Can God driven evolution and science be reconciled?
martycarbone
If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
designed evolution.
I do not see any controversy.
Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
creationists is about?
Can't both be right?
Marty Carbone
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Of course.
>
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
>
> I do not see any controversy.
>
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
The argument is about honesty.
Creationists want to have their religious convictions taught as
science in science classes. They are deeply and systematically
dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
dishonest there would be no dispute.
RF
TomS
<96f41dd6-f6ba-4db1...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, martycarbone
stated..."
There are over 12,000 Christian clergy and Jewish rabbis in the
USA who agree with something like that:
<http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
chris thompson
It depends. What you describe- theistic evolution- is not science. It
is not testable, and it cannot be disproven, simply because "God did
it so we could never detect his handiwork" trumps all possible
methodologies.
It is, however, fine as an article of faith, if that's what floats
your boat.
The controversy arises when creationists insist having their religion
taught in public schools. That's against the law and unconstitutional
in the US. Creationists are also guilty of bad science. In particular
they badly abuse statistics. And many of them want to cripple teaching
evolutionary biology, because it really, really bugs them to hear that
they're apes. Ook ook.
Chris
>
> Marty Carbone
Nomen Publicus
> Of course.
>
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
That's what the Pope says.
>
> I do not see any controversy.
>
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
Creationists attempt to reconcile a literal interpretation of one edition or
other of the bible with the world they see around them. The result is a
one-stop solution, goddidit.
>
> Can't both be right?
No.
>
>
> Marty Carbone
>
--
Isaac Asimov: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived.
Desertphile
<martyc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can god driven evolution and science be reconciled?
Yes: just produce evidence gods exist. See how easy it is?
> Of course.
>
> If we believe god is an all powerful force,
"We believe?" Oops! There goes science, out the window.
> that god could have designed evolution.
They could also design lightning bolts.
> I do not see any controversy.
Self-inflicted blindness is unsighty.
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
"Evolutionists?"
> creationists is about?
>
> Can't both be right?
Yes, they can't. You must produce evidence the goids exist first
before the gods can be subjected to sciennce.
> Marty Carbone
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Bode
It's certainly possible that God is manipulating the course of
evolution behind the scenes, and acting in a way that's
indistinguishable from wholly natural processes; that view is not
inconsistent with the evidence we have. It's just that since we can't
tell the difference between a natural process and God acting like a
natural process, we assume the former as it's simpler.
If that's all creationism was about, then you're right, there would be
no controversy.
Unfortunately, there are several different flavors of creationism, and
many of them assume events or processes that are *not* consistent with
the physical evidence we have. At the most extreme end are Young
Earth Creationists who feel that the text of Genesis is a *literal*
account of the history of life on Earth. They do not allow for
evolution *at all*, as they hold that all life was created *in its
current form* by God in the span of a few days several thousand years
ago. They hold that species are immutable, that humanity was created
separately through divine action, and that the idea of accepting the
idea evolution in any form is synonymous with atheism.
These kinds of creationists do not believe evolution should be taught
to impressionable youngsters at all, as they believe evolution
constitutes a wholesale rejection of God and morality. They see
theistic evolutionism (what you were describing) as being
insufficiently pious, and at least one poster here will equate it to
outright atheism.
That's what the argument is about.
Inez
> Of course.
>
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
The problem isn't that science conflicts with God. An all powerful
critter that wants to hide can obviously do so and no evidence can
disprove it. The problem is that science conflicts with the bible,
and I suppose the koran as well.
> I do not see any controversy.
>
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
>
> Can't both be right?
No. Creationists believe an assortment of things, but they tend to be
along the lines of "the earth is 6,000 years old and all animals were
created in their current form." This is wrong and conflicts with
science.
Cheezits
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
If he did it was a pretty clever plan.
> I do not see any controversy.
>
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
Creationists can't give up their literalist interpretation of the Bible,
where every story in it must have happened exactly as written. Evolution
is part of a larger history of life on earth, which conflicts with a 6-day
creation less than 10,000 years ago. Creationists want to believe that
there is scientific evidence for the beliefs, and there isn't.
> Can't both be right?
No.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
VoiceOfReason
martycarbone wrote:
> Of course.
>
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
Quite a number of theists in the world believe the same. Of course,
that means that a theist must reconcile their religion with science,
not the other way around. Pope JP II said as much in his "Truth
Cannot Contradict Truth" address to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences.
> I do not see any controversy.
Neither do most Christians.
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
The primary problem is with Young-Earth Creationists (YECs) who
interpret Genesis literally. They reject any scientific findings that
conflict with the concept of a magic-like *poof* creation event a few
thousand years ago, and especially reject evolution, and especially
especially reject any suggestion that man evolved from previous
species.
> Can't both be right?
YECs will deny any facts that threaten their belief system, so in that
case, no. However, most other theists have no problem accepting both
the existence of God and the fact that species evolve.
Steven L.
The philosophical argument is over the literal truth of the Bible.
The Bible doesn't just say that "God is an all powerful force." It
specifies a particular model of creation in the Book of Genesis.
Including creating the heaven and earth in just six days, in an order of
events that contradicts modern science; creation of Adam from dust; and
creation of Eve from one of Adam's ribs.
And creationists are attempting to prove that orthodox science is wrong,
and that the Universe and humans really were created exactly as Genesis
specifies.
I will leave the discussion of the various political agendas to others.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Dec 3, 9:36 am, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Of course.
>>
>> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
>> designed evolution.
>
> The problem isn't that science conflicts with God. An all powerful
> critter that wants to hide can obviously do so and no evidence can
> disprove it. The problem is that science conflicts with the bible,
> and I suppose the koran as well.
There's one such problem with the Quran, yes. Islam assumes that
everything in the natural world happens because of God's will; nothing
is truly random. That sets Islam against modern biology which depends
on random mutation, modern physics which depends on randomness in
quantum mechanics, etc.
But there is another problem which is more philosophical:
Some Muslims take the concept of an "all-powerful" God to the extreme:
Allah is considered to be so all-powerful that He is not constrained by
even the laws of science, mathematics, or even logic. Any law that we
humans can conceive of cannot apply to God, or He wouldn't be
all-powerful. That contradicts the scientific assumption of unbroken
natural law, as well as the notions of a consistent logical deductive
system. "Allah really can create an object so big that He can't move
it. And then He'll move it."
This was argued persuasively by the Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali in
the 11th century. And he helped throttle Islamic mathematics and
science, which had been flourishing up to that time.
John Harshman
No, because "God designed evolution" is not an acceptable idea to
creationists. This particular position is often called "theistic
evolution", and to creationists it's just as bad as any other sort of
evolution. Creationists, as the term is generally understood, believe in
the literal truth of Genesis as a guide to earth history. And that can't
be reconciled with science. (If you want to redefine "creationist" to
include everyone who believes in god, you are free to do so, and that
eliminates the conflict, but creationists won't accept your redefinition.)
Now if you want to believe in a god who works through evolution, that's
fine. It's not a scientific belief but science can't falsify it either.
And it's the belief of many prominent scientists, including Kenneth
Miller (whose book Finding Darwin's God you might want to check out) and
Francis Collins. However, if you go that route, creationists won't like you.
hersheyh
>
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
>
> I do not see any controversy.
>
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
The creationist problem is deeper than and goes beyond merely brain-
dead literalism and an inability to interpret scripture as myth and
allegory. Creationists want their God to be intercessionary and
involved in their personal lives and willing to listen to their
personal wishes and desires and fulfill them. They want a personal,
human-scale God they can understand and relate to, one who is willing
to extend them, personally, benefits that run counter to harsh reality
if they are just faithful enough. They are not interested in a deity,
no matter how much grandeur He would have, who impersonally allowed
life to change and develop over millions and millions of years by a
process, that, at best, is wasteful and impersonal. That is why Jesus
is so important to them. Even more important than God. They want a
God of magic and miracles who cares about them, personally and who
might be willing to suspend His laws if they are just faithful enough.
They want to pretend that God is Good and everything is for the best
in the best of all possible worlds they imagine might exist for the
faithful.
Science, OTOH, is not interested in what would be nice if it existed.
It is interested in how things really work. Even if it means that the
2nd law tells us that we cannot win and cannot even break even. Even
if it tells us that the earth will not last forever because the sun
will go nova. Even if it tells us that nature does not consist of
lions lying down with lambs and never did. And that we die and suffer
not because of our sinfulness or lack of it but because organisms have
always died and suffered and that dying and suffering (aka selective
pressure) is *responsible* for humans existing at all. Evolution is
not a nice method of producing organisms; it involves massive amounts
of suffering and death at every step of progress. Even Paley had
problems with the nastiness of biology and had to stretch to come up
with an explanation.
An impersonal (or at least consistent in the material world) God who
works consistently through natural law mechanisms will not do it for
most creationists. They have already had to concede that the size and
scope and nature of the heavens makes our planet small and
insignificant. To concede that humans were not *personally* created
but evolved by an impersonal and not personally loving process....
well, that is too much indifference to be tolerated. Whether it is, in
fact, true or not ceases to be relevant. If one cannot face the
truth, one retreats into fantasy.
> Can't both be right?
Not if creationists prefer to live in a fantasy of their choosing
rather than the real material world.
>
> Marty Carbone
(M)-adman
B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T
--
It is all about spotting bullshit with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
I happen to know God created evolution,and, you as well. Just not the kind of evolution you want
the rest of the world to believe.
--
It is all about Biblical truth with:
Ray Martinez
Marty: IF God is involved with biological causation or production, the
same is known as Creationism. IF God is not involved with biological
causation or production, this, since 1859, is called Darwinism or
Naturalism-Materialism.
Evolution was postulated because Divine or supernatural causation
(Creationism), Intelligence and Design (attributes of Creator), were
judged to be absent from nature by Darwin and his pro-Atheism crowd.
This judgement made transmutation necessary.
Unfortunately, many Creationists and Evolutionists REFUSE to
understand these basic facts and distinctions between enemy
combatants. Even more unfortunate is the fact that very many hateful
Atheists and Evolutionists intentionally misrepresent these basic
facts so evolution is accepted and Genesis corrupted. Your opinion is
the fruit of their efforts.
Ray
Ray Martinez
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:36 pm, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course.
>
> > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > designed evolution.
>
> > I do not see any controversy.
>
> > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> > creationists is about?
>
> The argument is about honesty.
