mark Isaak
Stazelvis <staz...@cs.com> wrote:
>born again christians like myself have an answer for all unbelievers .we
>stand firmly on the perfect inspired word of god.evolution is is for
>infidels who do not want judgement from an allmighty,holy,sovereign
>god."the fool hath said in heart there is no god."psalm 14:1.scientists
>may have created a lot of questions that intrigue the mind,but jesus
>christ the almighty king answers all the sceptics with his virgin
>birth,his death on the cross,his burial in a borrowed tomb,his bodily
>resurrection .evolution is a false teaching created by those who think
>they will escape the consequences of their sin,but your sin will find you
>out george strouth.
I'm happy you have all the answers. I am much happier that I don't share
them with you and need not, like you, live a lie and die at the mercy of
an evil god.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Shane D. Killian
staz...@cs.com (Stazelvis) wrote:
> born again christians like myself have an answer for all unbelievers
> .we stand firmly on the perfect inspired word of god.evolution is is
> god."the fool hath said in heart there is no god."psalm 4:1.scientists
> may have created a lot of questions that intrigue the mind,but jesus
> christ the almighty king answers all the sceptics with his virgin
> birth,his death on the cross,his burial in a borrowed tomb,his bodily
> resurrection .evolution is a false teaching created by those who think
> they will escape the consequences of their sin,but your sin will find
> you out george strouth.
>
otherwise of God. Many Christians accept evolution as an accurate
description of how life changed over time. No matter how many times the
creationists lie about this, it will remain so.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
David P. Johnson
<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> In article <070919991220240323%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
> > Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
> > vast majority of evolutionists, and indeed the scientific community at
> > large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that random
> > variation and selective processes brought life about in the first
> > place, and shaped it subsequently.
> >
> No, the current theori is that life was brought about through
> abiogenesis.
>
> Go and *learn* something about the subject before you start railing
> against it.
Ok. Abiogenesis. This means that life originated from non-living
chemicals. You argue with my semantics, not the substance of my
statement.
Let me revise the above statement:
Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
vast majority of biologists, and indeed the scientific community at
large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that life
oritinated from random combinations of abiotic materials, and that
variation and selective processes has shaped it subsequently.
That first step is a mighty big one. Talk to the mathematicians..
> > And as such, life has no deeper meaning.
> >
> Evolution also says nothing aout the meaning of life, one way or the
> other.
On the contrary. In 1995 the National Association of Biology Teachers
(NABT) passed a resolution that states:
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of
temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing
environments."
The words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" were intentionally included
to deny even the possibility of an intelligent creator. They are
unnecessary to the definition of evolution, and serve only to make
statements on metaphysics.
> For that matter, neither does gravity. Why aren't you posting to the
> Usenet railing against gravity?
This is a straw man, and you know it. The influence of gravity can be
directly observed. Abiogenesis cannot, as it would have been a single
event in the far distant past. Neither can the non-existence, or even
the non-intervention of God be directly observed.
> > > That's what all the evidence says, so until/unless new evidence to
> > > the contrary shows up, then it is perfectly reasonable and
> > > scientific to draw that conclusion.
> >
> > You're not getting it. What evidence can you cite that no intelligence
> > has ever been involved in the creative/evolutionary processes?
> >
> No science says this. Evolution is completely silent on this issue. It's
> compeltely outside its realm.
Yes, it _is_ outside the realm of science. But biologists and science
educators do not remain silent about it. The NABT statement is but one
of several put out by scientific and educational individuals and
organizations specifically to deny any creative intelligence.
> Why do you insist on sticking things into the evolutionary theory that
> don't go there?
They are not stuck there by me.
> > What evidence can you cite that only random mutations and natural
> > selective processes have ever been involved?
> >
> None, because no one is saying it's random except for lying
> creationists.
Uh.. Hello.
<some snip>
> > Ok. Tell me what the scientific meaning is.
> >
> The change in allele frequencies in a population over a period of time.
This has been demonstrated to happen. It is a fact that must be
embraced happily. If this is your only definition of evolution, then it
is true.
I only wish that scientists and educators would simply leave it at
that, and resist the temptation to then say that _only_ evolution has
_ever_ shaped biology. This is a statement of faith. (In effect, since
evolution happens, then God is bogus) (If you do not believe scientists
make such statements, then you are not reading the same articles I am.
S. J. Gould, Futayama, etc.)
> > > It is perfectly valid logic.
> >
> > It is not perfectly valid logic.
> >
> > I can only assume that you have never formally studied logic.
> >
> You assume wrong.
Then you weren't paying attention. You snipped my syllogisms.
> > > Let's say I claim that an invisible snark is reading over your
> > > shoulder. You can't prove that there is no snarg, but I could
> > > conceivably prove it if I had an Invisible Snark Detector. Or I
> > > found some other way of producing the snark.
> >
> > As a scientist, I _must_ admit that there is a possibility that there
> > is a snarg(k) reading over my shoulder.
> >
> No, because that position is unfalsifiable.
Holy cow. I would drop this line of argument if I were you. It is
unproductive, and you are digging yourself deeper and deeper.
If you will look closely at the argument, you will see that I am _not_
advocating that a scientist must, or even may, propose a theory that
there is a snark reading over my shoulder. I am only noting that (s)he
cannot conclude that no stark _is_. Just because something is
unfalsifiable does not mean that it cannot be true.
Yet advocates of evolution continue to say that no intelligence has
ever been involved in evolution. Go back and read Huxley. Read Steven
J. Gould. Any of a number of biologists have made similar statements.
You personally may not make this claim. For this I can only
wholeheartedly applaud you.
> The only unfalsifiable
> position is "there is no snark," therefore that is the only scientific
> conclusion until/unless you produce the snark.
>
> > > *ALL* science deals in falsifiable terms.
> >
> > I have shown this to be otherwise.
> >
> No, you haven't. You can't even get the *definitions* right!
>
> > For instance, let us suppose that some little green men planted, in
> > the genetic code of simple life forms, the potential for all life we
> > now observe. Let us further suppose that they placed these life forms
> > on earth a long time ago, and then vanished from our galaxy. Or, let
> > us suppose that a God exists that directs the development of life, but
> > who has the desire, and the capability, to remain undetected by
> > scientific observation.
> >
> Then it's not unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
Oops. Now it's you that is having troubles with definitions.
I am assuming that that is a typo, and that you really mean "Then it's
not falsifiable, and therefore unscientific." And I will note that you
_continue_ to not get it.
I am now going to shout, in hopes that you will finally get it.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT LITTLE GREEN MEN BE A VIABLE SCIENTIFIC
ARGUMENT. I MERELY POINT OUT THAT SCIENCE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY.
Now. Why on earth would I make such a seemingly rediculous point? Am I
advocating willy-nilly proposals of any bizarre nature, and trying to
make them seem legitimate by claiming that science cannot contradict
it?
NO.
My point is that I, along with millions of other people, have
discovered that you can know something through other than scientific
means. Many, many scientists would vehemently deny this. However,
regardless of what they say, I, and others, have found one fact through
these spiritual means: that God exists. About this, science can only
remain silent. It has not done so.
<some more snip>
> > All I wish is that evolutionists would cut creationists a bit of
> > slack.
> >
> We'll do that when they stop lying and actually produce some evidence of
> their own, which they have so far failed to do.
And again. Again the same misunderstanding on your part. Religion does
not, indeed need not produce scientific evidence. Scientists that
insist that it does will only consider religion on scientific terms.
They in effect deny that spiritual truth can be known.
> > But, I would so dearly love to be able to talk with an evolutionist
> > that didn't think I was a complete idiot when I tell him that I know
> > that God lives, and that he, by whatever means, created us.
> >
> I believe that, too. But the assertion that God couldn't have produced
> the world's life through evolution is ridiculous.
And of course, I never insisted that God couldn't..
After stating my views so plainly, if you still disagree that spiritual
truth can be known independent of science, then I will never convince
you. This is something that is up to the individual. If someone has not
experienced spiritual enlightenment, then (s)he will not understand.
Of course, religion should stay out of the realm of science too.
I end my comments.
John Wilkins
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
|In article <7r44q7$9q7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
|<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
|
|> In article <070919991220240323%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
|> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
|>
|> > Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
|> > vast majority of evolutionists, and indeed the scientific community at
|> > large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that random
|> > variation and selective processes brought life about in the first
|> > place, and shaped it subsequently.
|> >
|> No, the current theori is that life was brought about through
|> abiogenesis.
|>
|> Go and *learn* something about the subject before you start railing
|> against it.
|
|Ok. Abiogenesis. This means that life originated from non-living
|chemicals. You argue with my semantics, not the substance of my
|statement.
|
|Let me revise the above statement:
|
|Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
|vast majority of biologists, and indeed the scientific community at
|large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that life
|oritinated from random combinations of abiotic materials, and that
|variation and selective processes has shaped it subsequently.
No, Shane is right, you do not know what you are talking about. Over the
past year or so I've read a lot of origins of life literature and the one
thing they *all* have in common is that they expect the chemical processes
to be anything but random in any meaningful sense. The conditions may have
been contingent in some way - that there was such and so a combination of
chemicals in such and so an environment. But the reactions that led to the
self-reproducing hypercycles or catalytically closed protocells are not.
If you have those conditions, it follows from the laws of thermodynamics
and chemistry that these reactions will occur in some space of time.
|
|That first step is a mighty big one. Talk to the mathematicians..
And they'll tell us what? That if the distributions of reaction
likelihoods are some set then the probabilities of reactions of that kind
are X. So their arguments are only as good as their knowledge of the
chemistry, and guess what? We do not have any reasonable way to determine
that yet. We can't even solve the protein folding problem to predict what
tertiary structure a protein will have if we know *all* the relevant
information about the primary structure and the conditions in which it is
transcribed. How in the hell can mathematicians do more than handwave
here?
|
|> > And as such, life has no deeper meaning.
|> >
|> Evolution also says nothing aout the meaning of life, one way or the
|> other.
|
|On the contrary. In 1995 the National Association of Biology Teachers
|(NABT) passed a resolution that states:
|
| "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
| unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of
| temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
| natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing
| environments."
|
|The words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" were intentionally included
|to deny even the possibility of an intelligent creator. They are
|unnecessary to the definition of evolution, and serve only to make
|statements on metaphysics.
Garbage. The words preclude the guidedness of *evolution* not creation. In
effect they were saying that evolution is not a process of entelechy, a
term used by Schindewolf I think to mean that evolution unfolds like a
computer program or fetal development. It is, to the best of our knowledge
and models (which is what scientists can speak about, remember)
impersonal. That does not preclude a god, or divine intervention, bcause
such matters are inaccessible to science. *They* are metaphysics. What the
NABT statement was making clear is that science cannot *do* metaphysics.
|
|> For that matter, neither does gravity. Why aren't you posting to the
|> Usenet railing against gravity?
|
|This is a straw man, and you know it. The influence of gravity can be
|directly observed. Abiogenesis cannot, as it would have been a single
|event in the far distant past. Neither can the non-existence, or even
|the non-intervention of God be directly observed.
Which is my point above.
|
<snip rest to avoid unnecessary tautologous repetition>
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne,
Australia <mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Stanton D Summay
the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
children to make them appear older. How about the cutting of funding by
some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is unwilling
to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
the answer.
Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:PvtB3.57$i27....@news.uswest.net...
> In article <070919991228027868%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>, "David P. Johnson"
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> >In article <37d2d056....@news.ptd.net>, <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3 Sep 1999 13:32:53 -0400, "David P. Johnson"
> >> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >There is nothing wroing with this until the scientific community as a
> >> >whole dictates that it is silly and wrong to assume that anything
_but_
> >> >random natural processes could be responsible for all life that
exists,
> >> >and that _any_ form of creationism is rediculous. This is where
> >> >scietists overstep their bounds.
> >> >
> >>
> >> uh, where did it ever do this? unfortunately creationists have never
> >> given ANY reason why creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
> >
> >I have never argued that creationism should be acceptable as a theory.
> >It has no place a such. All I want is for evolutionists to quit saying
> >that intelligent creation did not happen.
