> > No, you are not making a serious effort to understand. If you were
> > making a serious effort to understand you would be able to clearly
> > express the claims of the theory of evolution in your own words and
> > provide evidence to support it. You would not have to agree, but you
> > would know that you had understood because a scientist would say "Yup,
> > that's what we are saying." You do not have to agree with an argument
> > in order to be able to paraphrase it accurately. I can make an ID
> > argument as well as anyone who actually believes in ID, because I have
> > understood the arguments.
> > None of the scientists whose quotes you have taken out of context
> > would agree that you have understood what they meant, or represented
> > it accurately or fairly. That's what is lazy and dishonest about your
> > approach. And that's what reflects badly on the moral side of your
> > religion.
.
> Though of course this is all hypothetical anyway. If the scientists can't figure how life started and they find it can not start without creation then 'evolution' is a myth.
No, if the scientists cannot figure out how life started it means that
the scientists haven't figured out how life started.
> So to build a foundation for the universe and life, I point out that the bible account of the creation of the universe does not conflict with the known science.
How could you possibly say that since you are utterly incapable of
describing what the relevant science claims.
> The universe has all sorts of different materials in it. This expansion that happened ( 'big bang'), do you know what caused this, and how did it make all the different materials. And would the Laws we have now for understanding the science, be there before the expansion?
> Now when it comes to life, can you answer, the questions I asked:
> How did a cell know it had to survive and how did it know how to? And what did it 'evolve' into?
Look, it is obvious to everyone here that you do not understand the
theory of evolution or any of the evidence offered in support of it.
You've made that abundantly clear. However, there is a way for you to
be honest here. One thing you DO understand about the theory of
evolution is that if it is correct, your particular religion cannot be
true. You don't need to understand much of the science to grasp that
much. And I think that that is all you grasp. Then if you have
compelling reasons not to give up your particular religion, then
neither the content of the theory of evolution, not any evidence
supporting it is worth your time to investigate. And the fact that you
do not spend any time trying to understand it is obvious. So your
honest course is just to say that. Your faith is founded on its own
reasons independent of science. That's fine. Just own up to it and
stop pretending you have scientific reasons for rejecting a theory you
don't understand.
> > "What is remarkable about Australopithecus sediba is that, as a field,
> > it is a discovery we never thought would be made: a bona fide
> > transitional species," Berger told the Guardian.
> > I want to to see what he said here. He said that they thought they
> > would never find a "bona fide transitional species". That means
> > for all the years, the scientist have been claiming transitional
> > animals this is, the first one!!
> > In other words a real one.
> I am glad that you definitely now accept evolution between humans and > primitive chimp-like apes. Given your acceptance of that, the many > other less perfect transitional hominid fossils are moot.
I thought it was interesting that, they claim they found the first real bona fide transitional animal , and now all of a sudden , there never were any other ones. Does that mean the scientists have been lying all this time?
Now even this one is heading down the slippery slope. After 30 years as a fraud.
This same thing has been happing for years, with the same results.
This is not from me this is the scientists themselves, saying this.
> On Friday, May 4, 2012 1:13:13 PM UTC-7, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
>>> You just confirmed what I was saying. This is the point, the scientists
>>> don't look for ID. That means they don't look into why an how you have a
>>> heart or why and how did the DNA get its coding to make a heart in you.
>>> Or the how or why all life has a drive for survival?
>> Purpose is not part of the job description of scientists. If there were
>> evidence for ID it would have been identified before now.
> So what your saying is that if the scientist didn't do it or they don't who did do it, no one did!!
That's not even remotely what he is saying.
> In other words if they say they don't know it must be impossible?
No, if they say they don't know, it means they don't know. If it happened, it must have been possible.
> Now you say purpose is not part of what the scientists look for, yet 'evolution' is all about purpose.
Where do you get the idea that evolution is "all about purpose"? Evolution has no purpose.
> The purpose of survival.
Survival is what happens. There's no "purpose" to it.
> Their whole hypothesis is based on that.
Again, where do you get this idea?
> But they don't ask how animals and plants, got that purpose and where did they get it from.
Why should they? What difference does it make?
> That also means they are blind to their own hypothesis.
Where do you get the idea that "purpose" is part of evolution?
> That answers the question, why the scientists don't believe in creation, is that they have no choice.
Scientists don't "believe in" things when it comes to science. Evidence is what matters, not what one believes.
> They are slaves of their own making.
Sorry, but you are confusing yourself with scientists.
> They say about many regions that those people are a slave to the Gods they invent, how is that different than what the scientists have done?
Scientists are not "slaves" to anything. They study natural phenomena.
> Then they have to admit that they , don't know, how the universe started,
Scientists already freely admit they don't know how the universe started. They are, however looking for clues, and trying to figure it out. That's more productive than simply assuming it must have been a supernatural event.
> they don't know how life started,
Again, scientists freely admit they don't know how life started. They are, however looking for clues, and trying to figure it out.
> and 'evolution' can not be be shown to work, because it takes too long.
Wrong. Evolution can be shown to work. It doesn't always take "too long", in species with short generational times, and the other evidence, such as genetics, biochemistry, molecular history, behavior, anatomy, and fossils all show that evolution works.
> So they say a billionsyearsdidit.
No, they say "the process of evolution, which is being studied, and fairly well understood, did it. Billions of years is not a process any more than saying "Goddidit".
> Then set out to prove it.
As you've already been shown, science doesn't attempt to prove anything.
> And can't prove, the universe or the origins of life or 'evolution'.
They have shown very good evidence of how evolution works. There's less evidence to show how life or the universe began, but there still is no reason to give up and say "it must have been supernatural".
> Then they tell me we don't prove things.
> Well I guess not. How could they?
They can show, through evidence, the most likely explanation, but no, science doesn't prove things.
> > The 3 facts.
> > 1 everything comes from life. That means the converting of energy into matter, for the material universe.
> As has been shown to you before, not everything does come from life. > Also, your claim before is that God is "power" ie energy. Energy is not > life, so how did life come from "power"
> > 2 humans only have humans offspring. Means that there is no 'evolution'
> As pointed out to you before, this does not follow. That humans have > human offspring is not an indication that evolution does not happen, or > has not happened. Evolutionary changes happen in populations over > generations, so any human offspring is going to be human, as long as one > defines it that way.
The same with species, the is why there are at least 2 dozen ideas on that.
But what the scientists say is that there are supposed to be little steps, but we don't see that in humans. There should be almost-humans and ex-humans and just humans. But what we find are the 'just humans'. That is a contradiction of 'evolution'. And the supposed links, to humans, keep fading away. And they do not know what was supposed to happen to the almost humans.
> Human offspring are not identical copies of their parents, but have > small changes in their genetic make up. Over enough time, these changes > accrue so that, if the species doesn't become extinct, than some day the > offspring of humans will be different enough to be called something else.
Yes I understand that, but none of them become something else other than human.