>
> Creationists want to have their religious convictions taught as
> science in science classes.
If Creationism is part religious conviction then Darwinism must be
part anti-religious conviction. You cannot have it one-way. Since all
Atheists are indeed Evolutionists, Darwinism is anti-religion.
We want the scientific evidence supporting the Creator taught like it
always was before Darwinists came to power and corrupted the
Constitution with their pro-Atheism convictions.
> They are deeply and systematically
> dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
> dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
> RF
>
I plainly admit that I want God back in science classes----the God of
Genesis.
This was and always has been the goal. God is excluded because Federal
entities have accepted Atheism ideology (= the idea to exclude God).
>
>
>
>
> > Can't both be right?
>
> > Marty Carbone- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7a1a9073-26ed-458d...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...snip
>Marty: IF God is involved with biological causation or production, the
>same is known as Creationism.
Actually, if God is involved in "biological causation or production" it's
beyond the ability of science to tell.
>IF God is not involved with biological
>causation or production, this, since 1859, is called Darwinism or
>Naturalism-Materialism.
This is Ray's recent hobby horse, and he's been making this false assertion
for some time now. "Darwinism" to the rest of the world means a particular
theory of how evolution works. "Naturalism-Materialism" is what Ray calls
the necessary concession to methodological naturalism that every science
requires. Science has operated this way long before 1859. Ray simply
can't get that through his head.
>Evolution was postulated because Divine or supernatural causation
>(Creationism), Intelligence and Design (attributes of Creator), were
>judged to be absent from nature by Darwin and his pro-Atheism crowd.
Darwin, of course, made no such "judgement", and evolution was presented to
explain the evidence of change in populations. Darwin was not "pro
atheist" nor was the scientific "crowd" at the time. Even if Darwin
were an atheist, and "judged" that "supernatual causation" was absent from
nature, God is under no obligation to follow Darwin's supposed "judgement".
> This judgement made transmutation necessary.
If you haven't been lurking here, "transmutation" is Ray's way of expressing
the fact that species are not fixed, but change over time. He has an odd
idea that change in species is some kind of magical event, rather than a
simple and ongoing natural phenomena.
>Unfortunately, many Creationists and Evolutionists REFUSE to
>understand these basic facts and distinctions between enemy
>combatants.
Actually, they refuse to accept Ray's paranoid fantasy as a "basic fact".
People who accept evolution and those who believe in creationism, are not
enemies. Ray has difficulty (as you will find) in facing reality, and
tends to replace it with his own.
>Even more unfortunate is the fact that very many hateful
>Atheists and Evolutionists intentionally misrepresent these basic
>facts so evolution is accepted and Genesis corrupted.
Again, you will find that the only "hateful" person here is Ray. Because
people refuse to agree with Ray's harebrained ideas, he claims
"misrepresentation", rather than actually supporting his claims with
evidence.
>Your opinion is
>the fruit of their efforts.
Once again, Ray is reality challenged. He can't deal with the fact that
his claims are empty, and his beliefs are unsupported. Therefore he must
insist that everyone else is "misrepesenting" the truth. Reasoning with
Ray is largely fruitless, but can be fun to see him explode into incoherent
rage.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:G1HZk.4153$ba6...@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> John Harshman wrote:
snip
>>> Now if you want to believe in a god who works through evolution,
>>> that's fine. It's not a scientific belief but science can't falsify
>>> it either.
>>> And it's the belief of many prominent scientists, including Kenneth
>>> Miller (whose book Finding Darwin's God you might want to check out)
>>> and Francis Collins. However, if you go that route, creationists
>>> won't like you.
>
> I happen to know God created evolution,and, you as well. Just not the kind
> of evolution you want
> the rest of the world to believe.
Who are you to tell God what kind of evolution he can use?
DJT
John Harshman
I happen to know that you happen to know a lot of things that ain't so.
(M)-adman
I happen to know that you think you know that i know a lot of things that ain't so.
The truth is there is NO observed evolution beyond what can mate and sucessfully produce fertile
offspring
--
It is all about the truth with:
Klaus Hellnick
Yes, that covers a major aspect of evolution (differential
reproduction). Why do you think it is a problem?
Klaus
Dana Tweedy
>> The argument is about honesty.
>
>> Creationists want to have their religious convictions taught as
>> science in science classes.
>If Creationism is part religious conviction then Darwinism must be
>part anti-religious conviction.
No, you fail basic logic once again. Creationism is not "part" religious
conviction, it's all religious conviction. "Darwinism" is a particular
concept of how evolution works. It's a scientific concept, not religious,
or anti religious.
>You cannot have it one-way.
Why not? Sometimes one way is the truth.
> Since all
> Atheists are indeed Evolutionists, Darwinism is anti-religion.
Not all atheists are "evolutionists", and "Darwinism" is not anti-religion.
Your claims have been refuted over and over, yet you keep repeating them.
>We want the scientific evidence supporting the Creator taught like it
>always was before Darwinists came to power and corrupted the
> Constitution with their pro-Atheism convictions.
So many falsehoods in that little paragraph. Scientific evidence doesn't
support your version of creation, which is why scientists rejected it long
ago. "Darwinists" didn't "come to power" but the theory of evolution
prevalied due to its explanitory power. There is no "corruption" of the
Constitution by protecting the religious freedom of US citizens. Lastly,
evolution is not "pro atheism".
>> They are deeply and systematically
>> dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
>> dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
>> RF
>
>I plainly admit that I want God back in science classes----the God of
>Genesis.
Religious beliefs are not science, and don't belong in science classes.
>This was and always has been the goal. God is excluded because Federal
> entities have accepted Atheism ideology (= the idea to exclude God).
More paranoid fantasy. God is not excluded, or can the action of mere
humans exclude God. The "federal entities" are the courts, which are doing
their job by protecting the religious freedom of US citizens.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> John Harshman wrote:
snip
>>> I happen to know that you happen to know a lot of things that ain't
>>> so.
>
> I happen to know that you think you know that i know a lot of things that
> ain't so.
>
> The truth is there is NO observed evolution beyond what can mate and
> sucessfully produce fertile
> offspring
That's all the evolution required to produce the diversity of life that is
seen. Do you think evolution involves non fertile offspring? (hint,
evolution is about inheritable changes. Sterile offspring don't pass their
genes to the next generation).
DJT
Cheezits
[etc.]
> There's one such problem with the Quran, yes. Islam assumes that
> everything in the natural world happens because of God's will; nothing
> is truly random. That sets Islam against modern biology which depends
> on random mutation, modern physics which depends on randomness in
> quantum mechanics, etc.
That also sets it against rolling dice. Or picking names out of a hat.
Wombat
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Then look at Richard's site where he documents creationist
dishonesty. If you are correct it will be a doddle for you to
disprove it.
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/50reasons/index.php
Wombat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Dec 3, 9:48 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:36 pm, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course.
>
> > > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > > designed evolution.
>
> > > I do not see any controversy.
>
> > > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> > > creationists is about?
>
> > The argument is about honesty.
>
> > Creationists want to have their religious convictions taught as
> > science in science classes.
>
> If Creationism is part religious conviction then Darwinism must be
> part anti-religious conviction.
Why?
> You cannot have it one-way.
Why on earth not?
> Since all
> Atheists are indeed Evolutionists, Darwinism is anti-religion.
And since all physicists are "gravitationists", physics is anti-
religion.
>
> We want the scientific evidence supporting the Creator taught like it
> always was before Darwinists came to power and corrupted the
> Constitution with their pro-Atheism convictions.
Scientific evidence supporting the Creator does not exist - unless you
are prepared to set constraints on what your creator can or can't do.
>
> > They are deeply and systematically
> > dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
> > dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
> > RF
>
> I plainly admit that I want God back in science classes----the God of
> Genesis.
The God of Genesis has never been in science classes unless forced
there by religious fundamentalists.
>
> This was and always has been the goal. God is excluded because Federal
> entities have accepted Atheism ideology (= the idea to exclude God).
No, it's because your religious convictions are not science, have
never been science, and to have them taught as science in science
classes would be teaching a lie.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
So perhaps you can provide a link to any creationist source of any
kind which presents any hypothesis which can be tested using the tools
of science.
Or, more to the point, identify *any* creationist source which does
not base its arguments on misrepresentation, distortion and outright
falsehoods.
You won't, of course, because that would involve actually learning
something and as you have made abundantly clear, you are determined to
preserve your ignorance.
Any fool can produce silly insults. Addressing evidence is another
matter.
RF
TomS
<Xns9B6998DA64863ch...@199.45.49.11>, Cheezits stated..."
>
>martycarbone <martyc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
>> designed evolution.
>
>If he did it was a pretty clever plan.
>
>> I do not see any controversy.
>>
>> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
>> creationists is about?
>
>Creationists can't give up their literalist interpretation of the Bible,
>where every story in it must have happened exactly as written. Evolution
>is part of a larger history of life on earth, which conflicts with a 6-day
>creation less than 10,000 years ago. Creationists want to believe that
>there is scientific evidence for the beliefs, and there isn't.
Not that I am a supporter of a "literalist" interpretation of
the Bible, but I think that it should be mentioned that many
conservative evangelical Christians who did support a literal
reading of the Bible accepted evolutionary biology, in the
late 19th century, up to the early years of the 20th century.
One famous example being B.B. Warfield - see, for example, the
Wikipedia article about him, under the heading "Darwinism", and
his essay "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race"
(Princeton Theological Review, 1911).
>
>> Can't both be right?
>
>No.
>
>Sue
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ilas
news:G1HZk.4153$ba6...@bignews9.bellsouth.net:
> I happen to know God created evolution,and, you as well. Just not the
> kind of evolution you want the rest of the world to believe.
Oooh, can I come to Stockholm with you? Please, please? What are you going
to do with the 10 million krona?
wf3h
>
> Unfortunately, many Creationists and Evolutionists REFUSE to
> understand these basic facts and distinctions between enemy
> combatants. Even more unfortunate is the fact that very many hateful
> Atheists and Evolutionists intentionally misrepresent these basic
> facts so evolution is accepted and Genesis corrupted. Your opinion is
> the fruit of their efforts.
>
we understand your claims. we also understand that you think you're
god. you continuously make claims about your beliefs that lead one to
conclude you get to define who is/isnt a christian. that's a job for
god.
thus both 'atheists', and christians can not believe what you say
simply because your religion is yourself.