>
> Do you have any valid evidence for your creator? If you do, then why has
> it not been presented?
> Oh, and evolution is part of science. As such the tho TOE is the best
> scientific explanation of the diversity of life. So far, abiogenesis is
looking
> like it will be the best scientific explanation of the origin of life.
Where in
> all of this should science say anything about a religious idea?
>
>
> >> as to 'scientists overstepping their bounds' this is a meaningless
> >> generalization like saying all christians hate jews.
> >
> >Ok. How about the National Academy of Science, which is on record as
> >saying that life occurred, and has subsequently developed, purely by
> >random variation and natural selection?
>
Landis D. Ragon
>Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
>the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
>purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
>children to make them appear older. How about the cutting of funding by
>some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
>evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
>depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
>in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is unwilling
>to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
>disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
>the answer.
>
How about references to all of the above wild unsupported assertions?
--
Landis D. Ragon
Chief - EAC Database Operations
Homo sapiens is, in it's purest essence, a 35 foot
long intestine with a talent for self-flattery.
Landis D. Ragon
>Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
>the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
>purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
>children to make them appear older. How about the cutting of funding by
>some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
>evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
>depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
>in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is unwilling
>to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
BTW, Doyle believed in diminutive supernatural winged
meadow-inhabiting creatures called fairies.
>disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
>the answer.
>
--
Boikat
>
> Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
> the evolutionist.
That does seem to be the general trend.
> Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
> purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
> children to make them appear older.
Sez who?
> How about the cutting of funding by
> some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
> evolution?
For example?
> How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
> depth as Java man?
Depth does not mean anything. What geological
strata it was found in, does.
> What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
> in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old?
If I recall correctly, the "Chain of evidence"
regarding those "copper balls" is rather dubious.
If I showed you (Here it is again!) a conglomerate
composed of sand and pebbles that contained a set
of bullet shells, and told you I found them in a
creek bed that cut through cretaceous sediment (As
evident from the types of fossils present in the
sediment the creek flowed through.), would you
believe me if I said that "proved" there were
humans running around with automatic rifles 75-80
million years ago? (Or, that Dinosaurs had guns?)
> Now who is unwilling
> to learn.
We will see.
> As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
> disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
> the answer.
Good thing that evolution has yet to be disproven.
Boikat
Ken Cope
>
> In article <7r44q7$9q7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
> <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <070919991220240323%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> > "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
> vast majority of biologists, and indeed the scientific community at
> large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that life
> oritinated from random combinations of abiotic materials, and that
> variation and selective processes has shaped it subsequently.
>
> That first step is a mighty big one. Talk to the mathematicians..
Which mathematicians did you have in mind, or do they speak with one
voice? Thanks for playing. As a consolation prize, you can have this URL:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html
It is aptly titled Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of
Abiogenesis Calculations.
> > > And as such, life has no deeper meaning.
> > >
> > Evolution also says nothing aout the meaning of life, one way or the
> > other.
I'm going to have to agree with "David P. Johnson" on this one. Meaning
is an exercise left to the student. Looking in the back of a book before
working it out yourself is considered cheating, at least that's what it
says in the back of my book.
> On the contrary. In 1995 the National Association of Biology Teachers
> (NABT) passed a resolution that states:
>
> "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
> unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of
> temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
> natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing
> environments."
>
> The words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" were intentionally included
> to deny even the possibility of an intelligent creator. They are
> unnecessary to the definition of evolution, and serve only to make
> statements on metaphysics.
Metaphysics has no place in a biology classroom. Whose metaphysics
should be accomodated?
An article titled "The 'Science and Religion Movement': An Opportunity
for Improved Public Understanding of Science?" by Eugenie C. Scott
appeared in a recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Here is an excerpt:
...[incompatibility] is found in only one of the four ways that
(Christian) religion and science historically have interacted.
(1) The "warfare" model, as illustrated in Andrew D. White's 1896
classic "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in
Christendom", presents religion and science as being incompatible. This
perspective is echoed today by Phillip Johnson, Richard Dawkins, Paul
Kurtz, and many others. Depending on which side of the issue you are
on, one concludes either that religion trumps science, or that science
trumps religion.
(2) The "separate realms" model understands science and religion to
focus on different areas of human concern, with science explaining the
natural world, and religion dealing with spiritual matters. Here,
science and religion don't conflict, because they have little to say to
one another. Stephen Jay Gould is a proponent of this view.
(3) The "accommodation" model, in which science and religion are more
directly engaged; theological understanding is thought to be deepened
through the understanding of science. Some Christians wrestling with
the theological implications of Darwinism in the early twentieth
century, for example, were willing to reinterpret basic concepts of the
Fall, Atonement, and Original Sin in the light of evolutionary theory.
These theologians were considering such problems as "If humans evolved
from apes, there was no original state of grace and the concept of the
Original Sin must be reinterpreted" (Bowler 1999, 39) The accommodation
seems to be largely a one-way street, with science acting as a source
for theological reinterpretation rather than the reverse.
(4) In the "engagement" model, science and religion interact as equal
partners, stimulating each other to ask different questions than they
otherwise might, with the idea that the interaction of both
epistemologies will contribute to a fuller understanding of both the
natural and nonmaterial realms. This view is reflected in the quotation
often attributed to Einstein that "Religion without science is crippled,
while science without religion is lame."
***
The "warfare model" is the perspective I share with some strange
bedfellows. While religion has many cultural and esthetic virtues,
those virtues remain cultural and esthetic especially in the absence
of religion. It is no longer the task of what we now call science to
bolster bronze age cosmologies; to add gaps to accomodate whatever
god du jour is posited. Whether good literature or bad, we are a
credulous, story telling species. The majority of us refuse to let
a few troublesome facts get in the way of what we'd prefer to believe.
> > For that matter, neither does gravity. Why aren't you posting to the
> > Usenet railing against gravity?
>
> This is a straw man, and you know it. The influence of gravity can be
> directly observed. Abiogenesis cannot, as it would have been a single
> event in the far distant past. Neither can the non-existence, or even
> the non-intervention of God be directly observed.
Why should I be so charitable in regards to your pet belief system?
I don't have time to waste wondering which non-observed god cannot
be seen to intervene in any given event. Was that the absence of
Thor, or Crom, or Kali, who would or would not have fed the invisible
dragon in the airtight garage of Jerry Cornelius while aliens inserted
an anal probe while you slept and erased your memory, proving only that
some of the humans actually seem to enjoy being anally probed? You're
free to believe whatever you like, but don't get pissed off when
doing your best to see the world as the process of science reveals it
keeps narrowing the gaps where god used to live. Which gaps should have
protected status, special dispensation from science? Where does it stop?
With Narnia, Oz, Middle Earth, Barsoom?
Abiogenesis may yet be observed, in various stages, on many nearby
worlds whose environments may be conducive to primitive life. Such a
finding wouldn't dissuade a single creationist from believing that it
also was the subject of top down 'intelligent design' either.
> > > > That's what all the evidence says, so until/unless new evidence to
> > > > the contrary shows up, then it is perfectly reasonable and
> > > > scientific to draw that conclusion.
> > >
> > > You're not getting it. What evidence can you cite that no intelligence
> > > has ever been involved in the creative/evolutionary processes?
The above is a very poorly constructed sentence. I would hope intelligence
is involved in a creative process, but what evidence do you have for
creation in any evolutionary process? Try to stick with what cannot
be reduced to articles of belief. Your subjective fantasy life about
the way you think the universe works is not a place I can visit; not
unless you put together some art and animation and computer and story
telling chops, and work to build a small subset of the holodeckTM which
will no doubt be wasted on some very sick scenarios around interactions
with your own personal jesus, or vishnu, or umbleeb of the seven moons.
> > No science says this. Evolution is completely silent on this issue. It's
> > compeltely outside its realm.
>
> Yes, it _is_ outside the realm of science. But biologists and science
> educators do not remain silent about it. The NABT statement is but one
> of several put out by scientific and educational individuals and
> organizations specifically to deny any creative intelligence.
There is no time to waste arguing about definitions of whatever you
attempt to use to waste the time of a science student. Bash science
in a church, or here on usenet, where such diatribes are rampant.
> > Why do you insist on sticking things into the evolutionary theory that
> > don't go there?
>
> They are not stuck there by me.
I'm not going there either.
> > > What evidence can you cite that only random mutations and natural
> > > selective processes have ever been involved?
> > >
> > None, because no one is saying it's random except for lying
> > creationists.
>
> Uh.. Hello.
Hello yourself-- Oh, OK. So you might think that not lobbying for
the teaching of creationism in classrooms excuses you from being
called a creationist. At best, you're struggling for the appearance
of fairness and impartiality. If the mask you're wearing on usenet
reflects some aspect of sincerity, I think you have some notions
to which you are very compulsively clinging that are preventing
you from looking closely at evidence that challenges your favorite
stories. I still have my favorite stories too, I just don't demand
that they be given equal time in a biology class.
> <some snip>
>
> > > Ok. Tell me what the scientific meaning is.
> > >
> > The change in allele frequencies in a population over a period of time.
>
> This has been demonstrated to happen. It is a fact that must be
> embraced happily. If this is your only definition of evolution, then it
> is true.
>
> I only wish that scientists and educators would simply leave it at
> that, and resist the temptation to then say that _only_ evolution has
> _ever_ shaped biology. This is a statement of faith. (In effect, since
> evolution happens, then God is bogus) (If you do not believe scientists
> make such statements, then you are not reading the same articles I am.
> S. J. Gould, Futayama, etc.)
If you're having a problem with this concept, let me take you back to
your first post in this thread, where you said:
> Most evolutionists do not stop with saying that evolution happens, or
> even with saying that everything evolved from a common ancestor. They
> go on to assert that the _only_ processes governing evolution are
> unguided natural forces and random chance. This exceeds scientific
> observation, and moves into the realm of metaphysics. It is
> unverifiable, and therefore not science.
Giving credence to any religious notion of a supernatural creative
force, to use your phrase, "exceeds scientific observation, and moves
into the realm of metaphysics. It is unverifiable, and therefore not
science."
> > > > It is perfectly valid logic.
> > >
> > > It is not perfectly valid logic.
> > >
> > > I can only assume that you have never formally studied logic.
> > >
> > You assume wrong.
>
> Then you weren't paying attention. You snipped my syllogisms.
This isn't an argument. This is merely the automatic gainsaying of-- never mind.
> > > > Let's say I claim that an invisible snark is reading over your
> > > > shoulder. You can't prove that there is no snarg, but I could
> > > > conceivably prove it if I had an Invisible Snark Detector. Or I
> > > > found some other way of producing the snark.
> > >
> > > As a scientist, I _must_ admit that there is a possibility that there
> > > is a snarg(k) reading over my shoulder.
> > >
> > No, because that position is unfalsifiable.
Should we all have a sign over the toilet reminding us that god watches
us wherever we go? The Royal Fairy Princess of Oz, Ozma, formerly
Tippetarius, would never waste a nanosecond looking at you in her Magic
Picture, even though she is immortal and can actually afford to waste
the time.
i know this is true, and i think you do too.
> Holy cow. I would drop this line of argument if I were you. It is
> unproductive, and you are digging yourself deeper and deeper.
Hey, I was about to tell you the same thing!
[snip] (let's get to the fun shouting bits, shall we?)
> I am now going to shout, in hopes that you will finally get it.
>
> I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT LITTLE GREEN MEN BE A VIABLE SCIENTIFIC
> ARGUMENT. I MERELY POINT OUT THAT SCIENCE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO THE
> CONTRARY.
Science has no evidence yet, which is a form of evidence. SETI
is an active search for any information that would contradict the
present, stupefyingly resounding *lack* of evidence for little green
men, of whatever hue.
> Now. Why on earth would I make such a seemingly rediculous point? Am I
> advocating willy-nilly proposals of any bizarre nature, and trying to
> make them seem legitimate by claiming that science cannot contradict
> it?
>
> NO.
>
> My point is that I, along with millions of other people, have
> discovered that you can know something through other than scientific
> means. Many, many scientists would vehemently deny this. However,
> regardless of what they say, I, and others, have found one fact through
> these spiritual means: that God exists. About this, science can only
> remain silent. It has not done so.