And that is the same with apes and chimps.
> > 3 there is design in everything.
> No, there is the appearance of design in some things. Sometimes the > appearance indicates something designed, as in human artifacts. > Sometimes the appearance of design is an illusion, produced by natural > processes without any deliberate design. Sometimes is very difficult > to tell the difference.
How can you tell the difference between the appearance of design and what is designed?
> > Everything needs to be designed, and follows design.
> As already shown many times over, this is not true. Somethings don't > appear designed, and many things do not "follow design". Random > collection of gasses is not designed. Oceans, rock formations, the > atmosphere, continents, etc all show no sign of design.
If you use a machine, and you move dirt, the way the dirt moves is based on the what you do to it. So the mound you build is designed. If you create the universe and the materials in it, based on the laws that you created and installed, then all the effects from that are from creation. Those laws you created tell that dirt to do certain thing. That also means every snow flake is designed.
> Actually, your "three facts" have been demolished more than once, by > several different people. You simply have failed to notice.
Sorry but no one has even touched them. Because the interpretations of the of the scientists has not stood.
The science says everything come from life. And humans have human offspring, and everything has design.
On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:01:16 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
<duns...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Friday, May 4, 2012 1:13:13 PM UTC-7, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
>> >You just confirmed what I was saying. This is the point, the scientists >> >don't look for ID. That means they don't look into why an how you have a >> >heart or why and how did the DNA get its coding to make a heart in you. >> >Or the how or why all life has a drive for survival?
>> Purpose is not part of the job description of scientists. If there were
>> evidence for ID it would have been identified before now.
Is there some reason that you don't have any idea how to format your
postings properly? Is it because you are ignorant or just selfish?
>So what your saying is that if the scientist didn't do it or they don't who did do it, no one did!! In other words if they say they don't know it must be impossible?
No. I said that the ID/creationists have been lying.
>Now you say purpose is not part of what the scientists look for, yet 'evolution' is all about purpose. The purpose of survival. Their whole hypothesis is based on that. But they don't ask how animals and plants, got that purpose and where did they get it from. That also means they are blind to their own hypothesis.
No. Evolution has no purpose in it. None. The theory describes the
result, not a purpose.
>That answers the question, why the scientists don't believe in creation, is that they have no choice. They are slaves of their own making.
They are "slaves" to evidence, facts. ID/Creation has absolutely no
supporting evidence. Creationists are slaves to the lies they tell.
>They say about many regions that those people are a slave to the Gods they invent, how is that different than what the scientists have done?
Science is not a religious enterprise. Religious belief does not affect
the outcome of experiments. Facts don't depend on gods.
>Then they have to admit that they , don't know, how the universe started, they don't know how life started, and 'evolution' can not be be shown to work, because it takes too long. So they say a billionsyearsdidit. Then set out to prove it. And can't prove, the universe or the origins of life or 'evolution'. Then they tell me we don't prove things. >Well I guess not. How could they?
You really do love to lie about scientific evidence to mislead people
about the fraudulent dogma you are trying to preach here. Fine. Feel
free to spread your lies. I cannot stop you from proving how immoral you
are or how ignorant you are.
>>>>> Now when it comes to life, can you answer, the questions I asked:
>>>>> How did a cell know it had to survive and how did it know how to?
>>>> Meaningless question. Why would it "need to know" how to survive? They
>>>> just did I don't know "how to have a heartbeat" either, I just have
>>>> one.
>>>>> And what did it 'evolve' into?
>> Bad formatting fixed:
>>> You just confirmed what I was saying. This is the point, the scientists
>>> don't look for ID. That means they don't look into why an how you have a
>>> heart or why and how did the DNA get its coding to make a heart in you.
>>> Or the how or why all life has a drive for survival?
>> Purpose is not part of the job description of scientists. If there were
>> evidence for ID it would have been identified before now.
>>> If you just say I don't need to know how or why these things happen,
>>> they have blinded themselves.
>> How? You are trying to send them off to answer questions that are not
>> scientific and complaining that they refuse to do so.
>>> That means if you look at a brick wall, you are not interested in who
>>> build it and why. The scientists says it is there, and they are not
>>> interested, in how and why it is there, only that it is there, They are
>>> only interested in the bricks and mortar, or the loaf of bread I used
>>> earlier.
>> If you are trying to describe brick walls and understand how they work,
>> the builder and the purpose are unimportant. If you want to talk about
>> who and why, you are in a new discipline.
>>> That means they have nothing of value to say about the origins or
>>> 'evolution' or creation.
>> Your ignorance of science is noted, again. You seem quite upset that no
>> one takes your nonsense seriously. Scientists have discovered a huge
>> amount of evidence about origins and evolution. They have found that the
>> stories in Genesis and creation, the dogma drawn from Genesis, is false.
> Ho so?
Do you mean "how so"?
First, early scientists, long before Darwin, showed that there was no global flood. Later scientists showed that living things don't show up simultaneously in the fossil record. Still later, scientists showed that all living things were related by common descent, and there was no evidence of a single creation event. The evidence shows that the Genesis creation stories are not accurate.
snip
>> Those are good questions that scientists are still working on because
>> they don't have all of the answers. Just because ignorant theists assert
>> that they have all of the answers even though the evidence proves again
>> and again that the theists' answers are wrong, that never seems to stop
>> them from repeating their false doctrines. Why is that? Why are there
>> theists like you who reject reality?
> The people here and other scientists say they do not look for those things.
What "other scientists"? Please be specific, and don't use quote mines.
> I get this over and over again,
From where, specifically?
> on one hand they say they do not look for answers for those types of questions, and then on the other hand they are working on these questions.
No one claims that scientists are looking to answer questions of "why life exists", or "what is the purpose of life". Science is working on the question of how life began, and how it diversified later.
> Actually the scientists came up with different ideas that have nothing to do with reality.
such as? Again, please be specific, and don't quote mine.
> That is why they can not show how the universe started and how life started, and can actually show that 'evolution' works, or is even real.
Again, the exact origin of life is not known, but is being researched. How the universe began is not known, but being studied. Evolution is known to work, and it's quite real, as the evidence clearly shows. Your inability to look at the evidence doesn't make it go away.
> If you live in the real world, there is no other evidence than the 3 facts, I stated.
As already demonstrated, your "three facts" are misleading, and poorly thought out. There is a great deal of evidence that supports evolution, and none that supports your own mistaken beliefs.
> The scientists have to assume life just started, and 'evolution' happened. Because we don't it see today, or in the past.
There's no assumption needed. Life exists, so it must have started somehow. Evolution happened, as the evidence indicates, and can still be seen happening in populations right now.
>>> And how did we get the different materials in the universe?
>> You've had that answered, again and again. Do you ever bother to read
>> any of the answers you are offered or are you just a mindless bot,
>> spewing religiously-inspired lies?
> I'm sorry I think I did miss this. I didn't see a answer to this.