John Harshman
That's hardly true. There are plenty of cases of hybrid infertility
evolving within a few generations in plants. And for sufficiently
reasonable meanings of "observed", we have overwhelming evidence of, for
example, a close relationship between humans and chimps, despite their
apparent inability to hybridize. That's just another of the things you
know that ain't so.
John Bode
As opposed to the God of Abraham?
How would you explain Newton's First Law in terms of the God of
Genesis, for example? Or radioactivity? What role does the God of
Genesis play in the propagation of electromagnetic waves?
> This was and always has been the goal. God is excluded because Federal
> entities have accepted Atheism ideology (= the idea to exclude God).
>
Yeah, that pesky First Amendment.
(M)-adman
What you describe with the plants is nature selecting for extinction. How is that some grand
theory of evolution? That is just nature taking it's own course and eliminating what is not
compatable.
humans and chimps are genetically different, cannot produce a fretile offspring, and therefore
are not of the same kind to mate despite what your science says about them being close
relatives. IOW nature can easily fool science.
Dana Tweedy
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> John Harshman wrote:
snip
>>>
>>> That's hardly true. There are plenty of cases of hybrid infertility
>>> evolving within a few generations in plants. And for sufficiently
>>> reasonable meanings of "observed", we have overwhelming evidence of,
>>> for example, a close relationship between humans and chimps, despite
>>> their apparent inability to hybridize. That's just another of the
>>> things you know that ain't so.
>
> What you describe with the plants is nature selecting for extinction. How
> is that some grand
> theory of evolution? That is just nature taking it's own course and
> eliminating what is not
> compatable.
Now you are starting to undestand the concept of natural selection....
>
> humans and chimps are genetically different,
Less than 2% different.
> cannot produce a fretile offspring, and therefore
> are not of the same kind to mate despite what your science says about them
> being close
> relatives.
It's not really known if humans and chimp hybrids can, or cannot produce
fertile offspring, although it's not likely. All this shows is that
humans and chimps are not the same species. Since no one claimed they
were, and there isn't any useful definition of "kind" your objection is
pointless.
> IOW nature can easily fool science.
More likely, individuals who deny evolution are easily fooled.
DJT
John Harshman
I'm sorry, but that was just nonsense. I told you about exactly what you
asked for, and you claimed that exactly what you asked for wasn't what
you were talking about.
> humans and chimps are genetically different, cannot produce a fretile offspring, and therefore
> are not of the same kind to mate despite what your science says about them being close
> relatives. IOW nature can easily fool science.
How do you know they're different kinds? How do you know that the
inability to produce a fertile offspring means that two species aren't
the same kind? You have in fact tacitly admitted (in your reply to my
bringing up of plant examples) that inability to produce fertile
offspring can arise within a single kind.
I know it's hopeless to expect you to understand simple logic (because
you really are that simple), but I still make the attempt.
(M)-adman
That is rather magnanomous of you. However, i see only one point you raise that has merit.
"How do you know they're different kinds?"
They cannot mate and produce viable offspring
(M)-adman
>> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
>> news:dDUZk.3801$UI2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's hardly true. There are plenty of cases of hybrid
>>>>> infertility evolving within a few generations in plants. And for
>>>>> sufficiently reasonable meanings of "observed", we have
>>>>> overwhelming evidence of, for example, a close relationship
>>>>> between humans and chimps, despite their apparent inability to
>>>>> hybridize. That's just another of the things you know that ain't
>>>>> so.
>>>
>>> What you describe with the plants is nature selecting for
>>> extinction. How is that some grand
>>> theory of evolution? That is just nature taking it's own course and
>>> eliminating what is not
>>> compatable.
>>
>> Now you are starting to undestand the concept of natural
>> selection....
It is IN the bible. No degree necessary
>>
>>>
>>> humans and chimps are genetically different,
>>
>> Less than 2% different.
It does not matter if it were 10% or .0001 %
If they cannot mate and produce a working fertile offspring the percent can be Zero and they are
still not connected in any acestorial way.
>>
>>> cannot produce a fretile offspring, and therefore
>>> are not of the same kind to mate despite what your science says
>>> about them being close
>>> relatives.
>>
>> It's not really known if humans and chimp hybrids can, or cannot
>> produce fertile offspring, although it's not likely. All this
>> shows is that humans and chimps are not the same species. Since
>> no one claimed they were, and there isn't any useful definition of
>> "kind" your objection is pointless.
Not being the same species seems to be very much the point. If we are not the same species, we
cannot have common ancestors
>>
>>> IOW nature can easily fool science.
>>
>> More likely, individuals who deny evolution are easily fooled.
no
>>
>>
>>
>> DJT
Ray Martinez
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2:46 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 9:48 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 5:36 pm, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Of course.
>
> > > > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > > > designed evolution.
>
> > > > I do not see any controversy.
>
> > > > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> > > > creationists is about?
>
> > > The argument is about honesty.
>
> > > Creationists want to have their religious convictions taught as
> > > science in science classes.
>
> > If Creationism is part religious conviction then Darwinism must be
> > part anti-religious conviction.
>
> Why?
>
> > You cannot have it one-way.
>
> Why on earth not?
>
If Creationism is religious conviction, objectively reversed and
applied, the same makes Darwinism anti-religion conviction. Since all
Atheists are Evolutionists this fact supports the claim. Who is more
anti-religion than Atheists?
Every time Evolutionists misrepresent Creationism as "wholly
religious" as opposed to part religious (which is true) the
misrepresentation opens the door to point out that Darwinism is anti-
religious based on fanatical and unanimous support by Atheists.
> > Since all
> > Atheists are indeed Evolutionists, Darwinism is anti-religion.
>
> And since all physicists are "gravitationists", physics is anti-
> religion.
>
Atheists support Darwinism (origin of living things, past and present,
theory) unanimously for one obvious reason: if true the God of Genesis
does not exist. Your attempt to blend Darwinism in with physics
recognizes the need to conceal the unanimous support of Darwinism by
Atheists.
>
>
> > We want the scientific evidence supporting the Creator taught like it
> > always was before Darwinists came to power and corrupted the
> > Constitution with their pro-Atheism convictions.
>
> Scientific evidence supporting the Creator does not exist - unless you
> are prepared to set constraints on what your creator can or can't do.
>
Comment presupposes that scientific evidence supports Atheism ideology
(the idea that God is absent from reality); and it advocates
toleration of Deism, which is, of course, a subset of Atheism. Both do
not recognize Deity to be INvolved with reality.
The facts above then elicit the following question: why do Theists/
Christians support what Atheists support? One group must be confused
about the ***real*** claims of Darwinian-evolution? Of course the
Atheists are not the ones confused, here.
>
>
> > > They are deeply and systematically
> > > dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
> > > dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
> > > RF
>
> > I plainly admit that I want God back in science classes----the God of
> > Genesis.
>
> The God of Genesis has never been in science classes unless forced
> there by religious fundamentalists.
>
This comment misrepresents basic recent American and British history;
and it misrepresents Christianity. God was the center of scientific
instruction before the rise of Darwinism. These misrepresentations are
20th century invents by Atheists-Darwinists (= liars). No scholar
denies that before the rise of Darwinism, Creationism was the only
science in the world.
Prior to the 20th century Rev. Paley's "Evidences" and "Watchmaker"
thesis were required scientific reading in British schools (see the
"Autobiography of Charles Darwin" 1958). It is impossible for Richard
Forrest not to know these basic facts. He is, of course, just plain
lying, venting his Atheism hatred via corruptive revisionism,
unwilling to be an objective scholar.
Prior to 1859, evolution was Materialism (Atheism ideology); it still
is. But the corruption agenda of evil persons like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala ("Christian" evolutionists) have
whitewashed evolution and deceived many ignorant Christians into
accepting Atheism ideology known as evolution.
It's hard to believe how stupid the average Christian evolutionist
really is? I mean how dumb can one be to think Darwin was pro-God
based on the ending of the "Origin"? The ending was insulting lip
service, throwaway, a Brooklyn Bridge. I mean every Atheist in the
world accepted the same book instantly. They recognized the ending for
what it was (disingenuous, placating believers with Deism). It is the
Christian evolutionists who are the Fundamentalists, Richard----
STOOOPID as they come.
>
>
> > This was and always has been the goal. God is excluded because Federal
> > entities have accepted Atheism ideology (= the idea to exclude God).
>
> No, it's because your religious convictions are not science, have
> never been science, and to have them taught as science in science
> classes would be teaching a lie.
>
> RF
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Can't both be right?
>
> > > > Marty Carbone- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before 1859, Creationism was Science (Darwin 1859:6)----you are a liar
or inexcusably ignorant. Whatever you are, you are not a scholar.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Then why do Christians support Darwinism? Is their faith based on the
alleged facts of evolution? Of course the reason they support
Darwinism is because they have been misled by liars like Ken Miller
and Francis Collins and Talk Origins web site.
And I agree that the Darwinian interpretation-explanation of
scientific evidence presupposes the absence of God (Intelligence and
Design) in nature. This fact is what Christian evolutionists have been
misled about. Since it is the most basic fact, that is, a fact that
they should know on their own, they have no excuse. These Christians
are traitors; they are not Christians----they are deceived and
responsible for their status before God since Darwinism is Atheism,
plain and simple.
Ray
SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
>>
> > You cannot have it one-way.
>
>> Why on earth not?
>
>If Creationism is religious conviction, objectively reversed and
>applied, the same makes Darwinism anti-religion conviction.
You are failing basic logic again. Just because Creationism is religious,
that doesn't mean other ideas are anti-religious.
>Since all
>Atheists are Evolutionists this fact supports the claim. Who is more
> anti-religion than Atheists?
First of all, not all atheists are "evolutionists". Second, atheists don't
tend to be anti-religious, just non religious.
>Every time Evolutionists misrepresent Creationism as "wholly
>religious" as opposed to part religious (which is true) the
>misrepresentation opens the door to point out that Darwinism is anti-
> religious based on fanatical and unanimous support by Atheists.
Ray, it's not a misrepesentation to point out that creationism is entirely
religious. "Darwinism" is a particular idea of how life evolves. It's
not "anti religious" as it doesn't address religion at all.
>> > Since all
>> > Atheists are indeed Evolutionists, Darwinism is anti-religion.
>
>> And since all physicists are "gravitationists", physics is anti-
>> religion.