Science remains silent about your bald and unsupported by evidence "fact"
about whatever you claim to mean when you use the word 'God', to the extent
that it can suppress an embarrassed nervous, polite cough while checking
for an exit from the small enclosed space that the room just became.
It wasn't easy to maintain my silence when I stopped into a bookstore
to look at a solar system atlas, which happened to be next to an author's
book reading and signing. He was asserting that mantras have ..."the power
to manipulate reality, just the way somebody can lift a car when it has
run over a loved one. I've seen stones appear in my hand from a great
distance, with no physical means for them to have done so, purely due
to the power of mantras, taught to me by the ancients. Any questions?"
There were none. Just a room full of suckers, and he wasn't about to
give them an even break.
> <some more snip>
>
> > > All I wish is that evolutionists would cut creationists a bit of
> > > slack.
Bob knows you need Slack, Jack.
> > We'll do that when they stop lying and actually produce some evidence of
> > their own, which they have so far failed to do.
>
> And again. Again the same misunderstanding on your part. Religion does
> not, indeed need not produce scientific evidence. Scientists that
> insist that it does will only consider religion on scientific terms.
> They in effect deny that spiritual truth can be known.
The nature of subjectivity is perfectly subject to study. The cognitive
sciences are progressing at a fairly steady rate; that is to say, there
is much healthy agreement and disagreement about what is reducible to
what brain state when somebody claims to be in the process of knowing
some "spiritual truth."
> > > But, I would so dearly love to be able to talk with an evolutionist
> > > that didn't think I was a complete idiot when I tell him that I know
> > > that God lives, and that he, by whatever means, created us.
Hell, I've known that in excrutiatingly tedious detail, and then the
drugs wore off. Have you any idea how many contradictory truths the average,
garden variety human can compartmentalize from each other, all of them true,
especially when examined one at a time? So far as I can tell, you're not a
complete idiot, but I have confidence in you.
> > I believe that, too. But the assertion that God couldn't have produced
> > the world's life through evolution is ridiculous.
My non-extant god didn't cheat by resorting to magic tricks, when a perfectly
natural process would have obviated the need for all that top down showboating.
> And of course, I never insisted that God couldn't..
>
> After stating my views so plainly, if you still disagree that spiritual
> truth can be known independent of science, then I will never convince
> you. This is something that is up to the individual. If someone has not
> experienced spiritual enlightenment, then (s)he will not understand.
Go ahead, try some spiritual enlightenment. The first one's free, and
there are so many varieties from which to choose.
> Of course, religion should stay out of the realm of science too.
No fear, religion never even gets on the same map as science.
> I end my comments.
I doubt that.
> --
> David
> ->(Signature continues here)
Ken Cope Ozcot Studios ozpi...@ozcot.com http://www.ozcot.com
Department of Redundancy Department, Bureau of Western Mythology
A Proud Service of the Lost Electricity Reclamation Agency
"Well, I don' know why you people seem to think this is magic. It's just
this little chromium switch here. My, you people are so superstitious."
Boikat
>
> "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
>
> >Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
> >purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
> >some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
> >depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
> >in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is unwilling
> >to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
> >disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
> >the answer.
> >
>
"Forbidden Archaeology" for 10, please. (Or the
weekly world news)
Boikat
Landis D. Ragon
>Landis D. Ragon wrote:
>>
>> "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
>> >the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
>> >purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
>> >children to make them appear older. How about the cutting of funding by
>> >some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
>> >evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
>> >depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
>> >in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is unwilling
>> >to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
>> >disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
>> >the answer.
>> >
>>
>> How about references to all of the above wild unsupported assertions?
>
>"Forbidden Archaeology" for 10, please. (Or the
Now there's a well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal...
*NOT*!
>weekly world news)
<*sigh*> I think that's where a lot of theists get their scientific
information.
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Landis D. Ragon wrote:
> >>
> >> "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
> >> >the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
> >> >purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
> >> >children to make them appear older. How about the cutting of funding by
> >> >some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
> >> >evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
> >> >depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
> >> >in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is unwilling
> >> >to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
> >> >disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
> >> >the answer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> How about references to all of the above wild unsupported assertions?
> >
> >"Forbidden Archaeology" for 10, please. (Or the
>
> Now there's a well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal...
> *NOT*!
>
> >weekly world news)
>
> <*sigh*> I think that's where a lot of theists get their scientific
> information.
IIRC from the review of Forbidden Archaeology at
the T.O. web site points out that the source for
the "2.8 billion year old ball bearing" thing, was
"The Weekly World News"
Boikat
R. Tang
David P. Johnson <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>In article <7r44q7$9q7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
><sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <070919991220240323%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
>> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
>> > vast majority of evolutionists, and indeed the scientific community at
>> > large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that random
>> > variation and selective processes brought life about in the first
>> > place, and shaped it subsequently.
>> >
>> No, the current theori is that life was brought about through
>> abiogenesis.
>>
>> Go and *learn* something about the subject before you start railing
>> against it.
>
>Ok. Abiogenesis. This means that life originated from non-living
>chemicals. You argue with my semantics, not the substance of my
>statement.
If you can't get the terms right, you don't HAVE any substance.
I don't look very highly on a person who attempts to mount an
argument in a field where they haven't even bothered to learn the
definitions of basic concepts.
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
mike list
> In article <090919991829155583%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> David P. Johnson <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> >In article <7r44q7$9q7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
> ><sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <070919991220240323%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> >> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Although I have met some evolutionists who do not go this far, the
> >> > vast majority of evolutionists, and indeed the scientific community at
> >> > large (like the National Acadamy of Sciences, etc.) claim that random
> >> > variation and selective processes brought life about in the first
> >> > place, and shaped it subsequently.
> >> >
> >> No, the current theori is that life was brought about through
> >> abiogenesis.
> >>
> >> Go and *learn* something about the subject before you start railing
> >> against it.
> >
> >Ok. Abiogenesis. This means that life originated from non-living
> >chemicals. You argue with my semantics, not the substance of my
> >statement.
>
> If you can't get the terms right, you don't HAVE any substance.
>
> I don't look very highly on a person who attempts to mount an
> argument in a field where they haven't even bothered to learn the
> definitions of basic concepts.
> --
> -Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
> - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
> - http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
> -Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
The fact that only the judaeo-christian cretionist theory must be taught in
Kansas,
would seem to me to violate the Constitution, by making that belief set
"officially sanctioned".
The will of the people is not by itself supercessionary to the Constitution
without a
constitutionally prescribed amendment.
This is a violation of the letter AND the apparent intent of the Constitution.
-Mike List
mike list
Now there' s a peer reviewed scientific publication.
Without it we would not be aware of a 23lb. grasshpper
or the batboy who was raised in a cave , has fangs, pointed ears,
and generally looks like a young nosferatu.
I was raised substantially by a black babysitter,
maybe that's why I tan deeply.
-Mike List
Dick C.
"Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
> Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and
>never the evolutionist.
Why don't you tell us? Actually a great many highly religious people are
more than willing to learn, and many of them have added greatly to our
understanding of all aspects of science. It seems to be only those who
are wedded to a literal translation of their holy book who refuse to
learn.
>Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
> purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
> children to make them appear older.
Interesting, do you have any reference or evidence for this assertion?
>How about the cutting of funding by
> some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
> evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact
same
> depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball
bearing
> in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is
unwilling
> to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When
you
> disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible
must be
> the answer.
I am more than willing to learn, if you provide some references we can
look at them and discuss them. The problem is that from the face of it
your assertions sound either false or misunderstood.
as far as Sherlock Holmes goes, Doyle made up a lot of really strange
stories and gave Holmes some pretty amazing powers, but reality does not
match that particular fiction.
Why don't you go out and learn some real science?
--
Dick #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
People think libraries are safe, they're not.
They have ideas in them.
Stanton D Summay
in France to do exhaustive study of the jaw and teeth structure. He went
there being an evolutionist and returned a creationist. 2. I wish I could
remember her name but she went to South America on a grant from Georgetown
University. She discovered to copper machine ball. The minute the
University found out all her funding disappeared.
Landis D. Ragon <Landis...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:KWzYN+L242JEVp...@4ax.com...
> "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
>
> >Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and
never
> >the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about
the
> >purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
> >children to make them appear older. How about the cutting of funding by
> >some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
> >evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
> >depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball
bearing
> >in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is
unwilling
> >to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
> >disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must
be
> >the answer.
> >
>
> How about references to all of the above wild unsupported assertions?
>
>
>
Stephen Grossman
> In article <090919990959347556%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>,
> "David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> > In article <37D6B4...@worldnet.att.net>, Stephen Grossman
> > <sdg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > ====================================================
> > > Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
> > > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This is a cute saying, but totally indefensible, as man has survived
> > for millenia without it.
> Third - It is precisely because the human animal is capable of observing
> its environment and drawing logical and rational conclusions from those
> observations that it has survived as well as it has over time. Reason
> allowed the development of tools, reason allowed the development of
> language, reason allowed the creation of the very device you are using
> to denigrate reason with.
He's not making an innocent error. Modern culture is a massive attack on
reason and values. See Weimar Germany.
________________________________________________
Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
------------------------------------------------------
Tracking Marxist dialectical revolution: ZigZag
Radically systematic radical metaphysics: Existence 2
http://home.att.net/~sdgross
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman Fairhaven, MA, USA sdg...@att.net
Stephen Grossman
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> In article <37D6B4...@worldnet.att.net>, Stephen Grossman
> <sdg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > ====================================================
> > Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
> > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a cute saying, but totally indefensible, as man has survived
> for millenia without it.
Insofar as any person, in a hunting-gathering society or in a
scientific-industrial civilizatoin, has ever focused mind upon reality and
acted according to that focus, just to that extent has that person been
able to survive. The Industrial Revolution is massive and clear evidence,
subtle in other cultures, that reason is mans man's basic means of
survival.
Stephen Grossman
> In article <19990908174132...@ng-fc1.news.cs.com>,
> staz...@cs.com (Stazelvis) wrote:
> > born again christians like myself have an answer for all unbelievers
> > .we stand firmly on the perfect inspired word of god
if i become a Christian will you join me in the time-honored mass murder
of infidels?
Stephen Grossman
<joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> Besides, there are countless creatures that have survived for far
> longer than man has, without tools, language, computers, denigration of
> reason. Amoebas, for example. In fact, Darwin said don't confuse
> fitness with intelligence, strength, or any other admirable quality. It
> is merely the ability to propagate.
your contempt for the human mind fits you for death camp guard
Stephen Grossman
<ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
> Read Buried Alive by an orthodontist that was allowed access to the fossils
> in France to do exhaustive study of the jaw and teeth structure. He went
> there being an evolutionist and returned a creationist. 2. I wish I could
> remember her name but she went to South America on a grant from Georgetown
> University. She discovered to copper machine ball. The minute the
> University found out all her funding disappeared.
Universities pay for knowledge, not faith
Louann Miller
Grossman) wrote:
>In article <090919991221356983%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>, "David P. Johnson"
><joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
>> Besides, there are countless creatures that have survived for far
>> longer than man has, without tools, language, computers, denigration of
>> reason. Amoebas, for example. In fact, Darwin said don't confuse
>> fitness with intelligence, strength, or any other admirable quality. It
>> is merely the ability to propagate.
>your contempt for the human mind fits you for death camp guard
You can't possibly be serious. The territory between saying "The human
mind is not the only possible form of fitness, lots of other creatures
also have helpful adaptations" and "the human mind has no value" is
wider than Montana. On a two-lane highway. Behind a two-lane-wide
harvester going 10 mph.
Louann "with a Contemporary Christian no-commercials marathon on the
only audible radio station" Miller
Landis D. Ragon
>Read Buried Alive by an orthodontist that was allowed access to the fossils
>in France to do exhaustive study of the jaw and teeth structure. He went
>there being an evolutionist and returned a creationist. 2. I wish I could
>remember her name but she went to South America on a grant from Georgetown
>University. She discovered to copper machine ball. The minute the
>University found out all her funding disappeared.