How could you possibly have missed the answers? Have you been ignoring all the posts in reply to you?
Hint, the short answer is "nucleosynthesis". Try Googling the term.
>>> So far they have to say we don't know, we don't know, we don't know. For those 3 questions.
>> We know more than you understand. The fact that scientists are willing
>> to acknowledge that they are still learning makes them better, more
>> trustworthy, than people who claim that they have the answers,
>> particularly when they already know that their answers were proven
>> false. When theists who reject science stop preaching lies, they will
>> start to have a chance to learn. I guess your religious tradition
>> ignores Jesus' teachings about humility.
>>> Do you see how this is a scam?
> I don't reject science.
Yes, you do. You reject any science that contradicts your beliefs.
> The science is the bottom line the fact.
and you've been rejecting facts left and right, as long as they don't match what you want to accept. You reject the fact that "Lucy" and her species mates are genuine fossil hominids. You reject thousands of fossil specimens of over 14 known species of hominids. You reject the hard work, and diligent exploration of thousands of honest scientists, all because you don't like the results.
> It is the interpretations on the science that has to be checked out.
The interpretation is based on those facts, and are consistent with them. You reject it for no good reason.
> This is not about humility, this is about the answer the scientists give. They know they have no proof of any of this, yet they still promote it.
Please remember "poof" and "evidence" are not the same thing. There is plenty of evidence that supports evolution. "Proof" in science is not obtainable. You are accusing scientists of lying deliberately. This is a serious charge you are making, and you are making it with absolutely no support.
> That is the scam.
No, the scam is what you've bought into, ie the belief that the scientist are all engaged in some shadowy conspiracy to hide the "truth".
> If they were honest, they would tell people they don't know about the origins of life and they can not rule out creation.
What honest scientists say is that they don't know all the details, and that "creation" is a religious belief, not science. Science isn't in the business of ruling out religious beliefs.
> And that 'evolution' is just an idea. And they can not prove it.
Evolution is more than "just and idea". It's a scientific theory, and no scientific theory is ever "proven". That is what you consistently fail to understand. In science, a working theory is much more useful, and respected than anything you might think as "proven".
> If they did that, then at least that would be honest.
If they did what you suggest, they would be lying, as you are.
> But they tell people that they have all this figured out,and that is to deceive, people. Just like Lucy and others.
Scientists NEVER claim that they have "all this figured out". Lucy is a genuine, important fossil discovery, and her, and her species are genuine hominid fossils, exactly the kind of 'almost human' species you keep saying doesn't exist. And she's not alone. There are at least 14 other well established hominid species filling the 'gap' between humans and other apes.
Your continuing to lie about "Lucy" and other hominids shows your own dishonesty.
> Then we would not need these discussions. But it has become a sacred teaching of the scientists and so many are so eager, to make a name for themselves, they are doing anything to get noticed and help the cause.
The way to get famous, and make a name for oneself in science is not to things "for the cause" but to make waves, and upset the status quo.
Scientists don't consider scientific theories sacred, the way you hold your own ignorance as sacred, and they are not eager to play along just to get along. Scientists advance by rocking the boat, and showing old ideas to be wrong. There is no way that upcoming and ambitious scientists would work so hard to keep false information hidden.
> So there is a big noise and then quite retreat.
You keep ignoring the fact that there isn't any "quite"(sic) retreat. Despite what creationists lie so readily about, the facts remain that fossil discoveries remain solid evidence. Worse, for you, fossils, as good as they are, aren't even the best evidence for evolution. Even if there wasn't a single fossil hominid species, the genetic, molecular, and biochemical evidence would be more than enough to make the case for evolution.
> I thought it was interesting that, they claim they found the first real bona fide transitional animal , and now all of a sudden , there never were any other ones.
I think it is interesting that your sense of "purpose". of "being
designed", of "having faith and a moral compass", means that you do
not hesitate to tell lies at all.
You.
Lie.
All.
The .
Time.
This "thing" you say--snookybumps, it does not even qualify for a
"statement"...this "thing", this gross lie that you have repeated...If
you cared for truth at all, at all, you would be embarrassed to return
to this forum after pretending that the quote from the article in the
Guardian could possibly be twisted--even by someone as venal, corrupt,
prevaricant, manipulative, and just plain downright dishonest as you--
to even begin to imply that Berger was surprised by the particulars of
the find. You have obviously never worked on a fossil dig; you have
obviously never looked for fossils; you have obviously never read
about what the experience is like; or you would be ashamed to imply
what you think you are so-clever-to-imply.
I know what Berger meant by this quote, as does anyone who can
actually read a simple declarative sentence. I also know what Berger
himself, personally, says the quote means--which you obviously do
not. You should be more diffident to dismiss the work of a man about
which you have no understanding, none. None at all.
>Does that mean the scientists have been lying all this time?
No. It means the truth is not in you. Sadly, it means the capacity
for truth is not in you. You have sold your birthright cheaply--and
for an illusion.
(I know that will go right past you, but it's an allusion to a story.
A story in the bible. Did you ever go back and find both Genesis
accounts?
> Now even this one is heading down the slippery slope. After 30 years as a fraud.
> This same thing has been happing for years, with the same results.
Yes, you are right. Creationists have been in the same transparent
denial, and used the same ridiculously dishonest practices, to dupe
the credulous, since at LEAST 45 BCE. And it has the same results--
creationists are shown to be facile liars, or dupes, while scientific
progress happens around, and in spite of, them. Nice of you to admit
that.
> This is not from me this is the scientists themselves, saying this.
No, this is you, trying to lie about what the scientists say. You
know what the simple meaning of Berger's language is, and it is not
the lie you have decided to tell. I know what Berger says he meant by
the words he used, and it is not the lie you have decided to tell.
Your lie exists only in your head.
I have provided you with a link that demonstrates that A. afarensis is
still considered an important ancestor, and, buttercrumb?...it is more
recent than 30 years ago. It is also not one of the lies you have
decided to tell.
Did you ever even bother to face the fact that you have yet to address
the physical impossibility of your explanation for the flood?
I wish I believed in souls, so that I could pray for yours...
>> >> > Now when it comes to life, can you answer, the questions I asked:
>> >> > How did a cell know it had to survive and how did it know how to?
>> >> Meaningless question. Why would it "need to know" how to survive? They
>> >> just did I don't know "how to have a heartbeat" either, I just have
>> >> one.
>> >> > And what did it 'evolve' into?
>> Bad formatting fixed:
>> >You just confirmed what I was saying. This is the point, the scientists >> >don't look for ID. That means they don't look into why an how you have a >> >heart or why and how did the DNA get its coding to make a heart in you. >> >Or the how or why all life has a drive for survival?
>> Purpose is not part of the job description of scientists. If there were
>> evidence for ID it would have been identified before now.
>> >If you just say I don't need to know how or why these things happen, >> >they have blinded themselves.