>
>Atheists support Darwinism (origin of living things, past and present,
>theory) unanimously for one obvious reason: if true the God of Genesis
>does not exist.
Once again, Ray, you fail at basic logic. Atheists that do support
"darwinism" do so for scientific reasons. Evolution is true, but whether
or not God exists does not depend on this fact.
>Your attempt to blend Darwinism in with physics
>recognizes the need to conceal the unanimous support of Darwinism by
> Atheists.
Even if there were "unanimous support" of evolution by atheists, that
doesn't affect the scientific worth of evolution. Evolution also is
supported by a large number of religonists. These persons accept
evolution for scientific reasons as well.
>
>
>> > We want the scientific evidence supporting the Creator taught like it
>> > always was before Darwinists came to power and corrupted the
>> > Constitution with their pro-Atheism convictions.
>
>> Scientific evidence supporting the Creator does not exist - unless you
>> are prepared to set constraints on what your creator can or can't do.
>
>Comment presupposes that scientific evidence supports Atheism ideology
>(the idea that God is absent from reality); and it advocates
>toleration of Deism, which is, of course, a subset of Atheism. Both do
>not recognize Deity to be INvolved with reality.
Ray, you are just spewing out your own disordered thoughts. Deism is a
form of theism, not atheism. The scientific evidence supports the theory
of evolution, which is not "atheism ideology". Scientific evidence does
not support the idea that God doesn't exist. It doesn't support the idea
that God does exist. Science is silent on that question.
>The facts above then elicit the following question: why do Theists/
>Christians support what Atheists support?
Because of the evidence. Why do you have so much trouble with that?
>One group must be confused
> about the ***real*** claims of Darwinian-evolution?
That would be Ray. Evolution doesn't make any claims about the existence
of God.
> Of course the
> Atheists are not the ones confused, here.
Quite correct. It's Ray, and other creationists who are confused.
>
>
>> > > They are deeply and systematically
>> > > dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
>> > > dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
> > > RF
>
>> > I plainly admit that I want God back in science classes----the God of
>> > Genesis.
>
>> The God of Genesis has never been in science classes unless forced
>> there by religious fundamentalists.
>
> This comment misrepresents basic recent American and British history;
How?
>and it misrepresents Christianity. God was the center of scientific
>instruction before the rise of Darwinism.
Ray, the concept of God is a supernatural concept. Science does not deal
with the supernatural, ever.
> These misrepresentations are
>20th century invents by Atheists-Darwinists (= liars). No scholar
>denies that before the rise of Darwinism, Creationism was the only
>science in the world.
Creationism was never science, Ray. That's been explained to you many
times already. No 'scholar' ever claims that creationism was science.
Can you cite a single "scholar" who says it was?
>Prior to the 20th century Rev. Paley's "Evidences" and "Watchmaker"
>thesis were required scientific reading in British schools (see the
>"Autobiography of Charles Darwin" 1958).
Paley's work was a religious work, not science.
>It is impossible for Richard
>Forrest not to know these basic facts.
It's impossible for Ray to show that his claims are "facts".
>He is, of course, just plain
>lying, venting his Atheism hatred via corruptive revisionism,
> unwilling to be an objective scholar.
Ray, you know nothing about objectivity, or scholarship. You haven't
demonstrated that Richard is an atheist, and he's never claimed to be one.
>Prior to 1859, evolution was Materialism (Atheism ideology); it still
>is.
No, evolution is science, and like all science makes use of methodological
naturalism.
>But the corruption agenda of evil persons like Ken Miller and
>Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala ("Christian" evolutionists) have
>whitewashed evolution and deceived many ignorant Christians into
>accepting Atheism ideology known as evolution.
However evolution is not "atheism ideology". Atheism ideology would be
"God doesn't exist" not "life diversifies by the process of mutation and
natural selection". Collins, Ayala, and Miller are devout Christians who
haven't rejected their religious or scientific training. Ray's hatred of
those scientists is due to their existence showing Ray to be wrong, utterly
wrong.
>It's hard to believe how stupid the average Christian evolutionist
>really is? I mean how dumb can one be to think Darwin was pro-God
>based on the ending of the "Origin"?
The ending of "Origin" is irrelevant to whether or not a Christian supports
evolution. Darwin could have been completely anti-religious, but the
scientific theory he proposed is not.
>The ending was insulting lip
>service, throwaway, a Brooklyn Bridge. I mean every Atheist in the
>world accepted the same book instantly.
This is not true, but even if it was, so what? It was also accepted by
many devoutly religious persons as well. It was accepted due to the
science, not for any supposed religious content.
>They recognized the ending for
>what it was (disingenuous, placating believers with Deism). It is the
>Christian evolutionists who are the Fundamentalists, Richard----
> STOOOPID as they come.
You are simply engaging in name calling, Ray. Calling persons who are
more intelligent than you, and have more faith than you "stoopid" doesn't
make them so. Your expression of hatred toward honest Christians only
shows your own depths of ignorance.
snip
> Before 1859, Creationism was Science (Darwin 1859:6)
Ray, before, or after 1859, creationism was a religious belief. It's not
science because it proposes the action of a supernatural being. Such
appeal to the supernatural is inherently unscientific. Even if belief in a
creator was held by many scientists, the concept is not science.
>----you are a liar
>or inexcusably ignorant. Whatever you are, you are not a scholar.
Ray, you've demonstrated quite clearly that you are ignorant, deceptive, and
unscholarly yourself. Calling others names doesn't make them like you.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Scientific evidence supporting the Creator does not exist [....]
>Then why do Christians support Darwinism?
Because it's the best explanation for the evidence of the diversity of life.
Christians aren't supporting evolution because they believe it proves the
existence of God. That's a matter of faith.
> Is their faith based on the
>alleged facts of evolution?
No, their faith is based on their own beliefs, and their concept of God.
>Of course the reason they support
>Darwinism is because they have been misled by liars like Ken Miller
>and Francis Collins and Talk Origins web site.
Ray, I accepted evolution as a scientific explanation long before I ever
heard of Miller, Collins or The T.O. site. Accepting the science of
evolution does not require one to abandon one's faith in God. You are
assuming that God requires evidence to exist, something you are agreeing
with some atheists about.
>And I agree that the Darwinian interpretation-explanation of
>scientific evidence presupposes the absence of God (Intelligence and
>Design) in nature.
Which is wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory, and does not either
suppose, or not suppose the presence or absence of God in nature. The
purpose of science is to study natural events, and explain them by natural
causes. Assuming God, or assuming God's absence is not part of this.
>This fact is what Christian evolutionists have been
>misled about. Since it is the most basic fact, that is, a fact that
>they should know on their own, they have no excuse.
Your own paranoid fantasies about science hardly make others "misled".
Like so many of your claims of "basic fact" you are utterly mistaken.
>These Christians
>are traitors; they are not Christians----they are deceived and
>responsible for their status before God since Darwinism is Atheism,
>plain and simple.
Again, you are just engaging in name calling becaue you can't support your
claims. Christians who accept evolution are not "traitors", and are not
deceived. "Darwinism" is not atheism, but an attempt to explain the
evidence in a scientific manner. You misunderstand science, and you
would rather believe that God doesn't exist, than admit you might be wrong
about God.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
snip
>>>>
>>>> What you describe with the plants is nature selecting for
>>>> extinction. How is that some grand
>>>> theory of evolution? That is just nature taking it's own course and
>>>> eliminating what is not
>>>> compatable.
>>>
>>> Now you are starting to undestand the concept of natural
>>> selection....
>
> It is IN the bible. No degree necessary
If you feel that the concept of natural selection is in the Bible, why are
you fighting against it?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> humans and chimps are genetically different,
>>>
>>> Less than 2% different.
>
> It does not matter if it were 10% or .0001 %
Why not?
> If they cannot mate and produce a working fertile offspring the percent
> can be Zero and they are
> still not connected in any acestorial way.
How do you come up with this idea? Why would inablity to mate at
present mean that two species are not "connected in any way"?
>
>>>
>>>> cannot produce a fretile offspring, and therefore
>>>> are not of the same kind to mate despite what your science says
>>>> about them being close
>>>> relatives.
>>>
>>> It's not really known if humans and chimp hybrids can, or cannot
>>> produce fertile offspring, although it's not likely. All this
>>> shows is that humans and chimps are not the same species. Since
>>> no one claimed they were, and there isn't any useful definition of
>>> "kind" your objection is pointless.
>
> Not being the same species seems to be very much the point. If we are not
> the same species, we
> cannot have common ancestors
That doesn't follow. A camel and a llama are different species, but have
common ancestors. A wolf and a jackal are different species, but have
common ancestors. Why would chimps and humans not have common ancestors,
simply because they aren't the same species now?
>
>>>
>>>> IOW nature can easily fool science.
>>>
>>> More likely, individuals who deny evolution are easily fooled.
>
> no
And your support for this, would be? Look at Ray, for example, he's
probably one of the most "fooled" persons I've seen.
DJT
John Harshman
Unfortunately, as your response shows, you see nothing, even if it's
right in front of you.
> "How do you know they're different kinds?"
>
> They cannot mate and produce viable offspring
Yes, but how do you know that species that can't mate and produce viable
offspring are different kinds? If that's your actual definition of
"kind" rather than a criterion for recognizing them, it's a tautology.
If it's just a criterion, you have to explain how it relates to your
actual definition.
Do I have to type extra-slow for you? Let's try this.
1. You say that species that can't mate and produce viable offspring are
different kinds.
2. You also agreed that the inability to mate and produce viable
offspring can evolve between two populations of the same plant species.
3. Therefore either your criterion for recognizing kinds has a lot of
false positives, or new kinds can evolve.
Erwin Moller
Hi Marty,
> Of course.
>
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
True.
But most definitions for God I hear make it impossible to even deny the
above statement.
The problem, for me, is this line of thought:
-> Presume there is an allmighty God
-> then say He is so powerful He can create universes and fill them
-> then state that that God decided to stay invisible/unprovable within
such a universe.
Such a God could exist, sure.
The problem is that such a God is just one of the endless possible Gods
you can think up that also stay unproven and unidentified.
It IS all possible, but why believe it?
You don't 'believe' you will win the lottery if you buy one ticket?
Sure, you HOPE you will, but why believe it in a firm way?
>
> I do not see any controversy.
There is no controversy on that point.
The problem is that 'if' where your statement begins with.