>
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html
"Running throughout the book is a rivulet of paranoia. A rivulet, did
I say? - an ocean, more like: the entire book is soaked in it, and it
even infuses the descriptions of the fossils themselves."
>Landis D. Ragon <Landis...@ibm.net> wrote in message
>news:KWzYN+L242JEVp...@4ax.com...
>> "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
>>
Morat
Stanton D Summay wrote:
> Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
> the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence. How about the
> purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal especially the
> children to make them appear older. How about the cutting of funding by
> some Colleges when person funded by them finds evidence that disproves
> evolution? How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same
> depth as Java man? What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing
> in earth that is suppose to be two billions years old? Now who is unwilling
> to learn. As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
> disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
> the answer.
>
How about the part where you document all those claims?
>
> Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:PvtB3.57$i27....@news.uswest.net...
> > In article <070919991228027868%joh...@ae.msstate.edu>, "David P. Johnson"
> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> > >In article <37d2d056....@news.ptd.net>, <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 3 Sep 1999 13:32:53 -0400, "David P. Johnson"
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
When someone is saved from certain death by a strange
concatenation of circumstances, they say its a miracle.
But of course if someone is killed by a freak chain of
events - that must also be a miracle.
Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean its not miraculous.
--Terry Pratchett "Interesting Times"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane D. Killian
"David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> In article <7r44q7$9q7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
> <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> > No, the current theori is that life was brought about through
> > abiogenesis.
> >
> > Go and *learn* something about the subject before you start railing
> > against it.
>
> Ok. Abiogenesis. This means that life originated from non-living
> chemicals. You argue with my semantics, not the substance of my
> statement.
>
> > Evolution also says nothing aout the meaning of life, one way or the
> > other.
>
> On the contrary. In 1995 the National Association of Biology Teachers
> (NABT) passed a resolution that states:
>
> "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
> unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of
> temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
> natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing
> environments."
>
> The words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" were intentionally included
> to deny even the possibility of an intelligent creator.
>
No, they were excised later. Anyone reading the final resolution knows
this.
> > For that matter, neither does gravity. Why aren't you posting to the
> > Usenet railing against gravity?
>
> This is a straw man, and you know it.
>
No, it's not. It's a perfectly valid argument. The exact reason you're
railing against evolution is also true of gravity. Gravity doesn't say
that God causes each apple to fall; it happens according to natural law.
> The influence of gravity can be directly observed.
>
Wrong. We can *NOT* observe how gravity works at a quantum level. This
is a major problem with the theory.
> Abiogenesis cannot,
>
There have been may experiments made which suggest that it can.
> > No science says this. Evolution is completely silent on this issue.
> > It's compeltely outside its realm.
>
> Yes, it _is_ outside the realm of science. But biologists and science
> educators do not remain silent about it. The NABT statement is but one
> of several put out by scientific and educational individuals and
> organizations specifically to deny any creative intelligence.
>
Since your NABT resolution excised your offending words, I'm going to
have to ask you for another scientific source denying creative
intelligence.
> > Why do you insist on sticking things into the evolutionary theory
> > that don't go there?
>
> They are not stuck there by me.
>
They aren't stuck there by science.
> > > What evidence can you cite that only random mutations and natural
> > > selective processes have ever been involved?
> > >
> > None, because no one is saying it's random except for lying
> > creationists.
>
> Uh.. Hello.
>
Chemistry is not random. No matter what the lying creationists say. And
chemistry drives evolution.
> > > Ok. Tell me what the scientific meaning is.
> > >
> > The change in allele frequencies in a population over a period of
> > time.
>
> This has been demonstrated to happen. It is a fact that must be
> embraced happily. If this is your only definition of evolution, then
> it is true.
>
So, we can close down this newsgroup and all go home, because that is
the *totality* of evolution.
> Then you weren't paying attention. You snipped my syllogisms.
>
Your syllogisms were irrelevant. Science deals with falsifiable
concepts. God isn't falsifiable, therefore isn't scientific. Unless and
until objective evidence shows up in favor of the existance of God, the
default position of science must be that he doesn't exist.
> Holy cow. I would drop this line of argument if I were you. It is
> unproductive, and you are digging yourself deeper and deeper.
>
It's simple reasoning. You can falsify the statement that there is no
snark; just produce the snark. But unless/until evidence of the snark
comes forth, the default position is that there is no snark. Otherwise,
you have to allow for the possibility of all kinds of crazy things.
> Yet advocates of evolution continue to say that no intelligence has
> ever been involved in evolution.
>
This is the scientific position. It's not necessarily (although it may
be) the personal beliefs of the scientists involved, but their personal
beliefs cannot interfere with science. The default position must be that
there is no God until/unless evidence shows up.
> I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT LITTLE GREEN MEN BE A VIABLE SCIENTIFIC
> ARGUMENT. I MERELY POINT OUT THAT SCIENCE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO THE
> CONTRARY.
>
Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter one gnat's hair. The scientific position
on little green men must remain that they don't exist until/unless
evidence supporting them comes up.
> My point is that I, along with millions of other people, have
> discovered that you can know something through other than scientific
> means.
>
No one is disputing that. But the default position of *science* must be
the falsifiable.
> Many, many scientists would vehemently deny this.
>
Post one. Post one scientist that, for example, says you can't know
anything conceptually...or through witness testimony...or by indirect
inference.
> > > All I wish is that evolutionists would cut creationists a bit of
> > > slack.
> > >
> > We'll do that when they stop lying and actually produce some
> > evidence of their own, which they have so far failed to do.
>
> And again. Again the same misunderstanding on your part. Religion does
> not, indeed need not produce scientific evidence.
>
Then they have no business claiming that their idea is scientific and
belong in science class with/instead of evolution.
> Scientists that insist that it does will only consider religion on
> scientific terms.
>
Science says zilch about religion.
> They in effect deny that spiritual truth can be known.
>
If some scientists personally do this, that's their own lookout. I'm
sure some plumbers do this, too. Where is your venom towards plumbers?
> After stating my views so plainly, if you still disagree that
> spiritual truth can be known independent of science, then I will never
> convince you.
>
I never said otherwise. I'm just explaining what the default position of
science must be.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Shane D. Killian
"Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
> Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and
> never the evolutionist. Maybe you refuse to look at the evidence.
>
at night.
Consider this: I started out a creationist when I went and looked at the
evidence. All the evidence falls in favor of evolution, and the
creationists have nothing but lies. To me, the decision was clear.
> How about the purposeful rearranging of the jaw bones of Neanderthal
> especially the children to make them appear older.
>
Full bibliographical reference to the primary peer-reviewed literature,
please.
> How about the cutting of funding by some Colleges when person funded
> by them finds evidence that disproves evolution?
>
Full bibliographical reference to the primary peer-reviewed literature,
please.
> How about the finding of modern man bones at the exact same depth as
> Java man?
>
Full bibliographical reference to the primary peer-reviewed literature,
please.
> What about the finding of a machined copper ball bearing in earth that
> is suppose to be two billions years old?
>
Full bibliographical reference to the primary peer-reviewed literature,
please.
> Now who is unwilling to learn.
>
If you can't produce references for each of these, then that would be
you.
INDNJC
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html
few quotes:
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) -
150 years
ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and
very much like
an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the
supposedly stooped
posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is
just a variation of
the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the
ancestor of humans,
it has now been realized that it is merely an
extinct type of orangutan
(an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a
human skull cap
and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized
as the missing link
for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single
tooth of a
type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been
found around
the world. They are smaller than the average human
today, with an
appropriately smaller head (and brain size).
However, the brain size
is within the range of people today and studies of
the middle ear
have shown that Homo erectus was just like us.
Remains have
been found in the same strata and in close
proximity to ordinary
Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the
ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living being"
(Genesis 2:7).
detail can be read from:
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html
-INDNJC-
INDNJC
Landis D. Ragon wrote:
> "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> wrote:
>
> >Read Buried Alive by an orthodontist that was allowed access to the fossils
> >in France to do exhaustive study of the jaw and teeth structure. He went
> >there being an evolutionist and returned a creationist. 2. I wish I could
> >remember her name but she went to South America on a grant from Georgetown
> >University. She discovered to copper machine ball. The minute the
> >University found out all her funding disappeared.
> >
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html
>
> "Running throughout the book is a rivulet of paranoia. A rivulet, did
> I say? - an ocean, more like: the entire book is soaked in it, and it
> even infuses the descriptions of the fossils themselves."
>
detail can be read from:
raven1
wrote:
>Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
>the evolutionist.
Because the religious people are the ones with closed minds?
yang hu
>Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) -150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and
>very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and >that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Why don't you actually read about the Neaderthals? There are many
Neanderthal skeletons, and they are not "just a variation of the human
kind", given their collective morphological differences.
http://thunder.indstate.edu/~ramanank/morphology.html
> Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a
> human skull cap
> and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized
> as the missing link
> for 40 years.
>
> Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single
> tooth of a
> type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Ahh, the formulaic creationist strawman. Did you bother to read who
figure out these hoaxs? Sure weren't you creationist bretherns, who are
too stupid to go out and do real field works.
Why don't you read up on the current state of anthropology instead of
whiping up an easily refuted creationist clap trap?
What else do you have, the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The rotational
rate of earth? Go ahead, dig them up from your creationist website. It's
all been done before
"The imaginative drawing was the work of an illustrator collaborating
with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a popular
magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few, if any, other
scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
"No creationist who discusses the human fossil record avoids mentioning
Piltdown Man"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html
--
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
``Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of
happiness.''
Dalai Lama, "Ethics for the New Millennium"
yang hu
> detail can be read from:
> http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html
>
> few quotes:
>
> 150 years
> ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and
> very much like
> an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the
> supposedly stooped
> posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is
> just a variation of
> the human kind.
If you had *actually* read the post that you were replying to, you would
have realized that your fellow creationist demolished the lame agument
you just put out.
But then again, you probably don't read as much as you pray right?
yang hu
>As Sir Arthur Connan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, When you
> disprove all other theories whatever is left, how ever implausible must be
> the answer.
And Doyle's belief in ghostly seance is no less valid than your
creationism.
Furthermore, by your own statement, creationism is not the answer, given
that all the evidences are stacked against it.
D. R. Angel
Have you ever opened you mind to Christianity? I mean REALLY opened it. Or are
you
simply trying to fit in with non-believing friends by making comments like the
one below.
If Christianity turns you off then why are you here? Do you go to Islamic NGs
and make these
statements? how about Buddhist NGs? Atheist? Pagan? Nostrodamus?
Why here? I think you know God more than you have the courage to admit. I
think His conviction
draws you here for better or for worse. What else could it be?
Answer me that.
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also
bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one
another
You have the law written in your heart and that is what drives you to this
place. Whether you
use it for good or not is up to you but, by being here when you could be
elswhere you are fulfilling
ideals and prophecies of Christianity.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
iron
In short, we were expecting you.
Fortunately, even though these are clearly the 'latter times' it is not the
end. And until
the end you still have time to change, to turn to Christ, to be saved. Because
once that end
comes there will be no second chances.
D. R. Angel
Sid
The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of
toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved,
and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large
modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed
horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living
Fallabella horses only 43 hind leg (17 inches) tall.
-INDNJC-
INDNJC
Was Libby right? In his day, measurements of which he was aware
showed that C14 was entering the system some 12 per cent or
more faster than it was leaving. This would indicate that the system
was less than 30,000 years old, since equilibrium had not yet been
reached. But the discrepancy was within Libby's estimates of
experimental error, and so could be ignored. (Some have
suggested that the preconceived idea that it had to be in equilibrium
ensured that the given error margins were big enough to
encompass the actual result, but this may be unfair.)
If, as most creationists propose, there was a vast water vapor
canopy around the earth before the Flood, this would have shielded
the atmosphere from some of the cosmic radiation. Therefore, the
amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world would have been significantly
smaller than at present. So, a specimen from before the Flood
could appear to be very old, or even of infinite age, because it had
so little C14 in it, making it look as if it had been decaying for tens
of thousands of years. Most coal is vegetation that grew pre-Flood
and was buried by the Flood, so it would therefore not be surprising
to find that coal and oil, for example, would have virtually no
radiocarbon activity to be measured.