>> How? You are trying to send them off to answer questions that are not
>> scientific and complaining that they refuse to do so.
>> >That means if you look at a brick wall, you are not interested in who
>> >build it and why. The scientists says it is there, and they are not >> >interested, in how and why it is there, only that it is there, They are >> >only interested in the bricks and mortar, or the loaf of bread I used >> >earlier.
>> If you are trying to describe brick walls and understand how they work,
>> the builder and the purpose are unimportant. If you want to talk about
>> who and why, you are in a new discipline.
>> >That means they have nothing of value to say about the origins or >> >'evolution' or creation.
>> Your ignorance of science is noted, again. You seem quite upset that no
>> one takes your nonsense seriously. Scientists have discovered a huge
>> amount of evidence about origins and evolution. They have found that the
>> stories in Genesis and creation, the dogma drawn from Genesis, is false.
>Ho so?
Why do you have to ask? You have been going on about how much you think
you know about science, but it is clear that you know nothing. Since you
are so happy in your cocoon of ignorance, I cannot see any point in
trying to get you out of it, you will choose to ignore all facts that do
not fit your prejudices.
>> >Do you see how hypocritical this is? They know they don't look for ID >> >yet they claim it is not there. How do they know? They don't look for >> >it. Then they try to show evidence but is overturned in a few years, so >> >the evidence goes missing.
>> They looked for it long ago and discovered that it was not there. You
>> are fighting a fight that the anti-science believers lost in the 19th
>> century.
>> >I noticed you didn't answer the questions.
>> The answers were known before Darwin developed the theory of evolution.
>> Paley's watchmaker hypothesis was proven wrong long ago.
>> >Where did life get, that it had to survive? And where did it get the DNA >> >and its coding to do that? And what did the first life 'evolved into?
>> Those are good questions that scientists are still working on because
>> they don't have all of the answers. Just because ignorant theists assert
>> that they have all of the answers even though the evidence proves again
>> and again that the theists' answers are wrong, that never seems to stop
>> them from repeating their false doctrines. Why is that? Why are there
>> theists like you who reject reality?
>The people here and other scientists say they do not look for those things.
What things?
>I get this over and over again, on one hand they say they do not look for answers for those types of questions, and then on the other hand they are working on these questions.
You are misunderstanding or misstating what is not looked for.
>Actually the scientists came up with different ideas that have nothing to do with reality. That is why they can not show how the universe started and how life started, and can actually show that 'evolution' works, or is even real.
Except that scientists have gathered a great deal of evidence about how
the universe started, how life started and can show exactly how
evolution works. You are just a liar.
>If you live in the real world, there is no other evidence than the 3 facts, I stated. The scientists have to assume life just started, and 'evolution' happened. Because we don't it see today, or in the past.
You have stated three lies.
>> >And how did we get the different materials in the universe?
>> You've had that answered, again and again. Do you ever bother to read
>> any of the answers you are offered or are you just a mindless bot,
>> spewing religiously-inspired lies?
>I'm sorry I think I did miss this. I didn't see a answer to this.
You never look for answers that don't fit the false doctrines you
preach.
>> >So far they have to say we don't know, we don't know, we don't know. For those 3 questions.
>> We know more than you understand. The fact that scientists are willing
>> to acknowledge that they are still learning makes them better, more
>> trustworthy, than people who claim that they have the answers,
>> particularly when they already know that their answers were proven
>> false. When theists who reject science stop preaching lies, they will
>> start to have a chance to learn. I guess your religious tradition
>> ignores Jesus' teachings about humility.
>> >Do you see how this is a scam?
>I don't reject science.
You know you do.
>The science is the bottom line the fact. It is the interpretations on the science that has to be checked out. This is not about humility, this is about the answer the scientists give. They know they have no proof of any of this, yet they still promote it. That is the scam.
You are repeating a lie, never once do you even try to support it, all
you offer is a blatant lie, unadorned with any shred of decency.
>If they were honest, they would tell people they don't know about the origins of life and they can not rule out creation. And that 'evolution' is just an idea. And they can not prove it.
More BS from you.
>If they did that, then at least that would be honest. But they tell people that they have all this figured out,and that is to deceive, people. Just like Lucy and others.
You don't have any idea what you are talking about.
>Then we would not need these discussions. But it has become a sacred teaching of the scientists and so many are so eager, to make a name for themselves, they are doing anything to get noticed and help the cause. So there is a big noise and then quite retreat.
Now you broadly defame all scientists even though you are completely
ignorant of the evidence that shows that you are completely wrong.
>> The scam comes from fraudsters teaching ID/creationism even though they
>> either know nothing about the history of life on earth or they are lying
>> through their teeth about the facts that scientists have discovered.
>> >The scientists have created the "Greatest Snow Job on Earth." A >> >blizzard of bits of info that tries to bury the truth.
>> Your defamation of scientists shows us how pathetic your religious
>> faith. Do you fear that your god will disappear in a meaningless joke if
>> you don't keep lying on his behalf?
>> >So to you, why is this meaningless? I think this is very important, if >> >you want to understand the science at all.
>> You need to learn something about science before you presume to critique
>> it. You also need to learn something about the dishonesty of those who
>> are propagating ID/creationism. They have proven to us that they are
>> completely untrustworthy and that they only manage to reel in fools.
>I was thinking the same thing of the scientists. Though I don't think they are fools I think it is a blind faith. They want the answers the scientists are preaching.
Your opinion was arrived at without any regard to the facts. You have
chosen to be a dishonest, immoral fool.
>> > "What is remarkable about Australopithecus sediba is that, as a field,
>> > it is a discovery we never thought would be made: a bona fide
>> > transitional species," Berger told the Guardian.
>> > I want to to see what he said here. He said that they thought they
>> > would never find a "bona fide transitional species". That means
>> > for all the years, the scientist have been claiming transitional
>> > animals this is, the first one!!
>> > In other words a real one.
>> I am glad that you definitely now accept evolution between humans and >> primitive chimp-like apes. Given your acceptance of that, the many >> other less perfect transitional hominid fossils are moot.
>I thought it was interesting that, they claim they found the first real bona fide transitional animal , and now all of a sudden , there never were any other ones. Does that mean the scientists have been lying all this time?
>Now even this one is heading down the slippery slope. After 30 years as a fraud.
>This same thing has been happing for years, with the same results.
>This is not from me this is the scientists themselves, saying this.
More lies from you. Remember that evolution would have overwhelming
supporting evidence even if no one had ever found a single fossil.
> Look, it is obvious to everyone here that you do not understand the
> theory of evolution or any of the evidence offered in support of it.