If religion only said: "We LIKE to believe etc etc".
An analogy, if I may:
Statement: "If Marty was a serial killer, I wouldn't mind putting him in
jail for the remainder of his life."
Well, that is some statement! (no offense)
We can now start writing books on this hypothesis.
A special-interest group might even start with a lobby to teach at
public schools their views on the matter: 'Marty, set him free!'.
Or:
"Marty, stop wasting taxes and put him in an electrical chair!"
Now I seriously hope you are not a serial killer, and a good chap.
I have no reasons to think otherwise.
So what is the point of all these 'special interest' groups?
They are battling, lobbying over something that started with a BIG 'if'.
So yes, IF God exists and is very mighty and all that, this could all be
true.
It is just not very likely, since we don't find God anywhere in nature
so far; The whole God concept is only found in our heads, not directly
or indirectly observable.
>
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
It is about that 'if'.
Creationists say there is no 'if', and that God is a fact because the
Koran/Bible/etc say so. (or somebody, or for whatever reason)
That is NOT a very convincing argument for scientists.
It is just an 'if', nothing more.
You can do thought experiments with it, all fine, but it still starts
with that unproven 'if'.
A sidepoint: And we don't like to be labeled 'evolutionists', because
that really sounds like just another religion, and the reason we are
'evolutionists' has nothing to do with some believe.
There is a big fundamental difference between science and religion.
The reason we are 'evolutionists' is NOT because a guy Charles Darwin
wrote so in his book.
The reason we think evolution is happening is simply because we keep
finding evidence for it, we found the building blocks for it (DNA/RNA),
and once one understands natural selection it makes total sense.
>
> Can't both be right?
Yes they can in the situation you described: God did-it-all and he also
created life/Natural selection/etc.
Could be true.
I can even say: ---> Impossible to proof false <---
And that is the problem.
I like what Popper said about such statements.
In my own words: "It is easy to find theories that cannot be proven
false. Any theory that is scientific must therefore make TESTABLE
predictions so it can be proven false. Theories that are, by their own
definition, always true are pointless and cannot be tested, thus not
proven right or false. Such theories are not scientific."
Since Allmighty-God-did-it-all-and-decided-not-to-show-his-existance is
therefore a theory that, by its own definition, is impossible to proof
wrong.
It also fails misserably at making testable predictions.
So that kind of theories, like religion, are pointless (scientifically
speaking).
By all means, feel free to believe in God!
(I am a spiritual person myself, not religious though.)
Just make sure you go all lengths NOT to teach this as a fact to
children, but present it as it is: A personal opinion that has no proof
to back it up.
A short sidestep that is off topic:
In my humble opinion, bringing children up in an environment where
critical thinking is not encouraged, is a crime. Many (not all)
religious communities do excactly that.
That is the main reason for me why I dislike most religions: they teach
their children religion/God as facts, often disabling their young
minds to fully develop to critical, thinking, smart individuals.
Sexually misusing children is considered a crime (in most societies).
And I am happy that it is.
But what about mental harrassing?
Many religious societies bring their children up with tales about a God
that sees ALL that they do, and tell them they will burn in hell if they
don't do excactly as as their holy books says.
I know we have more relaxed religions too, but this God-sees-all and
eternal-torment-for-the-bad is a recurring theme in many.
Such children grow up in fears and lies.
Many will develop a twisted way of looking at the world.
And often, as with sexual abuse in childhood, they tend to repeat this
mental harrassing later on their own kids.
Sincerely, I don't know which one is worse, but I totally dislike both.
Kids growing up should be taught the things we know, not things we don't
know. Nor should they grow up in fear (or love) for a God that is untill
now only found in the imagination.
just my 2 cent.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>
>
> Marty Carbone
>
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
chris thompson
You still have not provided a satisfactory analysis of how dogs can be
in two different kinds at the same time- the wolf kind and the coyote
kind.
When you're done with that, please move on and explain how the "kinds"
concept can be applied to the problem of Red Wolf (_Canis rufus_)
conservation in North America.
Chris
(M)-adman
You cannot be this ignorant.
IF THEY CAN BREED AND PRODUCE A FERTILE OFFSPRING THEY ARE OF THE SAME KIND
So if the coyote and wolf can produce a fertile hybrid, THEY ARE OF THE SAME KIND
Ye Old One
But they can't. That is the point.
However, dogs can breed with both. Please explain how dogs can be in
two different kinds at the same time - the wolf kind and the coyote
kind?
--
Bob.
John Harshman
Can you back up this claim? It would be very surprising to me. A quick
Google search shows many counterexamples; in fact it's claimed that the
red wolf is not a true species but a coyote/gray wolf hybrid population.
chris thompson
wrote:
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:23:43 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
In _Wolves of Minong_ (admittedly an older source) Durward Allen
pointed out that when they encounter one another, wolves kill coyotes.
The same can be true of wolf-dog meetings but it is not as ubiquitous,
and dog-wolf matings _are_ common (much more common than coyote-wolf
matings).
As to the gray wolf-coyote hypothesis, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service discounts that and considers the Red Wolf a good species:
Chris
chris thompson
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:23:43 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
Hybridization with coyotes is counted as the prime threat to Red Wolf
populations (again, USFWS), so Red Wolves MUST be in the same kind as
coyotes. Allen's findings (should not have hit 'Send' so fast) apply
to Canis lupus, not Canis rufus.
Chris
John Harshman
Are you claiming that there are no fertile hybrids between C. lupus and
C. latrans? That's what you would have to claim in order to make your
challenge to Madman a valid one. You would further have to claim that
such hybrids are not possible.
Note again that it appears that the entire "species" C. rufus is a
hybrid population between C. lupus and C. latrans.
John Harshman
But this has nothing to do with Madman's criterion. Gray wolf and coyote
can produce fertile hybrids. It happens fairly easily in captivity.
Therefore your conundrum is false. (Note that this also has nothing to
do with species. Hybrid infertility is not a criterion for recognizing
species, or at least not a necessary criterion. It has to do with
Madman's idea of "kinds".)
Also, the existence of a USFS recovery project is not evidence that the
red wolf is a good species. Here is a good summary of the evidence:
http://www.canids.org/PUBLICAT/CNDNEWS3/2conserv.htm
(However, this too is irrelevant to your argument with Madman.)
Inez
>
I believe that he thinks that the hybrid infertility you're speaking
of mean the hybrids are "mules" and can't reproduce at all, not that
they are infertile with their parent stock.
John Harshman
of a new population to hybridize with its parent population(s) can arise
within a few generations, while retaining interfertility among the
members of the new population. There are, again, many examples of this
in plants.
John Stockwell
People believe evolution for the same reason they believe
any other scientific theory, because as a scientific theory,
it supplies a useful structure that permits observations to
be understood, and gives a direction to our understanding.
>
> Every time Evolutionists misrepresent Creationism as "wholly
> religious" as opposed to part religious (which is true) the
> misrepresentation opens the door to point out that Darwinism is anti-
> religious based on fanatical and unanimous support by Atheists.
There are different types of creationism, but every one of them
consists of manufacturing phoney science to
attack some part of mainstream science that is perceived to
not be in agreement with conclusions derived from purely religious
sources.
>
> > > Since all
> > > Atheists are indeed Evolutionists, Darwinism is anti-religion.
>
> > And since all physicists are "gravitationists", physics is anti-
> > religion.
> Atheists support Darwinism (origin of living things, past and present,
> theory) unanimously for one obvious reason: if true the God of Genesis
> does not exist. Your attempt to blend Darwinism in with physics
> recognizes the need to conceal the unanimous support of Darwinism by
> Atheists.
There is anonymous support of the notion of evolution by
scientists who work in fields that are directly impacted by
faunal succession and genetics. There is nearly anonymous
support of the theory of evolution among competent scientists
of all fields. This has nothing to do with "atheism" or religious
belief, but has to do with the fact that owing to the adherence to
the ethics of science, we trust science to yield results that are
the best for the era in which they are stated.
As far as "Darwinism" being "blended with physics", this
reflects the fact that a young-earth global-flood biblical literalist
worldview is in contradiction with results from a broader collection
of mainstream scientific fields. Faced with this Ray has to attempt
to manufacture a grand atheist conspiracy theory to explain away
the fact that his creationists notions come up short against
an ever increasing range of sciences.
>
>
>
> > > We want the scientific evidence supporting the Creator taught like it
> > > always was before Darwinists came to power and corrupted the
> > > Constitution with their pro-Atheism convictions.
>
> > Scientific evidence supporting the Creator does not exist - unless you
> > are prepared to set constraints on what your creator can or can't do.
>
> Comment presupposes that scientific evidence supports Atheism ideology
> (the idea that God is absent from reality); and it advocates
> toleration of Deism, which is, of course, a subset of Atheism. Both do
> not recognize Deity to be INvolved with reality.
The scientific evidence does not support an interventionist
worldview. That is a basic fact that folks like Ray have to
try to diffuse by making the erroneous claim that there is some
sort of pre-supposition of atheism or deism in science. There
is no presupposition. There simply is no evidence to support
the sort of interventionism that Ray would like to be true.
>
> The facts above then elicit the following question: why do Theists/
> Christians support what Atheists support? One group must be confused
> about the ***real*** claims of Darwinian-evolution? Of course the
> Atheists are not the ones confused, here.
Anybody with a mainstream understanding of science recognizes
that creationism/interventionism is false. Only people on the
fringe believe in explicit interventionism.
>
>
>
> > > > They are deeply and systematically
> > > > dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
> > > > dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
> > > > RF
>
> > > I plainly admit that I want God back in science classes----the God of
> > > Genesis.
>
> > The God of Genesis has never been in science classes unless forced
> > there by religious fundamentalists.
>
> This comment misrepresents basic recent American and British history;
> and it misrepresents Christianity. God was the center of scientific
> instruction before the rise of Darwinism. These misrepresentations are
> 20th century invents by Atheists-Darwinists (= liars). No scholar
> denies that before the rise of Darwinism, Creationism was the only
> science in the world.
There is no such thing as "Darwinism" (which is to say an
atheist conspiracy). Ray's statements here are an example of
the sort of ranting misrepresentations that creationists resort to
in order to try to achieve philosophical comfort.