The measured exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field as
described by Dr. Thomas Barnes suggests that as you go back in
history, the strength of the field increases rapidly. A stronger
magnetic field would mean more protection against cosmic rays,
therefore, again, much less C14 produced, and, again, this gives
artificially old ages the more you go back in time.
Some recent, though controversial, research has raised the
interesting suggestion that c (the speed of light) has decreased in
historical times. During the 1930s and 1940s, the measurements
seemed to be so consistently dropping that a controversy about
declining c took place in the scientific literature for some. If it is
correct, then radioactive decay rates would automatically be
affected, and would show artificially high ages.
In any case, even the incorrect uniform model has given, in many
cases, serious embarrassment to the evolutionist by giving ages
which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his
model of earth history. Consider this: if a specimen is older
than
50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a
small
amount of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an
infinite
radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits such as
coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of
thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to
1968, only a handful were classed "undatable" - most were of the
sort which should have been in this category. This is especially
remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in
the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!
-INDNJC-
mike list
> INDNJC wrote:
>
> >Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) -150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and
> >very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and >that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
>
> Why don't you actually read about the Neaderthals? There are many
> Neanderthal skeletons, and they are not "just a variation of the human
> kind", given their collective morphological differences.
>
But he is right, H.S.Neanderthalensis is a variation on humans, an earlier predecessor.
Just gotta love how these blinders-on morons will twist anything they can manage to find.
Twist some biblical "facts" in a similar manner, though and it's "Katie bar the door".
mike list
> Have you ever opened you mind to Christianity? I mean REALLY opened it. Or are
> you
> simply trying to fit in with non-believing friends by making comments like the
> one below.
>
> If Christianity turns you off then why are you here? Do you go to Islamic NGs
> and make these
> statements? how about Buddhist NGs? Atheist? Pagan? Nostrodamus?
Kansas didn't make their creation myths "official"
>
>
> Why here? I think you know God more than you have the courage to admit. I
> think His conviction
> draws you here for better or for worse. What else could it be?
>
> Answer me that.
Evil secularists call it- SATAN, I mean crossposting
>
>
> Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
> conscience also
> bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one
> another
>
> You have the law written in your heart and that is what drives you to this
> place. Whether you
> use it for good or not is up to you but, by being here when you could be
> elswhere you are fulfilling
> ideals and prophecies of Christianity.
>
> 1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
> depart
> from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
> 1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
> iron
>
> In short, we were expecting you.
keep on expecting, as soon as I'm done with this message I'm going to trim the
reply to headers
>
>
> Fortunately, even though these are clearly the 'latter times' it is not the
> end. And until
> the end you still have time to change, to turn to Christ, to be saved. Because
> once that end
> comes there will be no second chances.
>
> D. R. Angel
> That "end times stuff has been claimed on for almost the whole last millemium.
> raven1 wrote:
>
> > On 9 Sep 1999 22:18:36 -0400, "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and never
> > >the evolutionist.
> >
> > Because the religious people are the ones with closed minds?
I will pray for the fundamentalists, that they will realize that their God
does things as he pleases, and not at their command, and for the scientists
who believe that there's no God, who else would have "apparently"
suspended the laws of thermodynamics so our ancestor organisms could get a start.
Y'all got brainlock.
-Mike List
INDNJC
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
It is true that during the 20th century, many
scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in
whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton
recently observed:
"An important factor in bringing about the
universal dominance and acceptance of
Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every
eminent professional scientist appointed to posts
in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50
years, in the English-speaking world, has
been a convinced Darwinist. ...These men,
as well as occupying powerful and
important academic teaching positions,
were also prolific and important writers
whose influence has been widespread in
forming the consensus." 1
Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and
experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as
highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David
Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those
who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific
consensus:
"...A tidal wave of new books... threaten to shatter that confidence -
titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the
Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great
Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling
Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in
Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth
(1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one
of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view:
they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain
when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the
existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That
proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave
matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in
recent years to prove that it does." 5
Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in
mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains
serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin
to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the
public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already
started." 6
Partial list of Creationist scientists (past and present) :
-600+ voting scientists of the Creation
Research Society (voting membership
requires at least an earned master's
degree in a recognized area of science).
-150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters
degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea
Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is
the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in
Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly
distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
-100+ members of the Moscow Creation Science Fellowship
(an organization with members throughout Russia, the Ukraine,
Estonia, and elsewhere). Eighty percent of the members "are
M.Sc., Ph.D., or D.Sc. professional researchers of university level."
-Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
-Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of
ichthyology)
-Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
-Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
-Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers /
developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
-Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
-Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
-Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas
dynamics)
-Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
-David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
-Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
-Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
[more info]
-Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative
anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
-Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
-Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear
science and astronomy) [more info]
-Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
-Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics /
developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
-Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
-Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics /
invented thermionic valve)
-Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
-Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
-John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
-Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer /
discovered self-induction)
-William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy /
discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
-George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
-D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
-James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
-Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy /
developed the Ephemeris Tables)
-John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
-Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
-Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
-Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and
systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
-Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
-Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
-Matthew Maury (helped develop science of
oceanography/hydrography)
-James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of
electrodynamics)
-Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
-Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
-Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the
discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the
reflecting telescope)
-Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
-Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented
the barometer)
-Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology /
discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control /
developed vaccinations and immunizations)
-William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry
/ discovered inert gases)
-John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
-Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
-Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
-James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology /
developed the use of chloroform)
-Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
-George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
-Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
-William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of
thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute
Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
-Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
-Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
-Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
-A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
-A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
-John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is
not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely
lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made
public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's
atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled
institutions.
Partial list of organizations and addresses
and the detail about this article
can be read from : http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
-INDNJC-
Stanton D Summay
raven1 <psyched...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:DNzZN6Dh7PUAyb0oB6C=wGUD...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Sep 1999 22:18:36 -0400, "Stanton D Summay" <ssu...@mis.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and
never
> >the evolutionist.
>
> Because the religious people are the ones with closed minds?
>
a creationist to purposely falsify physical evidence to prove a point.
Boikat
>
> yang hu wrote:
>
> > INDNJC wrote:
> >
> > >Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) -150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and
> > >very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and >that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
> >
> > Why don't you actually read about the Neaderthals? There are many
> > Neanderthal skeletons, and they are not "just a variation of the human
> > kind", given their collective morphological differences.
> >
>
> But he is right, H.S.Neanderthalensis is a variation on humans, an earlier predecessor.
Not a predecessor, a side branch of the human
tree.
Boikat
> > >in France to do exhaustive study of the jaw and teeth structure. He went
> > >there being an evolutionist and returned a creationist. 2. I wish I could
> > >remember her name but she went to South America on a grant from Georgetown
> > >University. She discovered to copper machine ball. The minute the
> > >University found out all her funding disappeared.
> > >
> > http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html
> >
> > "Running throughout the book is a rivulet of paranoia. A rivulet, did
> > I say? - an ocean, more like: the entire book is soaked in it, and it
> > even infuses the descriptions of the fossils themselves."
> >
>
> http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html
>
> few quotes:
>
> Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) -
> 150 years
> ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and
> very much like
> an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the
> supposedly stooped
> posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is
> just a variation of
> the human kind.
So was the stooped version. *sheesh!*
>
> Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the
> ancestor of humans,
> it has now been realized that it is merely an
> extinct type of orangutan
> (an ape).
Your point?
>
> Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a
> human skull cap
> and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized
> as the missing link
> for 40 years.
Ol' Pilty was never universally accepted as
genuine either, and the hoax was exposed by
scientists, not the lunatic fringe, and cleared up
back in the fifties.
>
> Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single
> tooth of a
> type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
And correctly identified after study by the very
person who discovered it. This also happened
decades ago.
>
> Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been
> found around
> the world. They are smaller than the average human
> today, with an
> appropriately smaller head (and brain size).
> However, the brain size
> is within the range of people today and studies of
> the middle ear
> have shown that Homo erectus was just like us.
No, there are consistent differences.
> Remains have
> been found in the same strata and in close
> proximity to ordinary
> Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
The overlap as the species evolved. Your point?
>
> "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the
> ground, and breathed
> into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
> became a living being"
> (Genesis 2:7).
Evidence?
>
> detail can be read from:
> http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html
Propaganda.
>
> -INDNJC-
Boikat
John Hattan
>read the detail from :
>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
>
>It is true that during the 20th century, many
>scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in
>whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton
>recently observed:
- The quotes you presented expressed doubt in Darwinian evolution, not
support for Biblical creation.
- Your subject strongly suggests that "real" scientists believe in
creation, but you make no effort to show how evolutionist scientists are
any less "real" than the names on your list.
- Most of the preeminent names on your list lived before Darwin's theory
of evolution was popularized. Virtually all of the rest of the
preeminent names are/were involved in sciences that require no knowledge
of evolution (Morse, Von Braun, Faraday, et al).
- The remaining names on the list require links to explain who they are.
Virtually all are simply members of CRS who have PhD's.
Do us a favor. If you want us to accept Biblical creation, quit trying
to poke holes in evolution or show that many smart people are
creationists. All you've gotta do is present us with some evidence! Show
some evidence of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. Quit thinking that
knocking down evolution is going to somehow render Biblical creation
more valid.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@bigfoot.com http://www.bitsmart.com/shatner
Stanton D Summay
in a book he wrote about Darwinism, he is from England and fairly famous but
his name escapes me at the moment, Biology is the study of very complex
structures brought together under of what appears to be the design of a
creator for a purpose and it is goal of science to disprove it.
I though scientific method was suppose to study all possibilities not strive
for a specific outcome.
yang hu <yangh@***uci***.edu> wrote in message
news:7rd4cv$n...@news.service.uci.edu...
John Hattan
>raven1 <psyched...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:DNzZN6Dh7PUAyb0oB6C=wGUD...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Because the religious people are the ones with closed minds?
>>
>That is kindof like the pot calling the kettle black is it not. Never known
>a creationist to purposely falsify physical evidence to prove a point.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilfig1.html
Saw this one close up when I made a trip to Glen Rose. It looks every
bit as fake close up.
Boikat
science arguments and compare them to the answers
provided here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
INDNJC wrote:
>
> detail can be read from :
> http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
>
> Was Libby right? In his day, measurements of which he was aware
> showed that C14 was entering the system some 12 per cent or
> more faster than it was leaving. This would indicate that the system
> was less than 30,000 years old, since equilibrium had not yet been
> reached. But the discrepancy was within Libby's estimates of
> experimental error, and so could be ignored. (Some have
> suggested that the preconceived idea that it had to be in equilibrium
> ensured that the given error margins were big enough to
> encompass the actual result, but this may be unfair.)
>
> If, as most creationists propose, there was a vast water vapor
> canopy around the earth before the Flood, this would have shielded
> the atmosphere from some of the cosmic radiation. Therefore, the
> amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world would have been significantly
> smaller than at present. So, a specimen from before the Flood
> could appear to be very old, or even of infinite age, because it had
> so little C14 in it, making it look as if it had been decaying for tens
> of thousands of years. Most coal is vegetation that grew pre-Flood
> and was buried by the Flood, so it would therefore not be surprising
> to find that coal and oil, for example, would have virtually no
> radiocarbon activity to be measured.
How come there are multiple layers of coal? How
come the multiple layers of coal rest on
undisturbed paleosoils? How does a coal bed come
to have dinosaur tracks in it, if it was the
result of a flood?
>
> The measured exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field as
> described by Dr. Thomas Barnes suggests that as you go back in
> history, the strength of the field increases rapidly. A stronger
> magnetic field would mean more protection against cosmic rays,
> therefore, again, much less C14 produced, and, again, this gives
> artificially old ages the more you go back in time.
The Merrit faq answers this assertion.
>
> Some recent, though controversial, research has raised the
> interesting suggestion that c (the speed of light) has decreased in
> historical times. During the 1930s and 1940s, the measurements
> seemed to be so consistently dropping that a controversy about
> declining c took place in the scientific literature for some. If it is
> correct, then radioactive decay rates would automatically be
> affected, and would show artificially high ages.