> You've made that abundantly clear. However, there is a way for you to
> be honest here. One thing you DO understand about the theory of
> evolution is that if it is correct, your particular religion cannot be
> true. You don't need to understand much of the science to grasp that
> much. And I think that that is all you grasp. Then if you have
> compelling reasons not to give up your particular religion, then
> neither the content of the theory of evolution, not any evidence
> supporting it is worth your time to investigate. And the fact that you
> do not spend any time trying to understand it is obvious. So your
> honest course is just to say that. Your faith is founded on its own
> reasons independent of science. That's fine. Just own up to it and
> stop pretending you have scientific reasons for rejecting a theory you
> don't understand.
Actually I do understand what they say. But it is what they say that can't be understood. I reject the hypothesis because it has nothing to do with evidence.
It is interpretation of the science. That is what I reject. Not the science.
Creation and the science are the same thing.
The say they don't look for ID. Some here have said that is correct. They think it is not important. Then they ask me how could they detect it?
The answer I gave was in a form of a couple of questions.
The question I asked are what would you have to do to convert energy into the different materials that are in the universe? The other ones are,how did the first life know it had to survive and reproduce and how did it know how to? These questions are how you look for ID. Because they don't come from dirt, or chemicals.This is the reason the scientists will never find these answers.
> >> Purpose is not part of the job description of scientists. If there were
> >> evidence for ID it would have been identified before now.
It has been, it's just the scientist do not look for it.
> Is there some reason that you don't have any idea how to format your
> postings properly? Is it because you are ignorant or just selfish?
> >So what your saying is that if the scientist didn't do it or they don't who did do it, no one did!! In other words if they say they don't know it must be impossible?
> No. I said that the ID/creationists have been lying.
How so?
> >Now you say purpose is not part of what the scientists look for, yet 'evolution' is all about purpose. The purpose of survival. Their whole hypothesis is based on that. But they don't ask how animals and plants, got that purpose and where did they get it from. That also means they are blind to their own hypothesis.
> No. Evolution has no purpose in it. None. The theory describes the
> result, not a purpose.
> >That answers the question, why the scientists don't believe in creation, is that they have no choice. They are slaves of their own making.
> They are "slaves" to evidence, facts. ID/Creation has absolutely no
> supporting evidence. Creationists are slaves to the lies they tell.
> >They say about many regions that those people are a slave to the Gods they invent, how is that different than what the scientists have done?
> Science is not a religious enterprise. Religious belief does not affect
> the outcome of experiments. Facts don't depend on gods.
> >Then they have to admit that they , don't know, how the universe started, they don't know how life started, and 'evolution' can not be be shown to work, because it takes too long. So they say a billionsyearsdidit. Then set out to prove it. And can't prove, the universe or the origins of life or 'evolution'. Then they tell me we don't prove things. > >Well I guess not. How could they?
> You really do love to lie about scientific evidence to mislead people
> about the fraudulent dogma you are trying to preach here. Fine. Feel
> free to spread your lies. I cannot stop you from proving how immoral you
> are or how ignorant you are.
But don't you think the scientist should do the same? Why lie about all the missing links, when eventually they all go down. There have been many of them.
They should just tell the truth, and that is, .. they don't know.
> I'm sorry I think I did miss this. I didn't see a answer to this.
You mean, "I chose to pretend not to notice this, because it would
make it clear, even to me, that my position was a tissue of untenable
lies"...there. I fixed it for you.
If you had the self-respect of a tapeworm, you would not dare return
to this thread until you re-read it, and addressed every one of the
questions posed you.
What do you think are the physical evidences of your hydroplate
theory?
Where did all the people come from?
Why does the bible contradict itself?
(snip to here)
>> I guess your religious tradition
> > ignores Jesus' teachings about humility.
(just to point out that your puerility is notorious)
> I don't reject science.
Liar. You reject the very idea of science, embracing facile lies
instead of even pretending to try to understand. You lie about
science so that you CAN reject it.
>The science is the bottom line the fact.
Then why do you reject it?
> It is the interpretations on the science that has to be checked out.
The why don't you learn to interpret honestly? Start with easy
things, like the two discordant origins stories in Genesis. Or why
you get colds every year, even though you were 'designed" with an
immune system.
>This is not about humility,
...of which you have none...your arrogance is exceeded only by your
ignorance, and your fear, but it is a near thing...
> this is about the answer the scientists give.
...which you do not understand...which you continually demonstrate
that you are unable to understand...and, after all, it is so much
easier to repeat the lies you have been spoon-fed...
> They know they have no proof of any of this
...gee, I wish someone had been patient enough to explain to you that
science does not deal in "proof"...
>yet they still promote it.
And look into it, and study it, and try to falsify it, and refine it,
and develop it...but I don't expect you to get that, or admit it even
if you did.
>That is the scam.
...which only makes it clear that you do not know what that word
means.
> If they were honest, they would tell people they don't know about the origins of life
...gee, I wish someone had told you that...
> and they can not rule out creation.
...and, as you have had it pointed out to you over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, they
cannot "rule out" little garden fairies, or the dream state of Lord
Brahma.
You know what? You could have solved this all, days ago, by providing
one scintilla of credible evidence for creation. You cannot do that--
you cannot even define ID such that it can be recognized. Your claim
that "everything is designed", when you cannot even define design, or
point to design, or describe how to distinguish design from
development, means that, even in your mind, the very concept of
"design" has no meaning, but is instead such a protean supeconcept
that, because to you it means everything and anything, means, in fact,
nothing at all. (No, I don't expect you to get that)
Go ahead--refute that by defining design. Refute that by suggesting a
test for design that is not a tautological wankfest. Compare
something that is "designed" with something that is NOT "designed",
and demonstrate, point-by-point, the difference between them.
(Just to make it clear: "It just LOOKS designed to me", and, "Bread!!"
are NOT answers,no matter what your masters told you.)
Or give actual evidence for your hydroplate fantasy.
>And that 'evolution' is just an idea.
You have been patiently offered more evidence for evolution, more
demonstrations of its existence, more indications of its results, than
you are capable of understanding.
> If they did that, then at least that would be honest.
You would not recognize "honesty" if it would save your life. (Why are
you lying about Berger's words?)
>But they tell people that they have all this figured out,and that is to deceive, people. Just like Lucy and others.
What do you THINK this sentence means?
Who is trying to deceive whom?
Australopithecines are our closest relatives. A. sediba may just be
our closest actual ancestor. Catch up with the state of the art,
before you fling poo. Demonstrate that you understand before you
bother to disagree...
Are you ever going to address the two stories in Genesis?
Are you ever going to address the hydroplate idiocy?
Are you ever going to address the observed instances of speciation you
have been offered?
Are you ever going to demonstrate where the bible says, "god is
power"? ('Cause you know, the bible DOES say, "There is no god", in
every translation I have studied...and I have studied a lot of them.
And read even more of them.)
> > Look, it is obvious to everyone here that you do not understand the
> > theory of evolution or any of the evidence offered in support of it.