>
> Prior to the 20th century Rev. Paley's "Evidences" and "Watchmaker"
> thesis were required scientific reading in British schools (see the
> "Autobiography of Charles Darwin" 1958). It is impossible for Richard
> Forrest not to know these basic facts. He is, of course, just plain
> lying, venting his Atheism hatred via corruptive revisionism,
> unwilling to be an objective scholar.
Paley's notions were obsoleted with the rise of modern science.
Natural theology is the phlogiston of the 19th century, and the
astrology of the 20th.
>
> Prior to 1859, evolution was Materialism (Atheism ideology); it still
> is. But the corruption agenda of evil persons like Ken Miller and
> Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala ("Christian" evolutionists) have
> whitewashed evolution and deceived many ignorant Christians into
> accepting Atheism ideology known as evolution.
The usual rant. Totally meaningless.
>
> It's hard to believe how stupid the average Christian evolutionist
> really is? I mean how dumb can one be to think Darwin was pro-God
> based on the ending of the "Origin"? The ending was insulting lip
> service, throwaway, a Brooklyn Bridge. I mean every Atheist in the
> world accepted the same book instantly. They recognized the ending for
> what it was (disingenuous, placating believers with Deism). It is the
> Christian evolutionists who are the Fundamentalists, Richard----
> STOOOPID as they come.
Actually, most modern scientists do not read Origin of Species,
because it has been superceded by much more modern works.
Science isn't religion.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > This was and always has been the goal. God is excluded because Federal
> > > entities have accepted Atheism ideology (= the idea to exclude God).
>
> > No, it's because your religious convictions are not science, have
> > never been science, and to have them taught as science in science
> > classes would be teaching a lie.
>
> > RF
>
> > > > > Can't both be right?
>
> > > > > Marty Carbone- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Before 1859, Creationism was Science (Darwin 1859:6)----you are a liar
> or inexcusably ignorant. Whatever you are, you are not a scholar.
Astrology was science in ancient times. Followers of defunct
science are called "pseudoscientists". That's what you are
Ray.
>
> Ray
-John
Krubozumo Nyankoye
eyed the audience and in choked emotion intoned: news:854d90ed-52e3-48b6-
aa34-c5b...@v42g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 3, 5:36 pm, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Of course.
>>
>> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
>> designed evolution.
>>
>> I do not see any controversy.
>>
>> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
>> creationists is about?
>
> The argument is about honesty.
>
> Creationists want to have their religious convictions taught as
> science in science classes. They are deeply and systematically
> dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
> dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
> RF
>
>>
>> Can't both be right?
>>
>> Marty Carbone
No. God did it is not an explanation. Magic is no substitute for logic.
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
Earle Jones
Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> martycarbone schreef:
>
> Hi Marty,
>
>
> > Of course.
> >
> > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > designed evolution.
*
Ask Ray Martinez this question: Why could not an all-powerful God use
evolutionary processes to create the diversity of living beings?
earle
*
Ray Martinez
> In article <49390a85$0$199$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Erwin Moller
>
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> > martycarbone schreef:
>
> > Hi Marty,
>
> > > Of course.
>
> > > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > > designed evolution.
>
> *
> Ask Ray Martinez this question: Why could not an all-powerful God use
> evolutionary processes to create the diversity of living beings?
>
> earle
> *
Three Facts:
1. If God or His intelligence and power is involved with biological
production then the same is not Darwinian evolution, but Creationism-
ID.
2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
called Deism).
3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
God is absent from reality (which is why all Atheists accept and
defend evolution), and to protect existing Christian support from
being seen as buffoonery.
Ray
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 6, 12:42 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <49390a85$0$199$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> Erwin Moller
>>
>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> > martycarbone schreef:
>>
>> > Hi Marty,
>>
>> > > Of course.
>>
>> > > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
>> > > designed evolution.
>>
>> *
>> Ask Ray Martinez this question: Why could not an all-powerful God use
>> evolutionary processes to create the diversity of living beings?
>>
>> earle
>> *
>
>Three Facts:
>
>1. If God or His intelligence and power is involved with biological
>production then the same is not Darwinian evolution, but Creationism-
>ID.
There is no evidence for god(s).
>
>2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
>invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
>called Deism).
Correct, in fact there is no evidence in existence that supports the
idea of an invisible creator at all.
>
>3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
>undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
>God is absent from reality (which is why all Atheists accept and
>defend evolution), and to protect existing Christian support from
>being seen as buffoonery.
The only misrepresentation going on around here is your's, Dishonest
Ray.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Dick C
> On Dec 6, 12:42 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <49390a85$0$199$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> Erwin Moller
>>
>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> > martycarbone schreef:
>>
>> > Hi Marty,
>>
>> > > Of course.
>>
>> > > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
>> > > designed evolution.
>>
>> *
>> Ask Ray Martinez this question: Why could not an all-powerful God use
>> evolutionary processes to create the diversity of living beings?
>>
>> earle
>> *
>
> Three Facts:
>
> 1. If God or His intelligence and power is involved with biological
> production then the same is not Darwinian evolution, but Creationism-
> ID.
False, the TOE, which you label as Darwinian evolution, says that
mutations, that appear to be random, acted upon by a selective force
results in change. Whether those mutations are truly random, or caused
by some god, does not really matter. And even if the selection process
is god guided, it appears to happen the way science describes it. In other
words, if god is doing it, then he is doing it in a way identical to what
we would expect nature to act on her own,
>
> 2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
> invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
> called Deism).
This is mostly correct, there is not evidence that supports an invisible
creator. Let alone one that either set or muddles with the evolutionary
process.
>
> 3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
> undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
> God is absent from reality (which is why all Atheists accept and
> defend evolution), and to protect existing Christian support from
> being seen as buffoonery.
No they do not. And the only possible reason that you may thing it is
true would be a severe disillusion on your part.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
unrestra...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:36:00 -0800 (PST), martycarbone
>
> <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Can god driven evolution and science be reconciled?
>
> Yes: just produce evidence gods exist. See how easy it is?
>
> > Of course.
>
> > If we believe god is an all powerful force,
>
> "We believe?" Oops! There goes science, out the window.
>
> > that god could have designed evolution.
>
> They could also design lightning bolts.
>
> > I do not see any controversy.
>
>
> > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
>
>
> > creationists is about?
>
> > Can't both be right?
>
> before the gods can be subjected to sciennce.
>
> > Marty Carbone
>
> --http://desertphile.org
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
This is true. But my workout buddy in college was a devout Christian
and earned his PhD in microbiology. He never claimed his religious
faith was science though. He would say that science was studying how
God does things. <shrug>
As long as you can keep these compartmentalized, it's not a problem.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> John Harshman wrote:
> >> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> martycarbone wrote:
>
> >>>>>> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> >>>>>> designed evolution.
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Can't both be right?
> >>>>> creationists. This particular position is often called "theistic
> >>>>> evolution", and to creationists it's just as bad as any other
> >>>>> sort of evolution. Creationists, as the term is generally
> >>>>> understood, believe in the literal truth of Genesis as a guide to
> >>>>> earth history. And that can't
> >>>>> be reconciled with science. (If you want to redefine
> >>>>> "creationist" to include everyone who believes in god, you are
> >>>>> free to do so, and that eliminates the conflict, but creationists
> >>>>> won't accept your redefinition.)
>
> >>>>> Now if you want to believe in a god who works through evolution,
> >>>>> that's fine. It's not a scientific belief but science can't
> >>>>> falsify it either.
> >>>>> And it's the belief of many prominent scientists, including
> >>>>> Kenneth Miller (whose book Finding Darwin's God you might want to
> >>>>> check out) and Francis Collins. However, if you go that route,
> >>>>> creationists won't like you.
>
> >>> I happen to know God created evolution,and, you as well. Just not
> >>> the kind of evolution you want the rest of the world to believe.
>
> >> I happen to know that you happen to know a lot of things that ain't
> >> so.
>
> I happen to know that you think you know that i know a lot of things that ain't so.
>
> The truth is there is NO observed evolution beyond what can mate and sucessfully produce fertile offspring
Other than:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
The nested hierarchies of morphology, vestigial organs, biochemistry,
genomes.
The fact that all of these nested hierarchies parallel the others is
evidence in itself.
Behavioral sciences are illuminated by the understanding of common
descent via modification.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
You have nothing but the Rorschach inkblots you call "ancient texts".
You hold your own candle up to your eyes and claim to be illuminated.
It is only clear to others that you cannot see past the end of your
nose!
> --
>
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Can someone who speaks only Latin speak to someone who only speaks
French? therefore, French could not have come from Latin.
How could I have been so blind not to see that before!
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 3, 9:36 am, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course.
>
> > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > designed evolution.
>
> > I do not see any controversy.
>
> > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> > creationists is about?
>
> > Can't both be right?
>
>
> Marty: IF God is involved with biological causation or production, the
> same is known as Creationism. IF God is not involved with biological
> causation or production, this, since 1859, is called Darwinism or
> Naturalism-Materialism.
>
> Evolution was postulated because Divine or supernatural causation
> (Creationism), Intelligence and Design (attributes of Creator), were
> judged to be absent from nature by Darwin and his pro-Atheism crowd.
> This judgement made transmutation necessary.
>
> Unfortunately, many Creationists and Evolutionists REFUSE to
> understand these basic facts and distinctions between enemy
> combatants. Even more unfortunate is the fact that very many hateful
> Atheists and Evolutionists intentionally misrepresent these basic
> facts so evolution is accepted and Genesis corrupted. Your opinion is
> the fruit of their efforts.
>
> Ray
<announcer voice>
Erosion of river valleys: diabolical magic, or divine miracles? See
this hard-hitting documentary tonight at eleven!
</announcer voice>
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 3, 12:36 pm, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course.
>
> > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > designed evolution.
>
> > I do not see any controversy.
>
> > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> > creationists is about?
>
> dead literalism and an inability to interpret scripture as myth and
> allegory. Creationists want their God to be intercessionary and
> involved in their personal lives and willing to listen to their
> personal wishes and desires and fulfill them. They want a personal,
> human-scale God they can understand and relate to, one who is willing
> to extend them, personally, benefits that run counter to harsh reality
> if they are just faithful enough.
Holy cow! Why didn't I see this before? They want *George *Dubya *Bush
as god. someone they can sit down and watch the football game with,
and have a Coors Lite beer with. And who will back them up when they
get in a fight with those <expletive deleted> fans.