By using the scatter of data points that the
cretinist used, I can show that the speed of light
is increasing. BTW, have you stopped to consider
what the effects would be if the decay rates were
to have been compressed into a 6000 year time
frame (And magically dropped to their present
rate, just in time for us to measure them)? Or
worse, squeezed 4.5 billion years into the 1000+
years between creation and the flood?
>
> In any case, even the incorrect uniform model has given, in many
>
> cases, serious embarrassment to the evolutionist by giving ages
> which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his
> model of earth history. Consider this: if a specimen is older
> than
> 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a
> small
> amount of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an
> infinite
> radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits such as
> coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of
> thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to
> 1968, only a handful were classed "undatable" - most were of the
>
> sort which should have been in this category. This is especially
>
> remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in
> the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!
Not all coal dates from the carboniferous. This
shows that you don't know what you're talking
about, and are just parroting cretinist drivel.
Boikat
>
> -INDNJC-
Dick C.
>yang hu wrote:
>
>> INDNJC wrote:
>>
> reconstructions were stooped and
>> >very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped
> posture was due to disease and >that Neandertal is just a variation of the
> human kind.
>>
>> Neanderthal skeletons, and they are not "just a variation of the human
>> kind", given their collective morphological differences.
>>
>
>But he is right, H.S.Neanderthalensis is a variation on humans, an earlier
> predecessor.
> manage to find.
>Twist some biblical "facts" in a similar manner, though and it's "Katie bar the
> door".
>
of humans, a sister lineage. Not our predecessors.
raven1
wrote:
>
>Have you ever opened you mind to Christianity?
Yep. I was force-fed it for most of my formative years. Have you ever
opened your mind to Buddhism, Islam, Wicca, etc? If not, why not? Is
your mind closed on the topic, perhaps?
>I mean REALLY opened it.
Yep. I studied it intently, along with many other religions.
> Or are
>you
>simply trying to fit in with non-believing friends by making comments like the
>one below.
>
>If Christianity turns you off then why are you here?
Because I responded to a moron creationist who felt the need to post
in alt.atheism without checking to see where it was cross-posted. Why
are you still here in alt.atheism?
<> Do you go to Islamic NGs
>and make these
>statements? how about Buddhist NGs? Atheist? Pagan? Nostrodamus?
Nope. Buddhists and Pagans generally don't see the need to proselytize
on alt.atheism, so I don't accidentally wind up in their NGs. Moslems
don't usually cross-post here either. Nostradamus? And I'm posting
from alt.atheism.
>
>Why here? I think you know God more than you have the courage to admit. I
>think His conviction
>draws you here for better or for worse. What else could it be?
>
>Answer me that.
Answered above. Why are you here in alt.atheism? I think you know
"God" is a myth more than you have the courage to admit. I think this
J. Thomas Ford
>
> detail can be read from :
> http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
>
> Was Libby right? In his day, measurements of which he was aware
> showed that C14 was entering the system some 12 per cent or
> more faster than it was leaving. This would indicate that the system
> was less than 30,000 years old, since equilibrium had not yet been
> reached. But the discrepancy was within Libby's estimates of
> experimental error, and so could be ignored. (Some have
> suggested that the preconceived idea that it had to be in equilibrium
> ensured that the given error margins were big enough to
> encompass the actual result, but this may be unfair.)
>
> If, as most creationists propose, there was a vast water vapor
> canopy around the earth before the Flood, this would have shielded
> the atmosphere from some of the cosmic radiation. Therefore, the
> amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world would have been significantly
> smaller than at present.
Great- did these geniuses actually do some research to back this up, or
did they just have this lovely idea and hope no one would notice it's
just a pipe dream?
For example- what happens to life under the sort of pressure resulting
in having that much water piled on top of it, especially when it is
suddenly released? What is the temperature under such a blanket? Boiling
or freezing? What holds it up? I've seen magnetic fields suggested- what
happens when a field this strong interacts with the biosphere and what
in the HELL could generate it?
If they did not, they are writing very, very bad science fiction- about
on par with that L. Ron Hubbard conceived for $cientology.
> So, a specimen from before the Flood
> could appear to be very old, or even of infinite age, because it had
> so little C14 in it, making it look as if it had been decaying for tens
> of thousands of years.
And what about the calibration methods used for C-14 dating- why are
they, too innacurrate?
> Most coal is vegetation that grew pre-Flood
> and was buried by the Flood, so it would therefore not be surprising
> to find that coal and oil, for example, would have virtually no
> radiocarbon activity to be measured.
>
> The measured exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field as
> described by Dr. Thomas Barnes suggests that as you go back in
> history, the strength of the field increases rapidly.
Why does Barnes ignore evidence for magnetic field reversals and instead
assume a constant decay rate?
> A stronger
> magnetic field would mean more protection against cosmic rays,
....a greater exposure to high-strength EM fields. Did he cover this?
> therefore, again, much less C14 produced, and, again, this gives
> artificially old ages the more you go back in time.
>
> Some recent, though controversial, research has raised the
> interesting suggestion that c (the speed of light) has decreased in
> historical times.
The differences measured fall within the error limits of the equipment
used. Basing an argument on that is foolish.
> During the 1930s and 1940s, the measurements
> seemed to be so consistently dropping that a controversy about
> declining c took place in the scientific literature for some.
Well, that's a new one. Do they give references for this claim, or are
we supposed to take their word for it?
> If it is
> correct, then radioactive decay rates would automatically be
> affected, and would show artificially high ages.
Hmmm. To compress the appearance of many billions of years into 6,000,
the decay rate jumps into the stratosphere. What kind of life do these
"scientists" expect can live in the equivelent of ground zero of a
neutron bomb blast, 24/7? How did the Earth's crust cool so quickly
after being slagged?
> In any case, even the incorrect uniform model has given, in many
>
> cases, serious embarrassment to the evolutionist by giving ages
> which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his
> model of earth history. Consider this: if a specimen is older
> than
> 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a
> small
> amount of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an
> infinite
> radiocarbon age.
It would a lot more accurate to say that there was insufficient C-14
left in the samples to date them and another method must be used. More
honest, that is.
> So it was expected that most deposits such as
> coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of
> thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to
> 1968, only a handful were classed "undatable" - most were of the
>
> sort which should have been in this category. This is especially
>
> remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in
> the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!
Frankly, I do *not* believe that anyone has ever claimed that
Radiocarbon dating has yielded dates this old. I rather think your
source is now blatantly lying. You can claer this up by posting accurate
references showing where such claims are made.
--
"The pull of stupidity grows everywhere more powerful."
-Salman Rusdie, on the Kansas Board of Education anti-science rules.
Andrew
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> On 7 Sep 1999 19:29:36 -0400, "David P. Johnson"
> <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote
>
> >>I have no problems with evolution being taught in schools as long as it
> >>is not also stated that evolution is purely the result of chance, and
> >>therefore there is no God. This is unverifiable.
>
> >no one ever said this in a science class ever. no biology journal said
> >this ever. no scientist published this in a peer reviewed journal ever
>
> >can we say paranoia boys and girls?
>
Can we say "the author doesn't know his subject?"
First, it is patently illogical to say that "no one ever said this". It implies
a complete knowledge of what goes on which the author cannot claim with any
credibility. Broad sweeping statements like this rob from the credibility of the
author. Of course, it does give me a huge target. One statement from one of the
sources he says doesn't exist totally destroys his line of argumentation. A
classic mistake in debate that I'm happy to take advantage of (in fact I can't
resist)!
Second, the National Association of Biology Teachers does indeed say in their
official 1995 position statement that it happened totally without supervision,
temporal, etc. proving the original posters point beyond doubt. Look it up if
you doubt me in the Official Position Statement (1995) NABT.
So, your statement above is, simply, wrong. The evidence proves it. The attempt
to smear the original poster "paranoia" is an ad hominem attack. Again, an
unworthy and useless attack in terms of debate.
>
>
Boikat
>
> Oh really. Give me one. As one of the famous scientist and atheist stated
> in a book he wrote about Darwinism, he is from England and fairly famous but
> his name escapes me at the moment, Biology is the study of very complex
> structures brought together under of what appears to be the design of a
> creator for a purpose and it is goal of science to disprove it.
Sounds to me more like something a creationist
would make up, or it's taken out of context.
>
> I though scientific method was suppose to study all possibilities not strive
> for a specific outcome.
Okay, so tell us, how does one use the scientific
method to test a hypothetical hypothesis of
"Goddidit!"?
And no, the scientific method is not used to
strive for a specific outcome. The scientific
method is a process to test a hypothesis. The
outcome determines the adequacy of the hypothesis,
or the experiments and interpretation of the data
used to test the hypothesis.
Boikat
yang hu
> Partial list of Creationist scientists (past and present) :
>
> -600+ voting scientists of the Creation
> Research Society (voting membership
> requires at least an earned master's
> degree in a recognized area of science).
society in the US?
And why are these guy required to sign a "statement of belief" so that
they do not detract from the "gospel" of creationism?
"To my knowledge, no major science journal or professional society
requires its members to sign a statement of belief. Such a practice is
anathema to science, which is performed methodically and is
unconstrained by oaths or creeds"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html
> -John Grebe "chemist" [more info]
John Grebe, an old-earth creationist and a founding member of the
Creation Research Society, was a physical chemist and inventor. His
Sc.D. degree from Case School of Applied Science was merely honorary.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
yang hu
> Oh really. Give me one.
Show me that the Noadic flood happened.
You can't
You lose.
Dick C.
>
>raven1 <psyched...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:DNzZN6Dh7PUAyb0oB6C=wGUD...@4ax.com...
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Why is it always the religious people that are unwilling to learn and
>never
>> >the evolutionist.
>>
>>
>That is kindof like the pot calling the kettle black is it not. Never known
>a creationist to purposely falsify physical evidence to prove a point.
Falsify? Hell, they lie constantly about the physical evidence, pick and choose
what they want to use in order to support their pre determined conclusions, and
then misquote real scientists in order to make it seem like they are saying
something they aren't.
ZenIsWhen
This is a joke, isn't it?
Whoops ... I forgot how uneducated and deceitful creationist are.
>read the detail from :
>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
>
>It is true that during the 20th century, many
>scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in
>whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton
>recently observed:
>
> "An important factor in bringing about the
> universal dominance and acceptance of
> Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every
> eminent professional scientist appointed to posts
> in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50
> years, in the English-speaking world, has
> been a convinced Darwinist. ...These men,
> as well as occupying powerful and
> important academic teaching positions,
> were also prolific and important writers
> whose influence has been widespread in
> forming the consensus." 1
If a true quote (and the likelihood that it was either out of context or edited
is high), it is still only an editorial opinion.
>
>Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and
>experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as
>highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David
>Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those
>who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific
>consensus:
Do you know what a "percentage" is?
The actual number of creationist babblers can increase, but in the percentage
of overall scientists, decrease.
>
> "...A tidal wave of new books... threaten to shatter that confidence -
> titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the
> Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great
> Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling
> Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in
> Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth
> (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one
> of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view:
> they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain
> when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2
And?
AFAIK There are more comic books printed today than there ever have in the
past. It does not mean comic books are any more valid.
>
>
>"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the
>existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That
>proposition is unscientific.
It is irrelevant since the "evolutionary model" says no such thing.
"Not including" spiritual reasons is not the same as "excluding" spiritual
reason. Now, all you have to do is come up with some evidence ...ANY evidence
that this has ever happened!
We know perfectly well that if you leave
>matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in
>recent years to prove that it does." 5
Then where did all the heavy elements come from?
>
>
>Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in
>mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains
>serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin
>to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the
>public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already
>started." 6
It started a while ago .. and is still at the same plateau of NO EVIDENCE!
>
>
>Partial list of Creationist scientists (past and present) :
>
>-600+ voting scientists of the Creation
> Research Society (voting membership
> requires at least an earned master's
> degree in a recognized area of science).
NO real scientist would ever take an oath to follow a religious belief that
excludes reality!