> > You've made that abundantly clear. However, there is a way for you to
> > be honest here. One thing you DO understand about the theory of
> > evolution is that if it is correct, your particular religion cannot be
> > true. You don't need to understand much of the science to grasp that
> > much. And I think that that is all you grasp. Then if you have
> > compelling reasons not to give up your particular religion, then
> > neither the content of the theory of evolution, not any evidence
> > supporting it is worth your time to investigate. And the fact that you
> > do not spend any time trying to understand it is obvious. So your
> > honest course is just to say that. Your faith is founded on its own
> > reasons independent of science. That's fine. Just own up to it and
> > stop pretending you have scientific reasons for rejecting a theory you
> > don't understand.
> Actually I do understand what they say. But it is what they say that can't be understood. I reject the hypothesis because it has nothing to do with evidence.
If you understand what they say, prove it. Lay out the claims of the
theory of evolution. Offer some of the evidence used to support it. If
you understand it, you will be able to do it well enough that we will
say "Yes, you may disagree with us, but at least you understand the
position you are arguing against." Doing so wouldn't contaminate you.
You don't do that simply because you can't. You have not made an
effort to understand the theory you wish to disprove. If you don't
like the conflict between evolution and your faith, go ahead and just
say that. You're under no obligation to learn about the theory of
evolution. There's nothing lazy or dishonest about that. But
pretending to critique the theory of evolution on scientific grounds
without having made any sincere effort to understand it, that's lazy
and dishonest.
> It is interpretation of the science. That is what I reject. Not the science.
> Creation and the science are the same thing.
> The say they don't look for ID. Some here have said that is correct. They think it is not important. Then they ask me how could they detect it?
> The answer I gave was in a form of a couple of questions.
> The question I asked are what would you have to do to convert energy into the different materials that are in the universe? The other ones are,how did the first life know it had to survive and reproduce and how did it know how to?
> These questions are how you look for ID. Because they don't come from dirt, or chemicals.This is the reason the scientists will never find these answers.
> > > "What is remarkable about Australopithecus sediba is that, as a field,
> > > it is a discovery we never thought would be made: a bona fide
> > > transitional species," Berger told the Guardian.
> > > I want to to see what he said here. He said that they thought they
> > > would never find a "bona fide transitional species". That means
> > > for all the years, the scientist have been claiming transitional
> > > animals this is, the first one!!
> > > In other words a real one.
> > I am glad that you definitely now accept evolution between humans and
> > primitive chimp-like apes. Given your acceptance of that, the many
> > other less perfect transitional hominid fossils are moot.
> I thought it was interesting that, they claim they found the first real bona fide transitional animal ,
They don't. you just don;t understand te article He says that in this
field", that is the very specific research question they set
themselves (hominid evolution) , it was unlikely to find a fossil that
displays on its face (bona fide) all the characteristics they are
looking for - since we know how are fossilisation occurs, and how
even more unlikely it is to get in a fossil exactly the relevant
features preserved, that was a priori unlikely to happen. He does
_not_ say that there are no other transitional fossils, there are
plenty
> and now all of a sudden , there never were any other ones. Does that mean the scientists have been lying all this time?
> Now even this one is heading down the slippery slope. After 30 years as a fraud.
> This same thing has been happing for years, with the same results.
> This is not from me this is the scientists themselves, saying this.
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:55:57 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:02:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
> >>><duns...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>> Still waiting for those observable design criteria...
> >>>>You have to take the blinders off Bob
> >>>Still waiting for those observable design criteria...
> >> Waiting...
> >"You have to take the blinders off" is all he's got. He means by it, of > >course, that you have to Have Faith and assume his conclusion is correct. > >Then you will have assumed his conclusion is correct, which to him is > >equivalent to having actual evidence, and he gets to win the argument.
> That does seem to be the case.
> >I know we're short on Black Knights at the moment, but this one is deeply > >disappointing to me.
> Oh, I dunno; we have Tony, Kalkidas and prawnster, and now
> "Mr. Dunsapy", all of whom are expert at declaring victory
> and running away. How many Black Knights can we expect at
> any given time?
On Fri, 4 May 2012 21:17:17 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
<duns...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
[Still showing us that simple things like posting in usenet are far too
difficult for him to master properly]
>> >> Purpose is not part of the job description of scientists. If there were
>> >> evidence for ID it would have been identified before now.
>It has been, it's just the scientist do not look for it.
>> Is there some reason that you don't have any idea how to format your
>> postings properly? Is it because you are ignorant or just selfish?
>> >So what your saying is that if the scientist didn't do it or they don't who did do it, no one did!! In other words if they say they don't know it must be impossible?
>> No. I said that the ID/creationists have been lying.
>How so?
They intentionally make false claims about the scientific evidence.
>> >Now you say purpose is not part of what the scientists look for, yet 'evolution' is all about purpose. The purpose of survival. Their whole hypothesis is based on that. But they don't ask how animals and plants, got that purpose and where did they get it from. That also means they are blind to their own hypothesis.
>> No. Evolution has no purpose in it. None. The theory describes the
>> result, not a purpose.
>That is a contradiction of humans.
Did you intend that to make sense? I have no idea what you wanted to say
here.
>> >That answers the question, why the scientists don't believe in creation, is that they have no choice. They are slaves of their own making.
>> They are "slaves" to evidence, facts. ID/Creation has absolutely no
>> supporting evidence. Creationists are slaves to the lies they tell.
>> >They say about many regions that those people are a slave to the Gods they invent, how is that different than what the scientists have done?
>> Science is not a religious enterprise. Religious belief does not affect
>> the outcome of experiments. Facts don't depend on gods.
>> >Then they have to admit that they , don't know, how the universe started, they don't know how life started, and 'evolution' can not be be shown to work, because it takes too long. So they say a billionsyearsdidit. Then set out to prove it. And can't prove, the universe or the origins of life or 'evolution'. Then they tell me we don't prove things. >> >Well I guess not. How could they?
>> You really do love to lie about scientific evidence to mislead people
>> about the fraudulent dogma you are trying to preach here. Fine. Feel
>> free to spread your lies. I cannot stop you from proving how immoral you
>> are or how ignorant you are.
>But don't you think the scientist should do the same?
You have never provided any evidence that scientists are lying. All we
have is your anti-science allegations, completely free of any evidence.
>Why lie about all the missing links, when eventually they all go down. There have been many of them.
Name the scientists who lied about "all the missing links". Show us who
identified the errors.
>They should just tell the truth, and that is, .. they don't know.
>> Look, it is obvious to everyone here that you do not understand the
>> theory of evolution or any of the evidence offered in support of it.
>> You've made that abundantly clear. However, there is a way for you to
>> be honest here. One thing you DO understand about the theory of
>> evolution is that if it is correct, your particular religion cannot be
>> true. You don't need to understand much of the science to grasp that
>> much. And I think that that is all you grasp. Then if you have
>> compelling reasons not to give up your particular religion, then
>> neither the content of the theory of evolution, not any evidence
>> supporting it is worth your time to investigate. And the fact that you
>> do not spend any time trying to understand it is obvious. So your
>> honest course is just to say that. Your faith is founded on its own
>> reasons independent of science. That's fine. Just own up to it and
>> stop pretending you have scientific reasons for rejecting a theory you
>> don't understand.