> They are not interested in a deity,
> no matter how much grandeur He would have, who impersonally allowed
> life to change and develop over millions and millions of years by a
> process, that, at best, is wasteful and impersonal. That is why Jesus
> is so important to them. Even more important than God.
You might have a beer with the rich kid, but not his dad...
> They want a
> God of magic and miracles who cares about them, personally and who
> might be willing to suspend His laws if they are just faithful enough.
> They want to pretend that God is Good and everything is for the best
> in the best of all possible worlds they imagine might exist for the
> faithful.
"Dr. Pangloss lives!" -- graffiti spotted in Birmingham, Alabama
subway tunnel.
>
> Science, OTOH, is not interested in what would be nice if it existed.
> It is interested in how things really work. Even if it means that the
> 2nd law tells us that we cannot win and cannot even break even. Even
> if it tells us that the earth will not last forever because the sun
> will go nova. Even if it tells us that nature does not consist of
> lions lying down with lambs and never did. And that we die and suffer
> not because of our sinfulness or lack of it but because organisms have
> always died and suffered and that dying and suffering (aka selective
> pressure) is *responsible* for humans existing at all. Evolution is
> not a nice method of producing organisms; it involves massive amounts
> of suffering and death at every step of progress. Even Paley had
> problems with the nastiness of biology and had to stretch to come up
> with an explanation.
>
> An impersonal (or at least consistent in the material world) God who
> works consistently through natural law mechanisms will not do it for
> most creationists. They have already had to concede that the size and
> scope and nature of the heavens makes our planet small and
> insignificant. To concede that humans were not *personally* created
> but evolved by an impersonal and not personally loving process....
> well, that is too much indifference to be tolerated. Whether it is, in
> fact, true or not ceases to be relevant. If one cannot face the
> truth, one retreats into fantasy.
>
> > Can't both be right?
>
> Not if creationists prefer to live in a fantasy of their choosing
> rather than the real material world.
>
>
>
> > Marty Carbone
Kermit
Earle Jones
<b91489d1-4f4a-44b7...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 12:42 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <49390a85$0$199$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> > Erwin Moller
> >
> > <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> > > martycarbone schreef:
> >
> > > Hi Marty,
> >
> > > > Of course.
> >
> > > > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > > > designed evolution.
> >
> > *
> > Ask Ray Martinez this question: Why could not an all-powerful God use
> > evolutionary processes to create the diversity of living beings?
> >
> > earle
> > *
>
> Three Facts:
>
> 1. If God or His intelligence and power is involved with biological
> production then the same is not Darwinian evolution, but Creationism-
> ID.
***
Then it is possible that your all-powerful God did use an evolutionary
process to create the diversity we currently observe. All Darwin did
was observe it and name the process, but it was God who created it.
Will you go along with that?
***
>
> 2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
> invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
> called Deism).
***
You are absolutely right here.
***
>
> 3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
> undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
> God is absent from reality (which is why all Atheists accept and
> defend evolution), and to protect existing Christian support from
> being seen as buffoonery.
***
Evolutionists to my knowledge to not misrepresent these basic facts.
They make no claim as to who or what created the evolutionary process.
They only make observations, collect data, and attempt to explain what
they have observed. The evolutionary explanation is currently the best
explanation available that fits the observed evidence.
***
earle
*
GoldLions
>
> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> designed evolution.
>
>
> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> creationists is about?
>
>
====================
Marty, I think both may support evolution to some degree because in
Genesis chapter 3:17 and 3:18 hints a kind of environmental change
that occured in "Eden" which would effect all else to some degree. No
creatonist can dispute this. All evolution is basically change.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Genesis is consistently wrong. Don't try to bring it into a
science-related discussion.
GoldLions
> John Harshman wrote:
> >> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> Of course.
>
> >>>>>> If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> >>>>>> designed evolution.
>
> >>>>>> I do not see any controversy.
>
> >>>>>> Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> >>>>>> creationists is about?
>
> >>>>>> Can't both be right?
> >>>>> creationists. This particular position is often called "theistic
> >>>>> evolution", and to creationists it's just as bad as any other
> >>>>> sort of evolution. Creationists, as the term is generally
> >>>>> understood, believe in the literal truth of Genesis as a guide to
> >>>>> earth history. And that can't
> >>>>> be reconciled with science. (If you want to redefine
> >>>>> "creationist" to include everyone who believes in god, you are
> >>>>> free to do so, and that eliminates the conflict, but creationists
> >>>>> won't accept your redefinition.)
>
> >>>>> Now if you want to believe in a god who works through evolution,
> >>>>> that's fine. It's not a scientific belief but science can't
> >>>>> falsify it either.
> >>>>> And it's the belief of many prominent scientists, including
> >>>>> Kenneth Miller (whose book Finding Darwin's God you might want to
> >>>>> check out) and Francis Collins. However, if you go that route,
> >>>>> creationists won't like you.
>
> >>> I happen to know God created evolution,and, you as well. Just not
> >>> the kind of evolution you want the rest of the world to believe.
>
> >> I happen to know that you happen to know a lot of things that ain't
> >> so.
>
> I happen to know that you think you know that i know a lot of things that ain't so.
>
> The truth is there is NO observed evolution beyond what can mate and sucessfully produce fertile
> offspring
>
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
===================
WHAT?????????? Every BIRTH is a transitional and evolution happens
daily. All evolution IS is CHANGE, GENETIC CHANGE within BREEDING
POPULATIONS which sometimes CAN and DO MUTATE into NEW strains that
can be sometimes more beneficial or harmful to the organism. It's all
about SURVIVAL and which ever strain adapts best to it's changed
environment and breeds the most offspring will be the successor.
To all Creatonists, try checking out Genesis 3:16, 3:17, and
3:18.........A BIG CHANGE HAPPENED. Whether metaphorically or
literally Eden CHANGED from what it was.
DJT
> On Dec 6, 12:42 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > *
> > Ask Ray Martinez this question: Why could not an all-powerful God use
> > evolutionary processes to create the diversity of living beings?
>
> > earle
> > *
>
> Three Facts:
Like usual, whenever Ray states something to be a fact, it's most
likely his own personal, and unsupported assertion.
>
> 1. If God or His intelligence and power is involved with biological
> production then the same is not Darwinian evolution, but Creationism-
> ID.
It's only "called" that by Ray. For science, there's no way to tell
if God is involved or not, so it could well be "Darwinian evolution"
with God involved. It would look, to a scientist exactly the same.
>
> 2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
> invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
> called Deism).
There's no evidence that an "invisible creator" didn't set the process
in motion. Also, deism is a range of beliefs, and the idea that God
uses evolution as his means of creation is not necessarily deism.
>
> 3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
> undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
> God is absent from reality
Of course, it's not the "evolutionists" who are misrepresenting the
facts. There's no need to "deceive" Christians to support
evolution, as Christians support it due to the science, not for
religious reasons. Lastly, evolutionary theory does not say that God
is absent from reality. That's just Ray's own false assumption, one
he shares with some militant atheists. According to Ray's own
claims, that makes Ray an atheist as well.
> (which is why all Atheists accept and
> defend evolution),
Not all atheists do accept or defend evolution. Those who do, do so
because it's the best scientific explanation for the evidence.
That's the same reason many theists support and defend evolution as
well.
> and to protect existing Christian support from
> being seen as buffoonery.
Again, there's no such need. Christians who accept evolution are not
seen as "buffoons". It's the creationists who are seen that way, as
indicated by the ridicule Gov. Palin was subjected to when she spoke
out for teaching "ID".
So, again, it's obvious that Ray can't distinguish between fact, and
his bizarre opinions.
DJT
muhadeeb
>
> It is all about Biblical truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before we were born we had "No Mind" when there was no god until it
was enlightened upon us. The word of God was just the image or
likeness of a god that was taught to us by our ancestors(mother and/or
father or relatives). In that time before we were led to believe in
God there was a void in our consciousness that crave for other
worldly leadership and understanding. Throughout history this void was
exploited by either evil or biblical texts to partway fill this void.
Those that surrender to there baser needs aggregate themselves to
substitutive need for religion as an opiate for internal comfort.
At the end of the day Man created God to fill the need to fill the
void of incomprehensible truth.
Earle Jones
<3e8f52f1-4ebd-4890...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
GoldLions <Gold...@AOL.Com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:36?pm, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Of course.
> >
> > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > designed evolution.
> >
> > I do not see any controversy.
> >
> > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> > creationists is about?
> >
> > Can't both be right?
> >
> > Marty Carbone
*
What are you? Some kind of trouble maker?
earle
*
Earle Jones
<237aa1f8-6c8c-41cf...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 3, 6:06 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:36 pm, martycarbone <martycarb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course.
> >
> > > If we believe God is an all powerful force, that God could have
> > > designed evolution.
> >
> > > I do not see any controversy.
> >
> > > Can someone tell me what the argument between evolutionists and
> > > creationists is about?
> >
> > The creationist problem is deeper than and goes beyond merely brain-
> > dead literalism and an inability to interpret scripture as myth and
> > allegory. Creationists want their God to be intercessionary and
> > involved in their personal lives and willing to listen to their
> > personal wishes and desires and fulfill them. They want a personal,
> > human-scale God they can understand and relate to, one who is willing
> > to extend them, personally, benefits that run counter to harsh reality
> > if they are just faithful enough.
>
> Holy cow! Why didn't I see this before? They want *George *Dubya *Bush
> as god. someone they can sit down and watch the football game with,
> and have a Coors Lite beer with. And who will back them up when they
> get in a fight with those <expletive deleted> fans.
***
Dubya Bush doesn't drink (any more) and if he did, I doubt whether he
would pick a Colorado beer.
***
>
> > They are not interested in a deity,
> > no matter how much grandeur He would have, who impersonally allowed
> > life to change and develop over millions and millions of years by a
> > process, that, at best, is wasteful and impersonal. That is why Jesus
> > is so important to them. Even more important than God.
>
> You might have a beer with the rich kid, but not his dad...
>
> > They want a
> > God of magic and miracles who cares about them, personally and who
> > might be willing to suspend His laws if they are just faithful enough.
> > They want to pretend that God is Good and everything is for the best
> > in the best of all possible worlds they imagine might exist for the
> > faithful.
>
> "Dr. Pangloss lives!" -- graffiti spotted in Birmingham, Alabama
> subway tunnel.
***
Birmingham has a subway???
That would be something new. (I was born there.)