>
>-150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters
> degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea
> Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is
> the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the
> Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in
> Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly
> distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
This applies to the whole list:
Prove it by an unbiased source. Creationist sources have ever been found to be
lies all too often.
Out of how man possible scientists? 10,000 .. and your number looks pretty
pitiful.
>
>-100+ members of the Moscow Creation Science Fellowship
> (an organization with members throughout Russia, the Ukraine,
> Estonia, and elsewhere). Eighty percent of the members "are
> M.Sc., Ph.D., or D.Sc. professional researchers of university level."
Oh .. and here we may be talking about a 1/2 million scientists total.
Your numbers are still pitiful.
>
>-Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
>
>-Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of
> ichthyology)
>
>-Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
>
>-Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
The 6 Million Dollar Man?
>
>-Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers /
> developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Has nothing to do with "evolutionary sciences.
>
>-Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
At a time when most people accepted the religious version of creation .. aka
before we learned the truth.
>
>-Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
>
>-Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas
> dynamics)
>
>-Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
Looking for independent proof ot this!
>
>-David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
>
>-Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
>
>-Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
> [more info]
>
>-Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative
> anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
>
>-Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
>
>-Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear
> science and astronomy) [more info]
>
>-Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
>
>-Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics /
> developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Irrelevant fields, and, again, from a time when "religious science" ruled
instead of real science.
>
>-Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
>
>-Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics /
> invented thermionic valve)
See Above.
>
>-Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
>
>-Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
A creationist already mentioned in the ICR liars list.
One of the head liars.
>
>-John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
>
>-Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer /
> discovered self-induction)
See above.
>
>-William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy /
> discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
>
>-George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
>
>-D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
>
>-James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
See above
>
>-Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy /
> developed the Ephemeris Tables)
From a time when religion ruled over science. I would imagine that Kepler did
a lot of work that took science out from under the thumb of ignorance of
religion.
>-John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
>
>-Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
>
>-Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
>
>-Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and
> systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
>
>-Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
See Above.
>
>-Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
>
>-Matthew Maury (helped develop science of
> oceanography/hydrography)
See
Above.
>
>-James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of
> electrodynamics)
See above.
>
>-Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
>
>-Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
See above.
>
>-Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the
> discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the
> reflecting telescope)
See above
>
>-Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
>
>-Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented
> the barometer)
See above.
>
>-Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology /
> discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control /
> developed vaccinations and immunizations)
Discovered that law of biogenesis .. and was a wacky creationist/
I think you're going to have to come up with evidence.
>
>-William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry
> / discovered inert gases)
>
>-John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
>
>-Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Irrelevant.
>
>-Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
Irrelevant
>
>-James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology /
> developed the use of chloroform)
Irrelevant
>
>-Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
>
>-George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Irrelevant.
>
>-Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
>
>-William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of
> thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute
> Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Ancient and irrelevant.
>
>-Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
>
>-Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
You've got to be kidding!
>
>-Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
>
>-A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
>
>-A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
>
>-John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
>
>A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is
>not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely
>lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made
>public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's
>atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled
>institutions.
If they are as fraudulent as the list you have here, it is still meaningless.
>
>Partial list of organizations and addresses
>and the detail about this article
>can be read from : http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
Does it supply REAL, unbiased and verifiable proof? ... or is it just more
lies from the maniacs?
Dick C.
>
>Have you ever opened you mind to Christianity? I mean REALLY opened it. Or
> are
>you
>simply trying to fit in with non-believing friends by making comments like the
>one below.
This is one of the most silly statements that the religious types use. Opening
one's mind is just the opposite of what religion demands. To be a christian,
at least a christian as defined by those that make this kind of statement, you
need to close your mind and accept only what they say their holy book says.
There are a lot of atheists who used to be christians, but then opened their
minds.
>If Christianity turns you off then why are you here? Do you go to Islamic NGs
>and make these
>statements? how about Buddhist NGs? Atheist? Pagan? Nostrodamus?
What do you mean here? I am posting from talk.origins. others post from
alt.atheism. Learn to use the usenet.
snip
>Fortunately, even though these are clearly the 'latter times' it is not the
>end. And until
>the end you still have time to change, to turn to Christ, to be saved. Because
>once that end
>comes there will be no second chances.
The end is near. Of course the end has been near since for 2,000 years.
Orac
endeavor known as "creationism" or "creation science," the answer is no.
No real scientists believe in creation science, because creationism fails
even the most basic tests of a scientific theory. (Any scientist who
claims to believe in creation theory is usually not a real scientist, or
at least not a competent one.) If what you mean by "creation" is the
belief that the universe was created by a higher being, then I'd say a lot
of scientists believe in "creation," including yours truly. The difference
is, we don't label our religious beliefs as "science" and falsely try to
equate them with scientific theory, as creationists do. We recognize that
the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, at least not with
present scientific means. Also, we see no conflict between accepting the
copious scientific evidence in front of us in favor of the theory of
evolution and our religious beliefs. In that, we have good company. Pope
John Paul II--no atheist he, and no liberal he--has said that there is no
inherent conflict between the Catholic faith and acceptance of the theory
of evolution. He has even commented on the copious evidence in favor of
evolution.
So, I'd ask a question: Why do creationists consider evolution to be so at
odds with a belief in a higher being (God, if you will)?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
a.k.a. |
David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
kc
The "horse" series never really was a good example of evolution.
Fragmented hooves and teeth really don't suggest anything.
Even though it has been refuted, it is the *only* example of the evolution
of a species presented in High School Text Books.
If macro-evolution did indeed happen, you think the authors of the text
book would have a better example.
kc
maff91
>detail can be read from :
>http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
>
>Was Libby right? In his day, measurements of which he was aware
>showed that C14 was entering the system some 12 per cent or
>more faster than it was leaving. This would indicate that the system
>was less than 30,000 years old, since equilibrium had not yet been
>reached. But the discrepancy was within Libby's estimates of
>experimental error, and so could be ignored. (Some have
>suggested that the preconceived idea that it had to be in equilibrium
>ensured that the given error margins were big enough to
>encompass the actual result, but this may be unfair.)
Try Radiocarbon dating
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/carbon.html
http://www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/carbon0220.html
http://134.29.9.229/DATING/Radio-Carbon.htm
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/aucilla10_1/Carbon.htm
http://c14.sci.waikato.ac.nz/webinfo/index.html
According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known
to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments
rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and
often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination
has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments,
and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are
constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
the Earth FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
>
>If, as most creationists propose, there was a vast water vapor
>canopy around the earth before the Flood, this would have shielded
>the atmosphere from some of the cosmic radiation. Therefore, the
>amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world would have been significantly
>smaller than at present. So, a specimen from before the Flood
A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the
geological record. This was recognized even prior to the proposal of
evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Flood FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Flood Geology FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
>could appear to be very old, or even of infinite age, because it had
>so little C14 in it, making it look as if it had been decaying for tens
>of thousands of years. Most coal is vegetation that grew pre-Flood
>and was buried by the Flood, so it would therefore not be surprising
>to find that coal and oil, for example, would have virtually no
>radiocarbon activity to be measured.
>
>The measured exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field as
>described by Dr. Thomas Barnes suggests that as you go back in
>history, the strength of the field increases rapidly. A stronger
>magnetic field would mean more protection against cosmic rays,
>therefore, again, much less C14 produced, and, again, this gives
>artificially old ages the more you go back in time.
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
>
>Some recent, though controversial, research has raised the
>interesting suggestion that c (the speed of light) has decreased in
>historical times. During the 1930s and 1940s, the measurements
>seemed to be so consistently dropping that a controversy about
>declining c took place in the scientific literature for some. If it is
>correct, then radioactive decay rates would automatically be
>affected, and would show artificially high ages.
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
>
> In any case, even the incorrect uniform model has given, in many
>
> cases, serious embarrassment to the evolutionist by giving ages
> which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his
> model of earth history. Consider this: if a specimen is older
>than
> 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a
>small
> amount of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an
>infinite
> radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits such as
> coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of
> thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to
> 1968, only a handful were classed "undatable" - most were of the
>
> sort which should have been in this category. This is especially
>
> remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in
> the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
>
>
>-INDNJC-
--
L.P.#0000000001
maff91
>read the detail from :
>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
>
[...]
Try <http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the
amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
--
L.P.#0000000001
BeckyLynn
>
>> detail can be read from :
>>
>> The horse series is often presented as proof of
>> evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind
>> leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved,
>> and the size supposedly increased from a small
>> doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-
>> toed horses have been found with one-toed
>> horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there
>> are tiny living Fallabella horses only 43 hind leg
>> (17 inches) tall.
>>
>> -INDNJC-
>
>The "horse" series never really was a good example
>of evolution. Fragmented hooves and teeth really don't
>suggest anything.
Special note to Pagano (whom I will deal with later): This is the fellow
you said was being censored in the newsgroup. I am still waiting for
evidence that this ever happened.
Meanwhile, readers are directed to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
>Even though it has been refuted, it is the *only*
>example of the evolution of a species presented
>in High School Text Books.
Is it indeed? Strange...my textbooks used several examples. Please explain
for us just how equine evolution has been "refuted." Please do so sparing
us the cries of "evobabbler" and other such nonsense. I won't be interested
in that.
>If macro-evolution did indeed happen, you think the
>authors of the text book would have a better example.
There are numerous examples of macroevolution available, but my readings of
your previous articles in this newsgroup show that you don't even know what
macroevolution is supposed to be. The horse series as I understand it shows
evolution marvelously. Show us why it doesn't work.
maff91
>detail can be read from :
>http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html
>
>The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of
>toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved,
>and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large
>modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed
>horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living
>Fallabella horses only 43 hind leg (17 inches) tall.
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
http://public-library.calgary.ab.ca/wrg99/horsevol.htm
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/horse_tree.html
http://www.amnh.org/Exhibition/Expedition/Treasures/Evolution_of_Horses/horses.html
http://cnn.com/TECH/9601/fossil_horse/
>
>-INDNJC-
--
L.P.#0000000001
kc
<becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Even though it has been refuted, it is the *only*
> >example of the evolution of a species presented
> >in High School Text Books.
>
> Is it indeed? Strange...my textbooks used several examples. Please explain
> for us just how equine evolution has been "refuted." Please do so sparing
> us the cries of "evobabbler" and other such nonsense. I won't be interested
> in that.
>
> >If macro-evolution did indeed happen, you think the
> >authors of the text book would have a better example.
>
> There are numerous examples of macroevolution available, but my readings of
> your previous articles in this newsgroup show that you don't even know what
> macroevolution is supposed to be. The horse series as I understand it shows
> evolution marvelously. Show us why it doesn't work.
kc: Funny you didn't mention any. Perhaps you could tell us of some of
these examples in your text book....I mean, if their there.
Mark Borok
If I'm not mistaken, they threw out that part of the statement. However,
you are right that it is not the job of public school teachers to teach
either the existence or non-existence of God.
--Mark
--
Mark Borok
"Restless Graphics"
Animation and multimedia design
http://www.mindspring.com/~mborok
Remove "spamless" from email address to respond
Dick C.
>In article <37DA6D7B...@email.please>, INDNJC <n...@email.please> wrote:
snip
>>Partial list of Creationist scientists (past and present) :
>>
>>-600+ voting scientists of the Creation
>> Research Society (voting membership
>> requires at least an earned master's
>> degree in a recognized area of science).
>
>NO real scientist would ever take an oath to follow a religious belief that
>excludes reality!
List of the board of directors of the CRS.:
http://www.creationresearch.org/board.html
The President teaches physics at Grace College,
the V.P is an assistant Proffessor of Physics at Bluefield College.
Both are apparently small Christian colleges.
Scrolling down the list we see such major areas of of scientific
endeavor as Prof of Exercise Science, Pastor of a Church,
Scientist at Lockheed-Georgia co. He had a Phd in Materials
Engineering.
A profesor of Biology at Emmanuel college.
D Russel Humphreys is on the list, He is, almost alone of creationists
a real working scientist, now retired. But he was a Physicist, not a
biologist.
We also see a computer scientist and a weather forecaster.
There are about 5 with degrees in relevant areas, a molecular
science, Zoology, Botany, Genetics, and Geology.