>Actually I do understand what they say. But it is what they say that can't be understood. I reject the hypothesis because it has nothing to do with evidence.
You keep repeating your lies. They get old and boring. Have you
considered learning some facts?
>It is interpretation of the science. That is what I reject. Not the science.
Nope. You reject the scientific evidence.
>Creation and the science are the same thing.
No. You clearly have no understanding of science at all.
>The say they don't look for ID. Some here have said that is correct. They think it is not important. Then they ask me how could they detect it?
Tell us. What evidence would show ID? Why hasn't it been identified yet?
Scientists do look for evidence to see if the hypothesis is valid. At
some point, the lack of evidence for the hypothesis of ID persuaded
scientists to stop wasting their time looking for it. Frankly, there is
enough evidence to show that ID is false for any reasonable person, but
for the ID/Creation liars, there will always be an excuse for why life
looks this way and does not look like it was created. Creationists will
always find more excuses because they never do science.
>The answer I gave was in a form of a couple of questions.
Questions are not answers. They are not evidence.
>The question I asked are what would you have to do to convert energy into the different materials that are in the universe?
Have you taken any physics and cosmology classes? Did you pay attention?
>The other ones are,how did the first life know it had to survive
You assume that it needed to. The first proto-life was a biochemical
reaction that had enough energy inputs to be sustained.
>and reproduce and how did it know how to?
Do you think that bacteria think about reproduction?
>These questions are how you look for ID.
Nope. Those are questions that show that you are ignorant about
evolution.
>Because they don't come from dirt, or chemicals.
But your questions seem to have been pulled out of somewhere other than
a thinking mind.
>This is the reason the scientists will never find these answers.
What is the value of an answer to a question that is based on false
assumptions?
> > > The 3 facts.
> > > 1 everything comes from life. That means the converting of energy into > > > matter, for the material universe.
> > As has been shown to you before, not everything does come from life. > > Also, your claim before is that God is "power" ie energy. Energy is not > > life, so how did life come from "power"
> > > 2 humans only have humans offspring. Means that there is no 'evolution'
> > As pointed out to you before, this does not follow. That humans have > > human offspring is not an indication that evolution does not happen, or > > has not happened. Evolutionary changes happen in populations over > > generations, so any human offspring is going to be human, as long as one > > defines it that way.
> The same with species, the is why there are at least 2 dozen ideas on that.
> But what the scientists say is that there are supposed to be little steps, > but we don't see that in humans. There should be almost-humans and ex-humans > and just humans. But what we find are the 'just humans'. That is a > contradiction of 'evolution'. And the supposed links, to humans, keep fading > away. And they do not know what was supposed to happen to the almost humans.
What exactly do you think an 'almost human' or 'ex human' would look like? Since you say with confidence that 'almost humans' haven't been found, you should at least be able to describe what an 'almost human' might look like.
> You don't do that simply because you can't. You have not made an
> effort to understand the theory you wish to disprove. If you don't
> like the conflict between evolution and your faith, go ahead and just
> say that. You're under no obligation to learn about the theory of
> evolution. There's nothing lazy or dishonest about that. But
> pretending to critique the theory of evolution on scientific grounds
> without having made any sincere effort to understand it, that's lazy
> and dishonest.
Actually I did this already. But I'll repeat it again. After life has already started , 'evolution' is the idea that adaption, breeding, natural selection and mutations , will cause small changes naturally, in life over time, so that you get all the life we see today. But what we see today is just a snapshot ( frozen in time ) of that process.
> > It is interpretation of the science. That is what I reject. Not the science.
> > Creation and the science are the same thing.
> > The say they don't look for ID. Some here have said that is correct. They think it is not important. Then they ask me how could they detect it?
> > The answer I gave was in a form of a couple of questions.
> > The question I asked are what would you have to do to convert energy into the different materials that are in the universe? The other ones are,how did the first life know it had to survive and reproduce and how did it know how to?
> > These questions are how you look for ID. Because they don't come from dirt, or chemicals.This is the reason the scientists will never find these answers.
> > > > "What is remarkable about Australopithecus sediba is that, as a field,
> > > > it is a discovery we never thought would be made: a bona fide
> > > > transitional species," Berger told the Guardian.
> > > > I want to to see what he said here. He said that they thought they
> > > > would never find a "bona fide transitional species". That means
> > > > for all the years, the scientist have been claiming transitional
> > > > animals this is, the first one!!
> > > > In other words a real one.
> > > I am glad that you definitely now accept evolution between humans and
> > > primitive chimp-like apes. Given your acceptance of that, the many
> > > other less perfect transitional hominid fossils are moot.
> > I thought it was interesting that, they claim they found the first real bona fide transitional animal ,
> They don't. you just don;t understand te article He says that in this
> field", that is the very specific research question they set
> themselves (hominid evolution) , it was unlikely to find a fossil that
> displays on its face (bona fide) all the characteristics they are
> looking for - since we know how are fossilisation occurs, and how
> even more unlikely it is to get in a fossil exactly the relevant
> features preserved, that was a priori unlikely to happen. He does
> _not_ say that there are no other transitional fossils, there are
> plenty
> > and now all of a sudden , there never were any other ones. Does that mean the scientists have been lying all this time?
> No, it simply means you can't read properly
> > Now even this one is heading down the slippery slope. After 30 years as a fraud.
> > This same thing has been happing for years, with the same results.
> > This is not from me this is the scientists themselves, saying this.
Yes I did understand what he was saying. They know they have very little real evidence of life 'evolving' and none of it is really bullet proof. But that with this knew find he said they finally have a real transitional example. that means they had none before. So all those before this, were not real, meaning that there were problems with all thee other claims. So this find and reconstruction he said were different. But we see that now after 30 years this one is going down also.
This the same pattern with all the other 'missing links'. And all the other 'transitional' animals.
>>> "What is remarkable about Australopithecus sediba is that, as a field,
>>> it is a discovery we never thought would be made: a bona fide
>>> transitional species," Berger told the Guardian.
>>> I want to to see what he said here. He said that they thought they
>>> would never find a "bona fide transitional species". That means
>>> for all the years, the scientist have been claiming transitional
>>> animals this is, the first one!!
>>> In other words a real one.
>> I am glad that you definitely now accept evolution between humans and
>> primitive chimp-like apes. Given your acceptance of that, the many
>> other less perfect transitional hominid fossils are moot.
> I thought it was interesting that, they claim they found the first
> real bona fide transitional animal , and now all of a sudden , there
> never were any other ones. Does that mean the scientists have been
> lying all this time?