>
Creationists can, and do, contribute to science, just not while practicing
their religion.
BeckyLynn
I was not required to. I was challenging *your* assertions with respect to
horse evolution. You claim it has been refuted. How so?
>Perhaps you could tell us of some of these examples
>in your text book....I mean, if their there.
It would seem my previous readings of your article conveyed a correct
impression, that is, you make a claim, you are challenged on it, and you try
to shift the burden of proof so that you do not have to support your claim.
The sequence of events is as follows:
1. Karl makes a claim.
2. BeckyLynn challenged the claim.
3. Karl avoids the claim.
It won't work. You claimed that horse evolution has been refuted. I asked
you to support that.
Why didn't you answer the question?
As to what appeared in my textbooks, well, it's been a while and I'm not an
expert, but the horse series was there, as was a series that included
fish-amphibian transitions, reptile-mammal transitions, and transitions
believed to have occurred in hominid evolution to man. We can get to all of
those if you like, and I'll convey what I remember (and would still bet that
what I vaguely remember will be more than what you would presume to "know").
We can do that as soon as you explain how the horse series has been refuted
as evidence for evolution.
That was your claim.
That was the challenge to you.
I'm not interested in your games.
Answer the challenge.
kc
<becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> kc wrote in message ...
> >In article <0d0880557220b...@msn.com>, "BeckyLynn"
> ><becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Even though it has been refuted, it is the
> >> >*only* example of the evolution of a species
> >> >presented in High School Text Books.
> >>
> >> Is it indeed? Strange...my textbooks used several
> >> examples. Please explain for us just how equine
> >> evolution has been "refuted." Please do so sparing
> >> us the cries of "evobabbler" and other such nonsense.
> >> I won't be interested in that.
> >>
> >> >If macro-evolution did indeed happen, you think the
> >> >authors of the text book would have a better example.
> >>
> >> There are numerous examples of macroevolution
> >> available, but my readings of your previous articles
> >> in this newsgroup show that you don't even know what
> >> macroevolution is supposed to be. The horse series
> >> as I understand it shows evolution marvelously. Show
> >> us why it doesn't work.
> >
> >kc: Funny you didn't mention any.
>
> I was not required to. I was challenging *your* assertions with respect to
> horse evolution. You claim it has been refuted. How so?
Kc: Nice soft shoe Mr. Bonejangles.
>
> >Perhaps you could tell us of some of these examples
> >in your text book....I mean, if their there.
>
> It would seem my previous readings of your article conveyed a correct
> impression, that is, you make a claim, you are challenged on it, and you try
> to shift the burden of proof so that you do not have to support your claim.
>
> The sequence of events is as follows:
>
> 1. Karl makes a claim.
>
> 2. BeckyLynn challenged the claim.
>
> 3. Karl avoids the claim.
kc:I believe I already made an assertion in this thread. Back up a couple
of post.
>
> It won't work. You claimed that horse evolution has been refuted. I asked
> you to support that.
>
> Why didn't you answer the question?
>
> As to what appeared in my textbooks, well, it's been a while and I'm not an
> expert, but the horse series was there, as was a series that included
> fish-amphibian transitions, reptile-mammal transitions, and transitions
> believed to have occurred in hominid evolution to man. We can get to all of
> those if you like, and I'll convey what I remember (and would still bet that
> what I vaguely remember will be more than what you would presume to "know").
> We can do that as soon as you explain how the horse series has been refuted
> as evidence for evolution.
kc: Funny, my daughters text book is missing those examples. It says it
happened....but really never addressed it. can you say indoctrination?
John M. Wendt
INDNJC wrote:
>
>
> "...A tidal wave of new books... threaten to shatter that confidence -
> titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the
> Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching;
A mantra for this newsgroup: Darwinism was the _beginning_ of
evolutionary theory, not the end.
Sid
BeckyLynn wrote:
> kc wrote in message ...
> >In article <0d0880557220b...@msn.com>, "BeckyLynn"
> ><becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Even though it has been refuted, it is the
> >> >*only* example of the evolution of a species
> >> >presented in High School Text Books.
> >>
> >> Is it indeed? Strange...my textbooks used several
> >> examples. Please explain for us just how equine
> >> evolution has been "refuted." Please do so sparing
> >> us the cries of "evobabbler" and other such nonsense.
> >> I won't be interested in that.
> >>
> >> >If macro-evolution did indeed happen, you think the
> >> >authors of the text book would have a better example.
> >>
> >> There are numerous examples of macroevolution
> >> available, but my readings of your previous articles
> >> in this newsgroup show that you don't even know what
> >> macroevolution is supposed to be. The horse series
> >> as I understand it shows evolution marvelously. Show
> >> us why it doesn't work.
> >
> >kc: Funny you didn't mention any.
>
> I was not required to. I was challenging *your* assertions with respect to
> horse evolution. You claim it has been refuted. How so?
>
> >Perhaps you could tell us of some of these examples
> >in your text book....I mean, if their there.
>
> It would seem my previous readings of your article conveyed a correct
> impression, that is, you make a claim, you are challenged on it, and you try
> to shift the burden of proof so that you do not have to support your claim.
>
> The sequence of events is as follows:
>
> 1. Karl makes a claim.
>
> 2. BeckyLynn challenged the claim.
>
> 3. Karl avoids the claim.
>
> It won't work. You claimed that horse evolution has been refuted. I asked
> you to support that.
>
> Why didn't you answer the question?
>
> As to what appeared in my textbooks, well, it's been a while and I'm not an
> expert, but the horse series was there, as was a series that included
> fish-amphibian transitions, reptile-mammal transitions, and transitions
> believed to have occurred in hominid evolution to man. We can get to all of
> those if you like, and I'll convey what I remember (and would still bet that
> what I vaguely remember will be more than what you would presume to "know").
> We can do that as soon as you explain how the horse series has been refuted
> as evidence for evolution.
>
> That was your claim.
>
> That was the challenge to you.
>
> I'm not interested in your games.
>
> Answer the challenge.
detail can be read from :
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html
as I have put when I posted this posting
its not a complicated and lengthy article ...
in the bottom page you can see all the references.
-INDNJC-
BeckyLynn
interested in dishonesty and sophistry and not in an intelligent
conversation.
kc wrote in message ...
>
>In article <0e5612513000c...@msn.com>, "BeckyLynn"
><becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> kc wrote in message ...
>> >In article <0d0880557220b...@msn.com>, "BeckyLynn"
>> ><becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Even though it has been refuted, it is the
>> >> >*only* example of the evolution of a species
>> >> >presented in High School Text Books.
>> >>
>> >> Is it indeed? Strange...my textbooks used several
>> >> examples. Please explain for us just how equine
>> >> evolution has been "refuted." Please do so sparing
>> >> us the cries of "evobabbler" and other such nonsense.
>> >> I won't be interested in that.
>> >>
>> >> >If macro-evolution did indeed happen, you think the
>> >> >authors of the text book would have a better example.
>> >>
>> >> There are numerous examples of macroevolution
>> >> available, but my readings of your previous articles
>> >> in this newsgroup show that you don't even know what
>> >> macroevolution is supposed to be. The horse series
>> >> as I understand it shows evolution marvelously. Show
>> >> us why it doesn't work.
>> >
>> >kc: Funny you didn't mention any.
>>
>> I was not required to. I was challenging *your* assertions
>> with respect to horse evolution. You claim it has been
>> refuted. How so?
>
>Kc: Nice soft shoe Mr. Bonejangles.
First of all, it's "BOjangles." Secondly, I don't dance with people like
you. Thirdly, I did mention other examples later in my message (as we shall
see). Finally, if anyone else cares to think I'm tap-dancing, let's hear
from them. We already know that *you* are clueless.
By the way, Karl, why did you snip out the reference *I* provided to support
what I am saying? Why did you not reply to maff, who provided a couple more
references?
Are you, indeed, the liar and troll everyone seems to think that you are?
Whom do you think you're fooling?
>> >Perhaps you could tell us of some of these
>> >examples in your text book....I mean, if their there.
>>
>> It would seem my previous readings of your article
>> conveyed a correct impression, that is, you make a
>> claim, you are challenged on it, and you try to shift
>> the burden of proof so that you do not have to support
>> your claim.
>>
>> The sequence of events is as follows:
>>
>> 1. Karl makes a claim.
>>
>> 2. BeckyLynn challenged the claim.
>>
>> 3. Karl avoids the claim.
>
>kc:I believe I already made an assertion in this thread.
>Back up a couple of post.
Yes...you made an assertion. So what? You do that whenever you post. I,
on the other hand, challenged you to provide evidence and support your
assertion, which you are failing to do.
I'd say you're dancing like Bojangles, Karl, except that Bojangles could
dance better than this if he was legless. You? You're just clueless.
>> It won't work. You claimed that horse evolution has
>> been refuted. I asked you to support that.
>>
>> Why didn't you answer the question?
Do I have to ask this again?
>> As to what appeared in my textbooks, well, it's
>> been a while and I'm not an expert, but the horse
>> series was there, as was a series that included
>> fish-amphibian transitions, reptile-mammal transitions,
>> and transitions believed to have occurred in hominid
>> evolution to man. We can get to all of those if you
>> like, and I'll convey what I remember (and would still
>> bet that what I vaguely remember will be more than
>> what you would presume to "know"). We can do that
>> as soon as you explain how the horse series has been
>> refuted as evidence for evolution.
>
>kc: Funny, my daughters text book is missing those
>examples.
You didn't ask me about your daughter's textbook...you asked about *mine*.
Furthermore, I am not responsible or answerable for what's in your
daughter's textbook. I might theorize that the textbook publisher might
have been pressured by creationist special interest groups to minimize the
evidence that could have been presented. There are any number of answers to
this point, Karl, but I suspect you will be impervious to them as you have
been in the past.
>It says it happened....but really never addressed it.
>can you say indoctrination?
Sure. I can say it as often as you like.
Indoctrination.
Indoctrination.
Indoctrination.
I can also say that it's irrelevant here. You are wrong. Period.
Now, unless you can answer this intelligently, I have no plans to continue
with you. It's your choice.
BeckyLynn
>
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>
[Snip]
>detail can be read from :
>http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html
>as I have put when I posted this posting
>its not a complicated and lengthy article ...
>in the bottom page you can see all the references.
I read it and the reference. I was not impressed with anything other than
the lack of completeness to the "answers" and the Karl's failure to look at
my follow-up reference:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
Did you look at it?
I have seen these creationist "explanations" before and I have been struck
with how flagrantly dishonest they can be.
Within sight of this computer are several books and articles that I can
borrow and cite to support the evolutionary progression of the horse and
show that it is scientifically reasonable. If we all truly wanted to know
about these things, that's what we'd be looking at. There are thousands of
printed pages on the subject. If "Answers In Genesis" thinks that they can
answer all of that in a single web site, it's no wonder many creationists
are thought of as deluded.
Boikat
>
> I'm not going to pussy-foot with you, Karl. It's clear that you are
> interested in dishonesty and sophistry and not in an intelligent
> conversation.
How willing is Karl to objectively examine the
evidence, and admit that he may be wrong? I once
asked him that very question. His answer?
"The problem is this Boikat, I'm 100% right.
God created the world in six days. Sorry....And
if you don't accept Jesus Christ and ONLY
Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you're
going to Hell. The End." 1999/02/10, karl
crawford-
An open mind is a terrible thing. At least
according to karl.
Boikat
Martin Crisp
wrote:
> detail can be read from :
> http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html
Detail of why the 'explanation' is wrong includes:
"1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse
fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the
supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface.
Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! "
Hmm, ignoring what I've read more recently. Ignoring my reasonable
scores in geology at upper high school level, and referring only to my
memory of my grade 8 text book (of which I had a 15y.o. copy) rocks are
believed to fold, bend, sheer, subside.... This would indicate that the
above is either ignoring or intentionally hiding information. My
reading of late has not denounced any of this...
"Why?", I wonder.
Obviously this information is presented at a level meant to be grasped
by children (the concept that it would be a discussion for a matured
mind is frightening), why is it lying to children?
Have Fun
Martin
--
Credo quia absurdum est