It means you are bearing false witness. The quote from the Guardian does not say any of that. What it says is that Berger was not expecting to discover a transitional hominid. Also note that it is grammatically incorrect to refer to Berger with the pronoun "they".
I thought it was interesting what you said, that you now accept that there is one bona fide transitional species in the hominid group. That means humans evolved.
Note that the Guardian article refers to the issue of Science where A. sebida was described in detail. You might want to read it. I have no doubt that you can find many more quotes to mine.
> Now even this one is heading down the slippery slope. After 30
> years as a fraud.
Moab Man was written about in 1973. That's at least 39 years that creationists have been in the fraud business regarding physical anthropology. I'm confident it is a great deal longer than that, but I do not have dates handy on the many other creationist frauds.
But you like fraud. Every time you take a quote from a creationist rag and cite it as coming direct from a scientist, you are being fraudulent.
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:55:57 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>> >>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:02:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
>> >>><duns...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>> Still waiting for those observable design criteria...
>> >>>>You have to take the blinders off Bob
>> >>>Still waiting for those observable design criteria...
>> >> Waiting...
>> >"You have to take the blinders off" is all he's got. He means by it, of >> >course, that you have to Have Faith and assume his conclusion is correct. >> >Then you will have assumed his conclusion is correct, which to him is >> >equivalent to having actual evidence, and he gets to win the argument.
>> That does seem to be the case.
>> >I know we're short on Black Knights at the moment, but this one is deeply >> >disappointing to me.
>> Oh, I dunno; we have Tony, Kalkidas and prawnster, and now
>> "Mr. Dunsapy", all of whom are expert at declaring victory
>> and running away. How many Black Knights can we expect at
>> any given time?
>One black knight is about 2 too many.
Depends. The movie, for instance, would have been poorer
without him.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
>>>> Purpose is not part of the job description of scientists. If there were
>>>> evidence for ID it would have been identified before now.
> It has been, it's just the scientist do not look for it.
>> Is there some reason that you don't have any idea how to format your
>> postings properly? Is it because you are ignorant or just selfish?
>>> So what your saying is that if the scientist didn't do it or they don't who did do it, no one did!! In other words if they say they don't know it must be impossible?
>> No. I said that the ID/creationists have been lying.
> How so?
>>> Now you say purpose is not part of what the scientists look for, yet 'evolution' is all about purpose. The purpose of survival. Their whole hypothesis is based on that. But they don't ask how animals and plants, got that purpose and where did they get it from. That also means they are blind to their own hypothesis.
>> No. Evolution has no purpose in it. None. The theory describes the
>> result, not a purpose.
> That is a contradiction of humans.
>>> That answers the question, why the scientists don't believe in creation, is that they have no choice. They are slaves of their own making.
>> They are "slaves" to evidence, facts. ID/Creation has absolutely no
>> supporting evidence. Creationists are slaves to the lies they tell.
>>> They say about many regions that those people are a slave to the Gods they invent, how is that different than what the scientists have done?
>> Science is not a religious enterprise. Religious belief does not affect
>> the outcome of experiments. Facts don't depend on gods.
>>> Then they have to admit that they , don't know, how the universe started, they don't know how life started, and 'evolution' can not be be shown to work, because it takes too long. So they say a billionsyearsdidit. Then set out to prove it. And can't prove, the universe or the origins of life or 'evolution'. Then they tell me we don't prove things.
>>> Well I guess not. How could they?
>> You really do love to lie about scientific evidence to mislead people
>> about the fraudulent dogma you are trying to preach here. Fine. Feel
>> free to spread your lies. I cannot stop you from proving how immoral you
>> are or how ignorant you are.
> But don't you think the scientist should do the same?
The point is the scientists don't do the same. Scientists aren't the ones who are lying to you.
> Why lie about all the missing links, when eventually they all go down.
They are not the ones lying about the "missing links". You have been lying about them. They don't "all go down".
> There have been many of them.
And there still are many of them, which you can't dismiss just by quoting out of context.
> They should just tell the truth, and that is, .. they don't know.
Scientists openly admit when they don't know, but things they DO know, they don't hide. You have been lied to about these hominids, and are too afraid to admit the truth.
>> Look, it is obvious to everyone here that you do not understand the
>> theory of evolution or any of the evidence offered in support of it.
>> You've made that abundantly clear. However, there is a way for you to
>> be honest here. One thing you DO understand about the theory of
>> evolution is that if it is correct, your particular religion cannot be
>> true. You don't need to understand much of the science to grasp that
>> much. And I think that that is all you grasp. Then if you have
>> compelling reasons not to give up your particular religion, then
>> neither the content of the theory of evolution, not any evidence
>> supporting it is worth your time to investigate. And the fact that you
>> do not spend any time trying to understand it is obvious. So your
>> honest course is just to say that. Your faith is founded on its own
>> reasons independent of science. That's fine. Just own up to it and
>> stop pretending you have scientific reasons for rejecting a theory you
>> don't understand.
> Actually I do understand what they say.
You show no evidence that this is true.
> But it is what they say that can't be understood. I reject the hypothesis because it has nothing to do with evidence.
You are ignorant of the evidence, so how can you reject the "hypothesis" when you don't know the evidence?
> It is interpretation of the science.
All scientific theories are interpretations of the evidence. That is what separates them from creationism, which is a religious belief, independent of the evidence.
> That is what I reject. Not the science.
By rejecting the theory, without any evidence that contradicts the theory, you are rejecting the science.
> Creation and the science are the same thing.
No, creation is a religious belief. Science is a method of investigation very much different from belief.
> The say they don't look for ID.
Who says this, specifically? You've been asked before, but you never have said.
> Some here have said that is correct.
What you've been told is that science hasn't any reason for looking for "ID" when natural processes explain the event better. Water tends to run down hills, but I can't rule out that it's being pushed by little gremlins. But why should I should I look for "gremlins" when the theory of gravity explains the event better?
> They think it is not important.
No, they think it's not necessary, as natural explanations are not only testable, but much more likely.
> Then they ask me how could they detect it?
Which you've never given a sensible answer.
> The answer I gave was in a form of a couple of questions.
and those questions didn't make sense, as has been pointed out to you before.
> The question I asked are what would you have to do to convert energy into the different materials that are in the universe?
You'd need a star going supernova. Not many people have access to those.
> The other ones are,how did the first life know it had to survive and reproduce and how did it know how to?
Which has been answered, despite the fact is has nothing to do with how one could detect design. The first life didn't "know" it had to survive and reproduce, any more than a fire knows it has to consume fuel and oxygen, and spread. That is just what life does, it survives, and reproduces.
> These questions are how you look for ID.
Actually, neither question even remotely addresses how one might look for ID. Where do you get the idea that either of them is relevant?
> Because they don't come from dirt, or chemicals.
Who is the "they"?
> This is the reason the scientists will never find these answers.
Life does come from chemicals. "Dirt" is not thought to be where life comes from. Saying that scientists will never find these answers is a very poor bet.