***
Ray Martinez
This commentary tells us that you are a victim of Talk Origins or Ken
Miller or Francis Collins "fusion of contrary concepts" (= confusion)
agenda.
If God is involved with nature or biological production this is called
Creationism.
If God is not involved with nature or biological production this is
called Darwinism.
>
>
> > 2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
> > invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
> > called Deism).
>
> This is mostly correct, there is not evidence that supports an invisible
> creator. Let alone one that either set or muddles with the evolutionary
> process.
>
It is 100 percent correct. Christian evolutionists are fools.
But your opinion here contradicts your opening paragraph. Darwinism is
NOT Agnostic "don't know." It is Atheistic: the God of Genesis is
absent from nature, Creationism is false. No real Christian would
agree that the Genesis Creator is absent from nature. CEists are not
only fools they are deceived, which could explain their foolishness.
>
>
> > 3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
> > undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
> > God is absent from reality (which is why all Atheists accept and
> > defend evolution), and to protect existing Christian support from
> > being seen as buffoonery.
>
> No they do not. And the only possible reason that you may thing it is
> true would be a severe disillusion on your part.
>
> --
> Dick #1349
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
> email: dic...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
Your reply or rebuttal does not follow.
>
>
>
> > 2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
> > invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
> > called Deism).
>
> ***
> You are absolutely right here.
> ***
>
Since we agree why would anyone, especially myself, agree that God
created the evolutionary process (your point above)?
>
>
> > 3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
> > undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
> > God is absent from reality (which is why all Atheists accept and
> > defend evolution), and to protect existing Christian support from
> > being seen as buffoonery.
>
> ***
> Evolutionists to my knowledge to not misrepresent these basic facts.
> They make no claim as to who or what created the evolutionary process.
> They only make observations, collect data, and attempt to explain what
> they have observed. The evolutionary explanation is currently the best
> explanation available that fits the observed evidence.
> ***
>
> earle
> *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Darwin and Darwinism explicitly says that the God of Genesis did not
create and that He is not the invisible Designer. Go ahead: show me
just one History of Science scholar who disagrees----just one.
With this fact established: why do Christians accept Darwinism?
The answer is very ugly and will appear in my paper.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Non-sequitur.
>
>
> > Every time Evolutionists misrepresent Creationism as "wholly
> > religious" as opposed to part religious (which is true) the
> > misrepresentation opens the door to point out that Darwinism is anti-
> > religious based on fanatical and unanimous support by Atheists.
>
> There are different types of creationism, but every one of them
> consists of manufacturing phoney science to
> attack some part of mainstream science that is perceived to
> not be in agreement with conclusions derived from purely religious
> sources.
>
Basic History of Science tells anyone who is interested that
Creationism was always a scientific hypothesis which Darwinism
conquered. Darwinism is simply a re-explanation theory; re-explaining
the evidence used to support the special creation hypothesis. ALL of
this evidence was originally produced and uncovered by Creationists.
In fact, all of Darwin's Beagle evidence (the evidence that convinced
him of transmutation) was collected when he was a Creationist
(1831-1836). The only original contribution by Darwin the Evolutionist
was natural selection, which was, of course, huge. If you don't
believe me then just ask John Wilkins.
>
>
> > > > Since all
> > > > Atheists are indeed Evolutionists, Darwinism is anti-religion.
>
> > > And since all physicists are "gravitationists", physics is anti-
> > > religion.
> > Atheists support Darwinism (origin of living things, past and present,
> > theory) unanimously for one obvious reason: if true the God of Genesis
> > does not exist. Your attempt to blend Darwinism in with physics
> > recognizes the need to conceal the unanimous support of Darwinism by
> > Atheists.
>
> There is anonymous support of the notion of evolution by
> scientists who work in fields that are directly impacted by
> faunal succession and genetics. There is nearly anonymous
> support of the theory of evolution among competent scientists
> of all fields. This has nothing to do with "atheism" or religious
> belief, but has to do with the fact that owing to the adherence to
> the ethics of science, we trust science to yield results that are
> the best for the era in which they are stated.
>
Evolution is a presupposition. It is not on the table eligible for
falsification or modification. The only aspect of evolutionary theory
eligible for modification (not falsification) is how transmutation
occurs.
> As far as "Darwinism" being "blended with physics", this
> reflects the fact that a young-earth global-flood biblical literalist
> worldview is in contradiction with results from a broader collection
> of mainstream scientific fields. Faced with this Ray has to attempt
> to manufacture a grand atheist conspiracy theory to explain away
> the fact that his creationists notions come up short against
> an ever increasing range of sciences.
>
I am a Old Earth Creationist-species immutabilist.
>
>
> > > > We want the scientific evidence supporting the Creator taught like it
> > > > always was before Darwinists came to power and corrupted the
> > > > Constitution with their pro-Atheism convictions.
>
> > > Scientific evidence supporting the Creator does not exist - unless you
> > > are prepared to set constraints on what your creator can or can't do.
>
> > Comment presupposes that scientific evidence supports Atheism ideology
> > (the idea that God is absent from reality); and it advocates
> > toleration of Deism, which is, of course, a subset of Atheism. Both do
> > not recognize Deity to be INvolved with reality.
>
> The scientific evidence does not support an interventionist
> worldview.
Yes, it does. We disagree.
> That is a basic fact that folks like Ray have to
> try to diffuse by making the erroneous claim that there is some
> sort of pre-supposition of atheism or deism in science. There
> is no presupposition. There simply is no evidence to support
> the sort of interventionism that Ray would like to be true.
>
Darwinism presupposes Naturalism-Materialism. The latter presuppose
Atheism ideology (= the idea that God is absent from reality and
therefore does not exist). That is why transmutation is made
necessary.
Fact: Young Earth Fundamentalist Creationists accept microevolution
like all Atheist evolutionists. We see extreme confusion in this fact.
Interventionism is supported massively, that is why I am a special
creationist.
>
>
> > The facts above then elicit the following question: why do Theists/
> > Christians support what Atheists support? One group must be confused
> > about the ***real*** claims of Darwinian-evolution? Of course the
> > Atheists are not the ones confused, here.
>
> Anybody with a mainstream understanding of science recognizes
> that creationism/interventionism is false. Only people on the
> fringe believe in explicit interventionism.
>
I agree.
Again, why this is true will be explained in my paper. But we consider
ourselves to represent Science and the majority you speak of to
represent Scientism or pseudoscience.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > They are deeply and systematically
> > > > > dishonest in how they are trying to achieve this. If they were not
> > > > > dishonest there would be no dispute.
>
> > > > > RF
>
> > > > I plainly admit that I want God back in science classes----the God of
> > > > Genesis.
>
> > > The God of Genesis has never been in science classes unless forced
> > > there by religious fundamentalists.
>
> > This comment misrepresents basic recent American and British history;
> > and it misrepresents Christianity. God was the center of scientific
> > instruction before the rise of Darwinism. These misrepresentations are
> > 20th century invents by Atheists-Darwinists (= liars). No scholar
> > denies that before the rise of Darwinism, Creationism was the only
> > science in the world.
>
> There is no such thing as "Darwinism" (which is to say an
> atheist conspiracy). Ray's statements here are an example of
> the sort of ranting misrepresentations that creationists resort to
> in order to try to achieve philosophical comfort.
>
A.R. Wallace wrote a book called "Darwinism."
>
>
> > Prior to the 20th century Rev. Paley's "Evidences" and "Watchmaker"
> > thesis were required scientific reading in British schools (see the
> > "Autobiography of Charles Darwin" 1958). It is impossible for Richard
> > Forrest not to know these basic facts. He is, of course, just plain
> > lying, venting his Atheism hatred via corruptive revisionism,
> > unwilling to be an objective scholar.
>
> Paley's notions were obsoleted with the rise of modern science.
> Natural theology is the phlogiston of the 19th century, and the
> astrology of the 20th.
>
Atheism ideology.
>
>
> > Prior to 1859, evolution was Materialism (Atheism ideology); it still
> > is. But the corruption agenda of evil persons like Ken Miller and
> > Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala ("Christian" evolutionists) have
> > whitewashed evolution and deceived many ignorant Christians into
> > accepting Atheism ideology known as evolution.
>
> The usual rant. Totally meaningless.
>
>
>
> > It's hard to believe how stupid the average Christian evolutionist
> > really is? I mean how dumb can one be to think Darwin was pro-God
> > based on the ending of the "Origin"? The ending was insulting lip
> > service, throwaway, a Brooklyn Bridge. I mean every Atheist in the
> > world accepted the same book instantly. They recognized the ending for
> > what it was (disingenuous, placating believers with Deism). It is the
> > Christian evolutionists who are the Fundamentalists, Richard----
> > STOOOPID as they come.
>
> Actually, most modern scientists do not read Origin of Species,
> because it has been superceded by much more modern works.
> Science isn't religion.
>
Yeah, they are ignorant. Thanks for confirming.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > This was and always has been the goal. God is excluded because Federal
> > > > entities have accepted Atheism ideology (= the idea to exclude God).
>
> > > No, it's because your religious convictions are not science, have
> > > never been science, and to have them taught as science in science
> > > classes would be teaching a lie.
>
> > > RF
>
> > > > > > Can't both be right?
>
> > > > > > Marty Carbone- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Before 1859, Creationism was Science (Darwin 1859:6)----you are a liar
> > or inexcusably ignorant. Whatever you are, you are not a scholar.
>
> Astrology was science in ancient times. Followers of defunct
> science are called "pseudoscientists". That's what you are
> Ray.
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
wf3h
>
> Basic History of Science tells anyone who is interested that
> Creationism was always a scientific hypothesis which Darwinism
> conquered. Darwinism is simply a re-explanation theory; re-explaining
> the evidence used to support the special creation hypothesis. ALL of
> this evidence was originally produced and uncovered by Creationists.
> In fact, all of Darwin's Beagle evidence (the evidence that convinced
> him of transmutation) was collected when he was a Creationist
> (1831-1836). The only original contribution by Darwin the Evolutionist
> was natural selection, which was, of course, huge. If you don't
> believe me then just ask John Wilkins.
what a bizarre claim. he's effectively saying that people accept
scientific theories until the data convinces them otherwise
who cudda guessed?
>
> Evolution is a presupposition. It is not on the table eligible for
> falsification or modification. The only aspect of evolutionary theory
> eligible for modification (not falsification) is how transmutation
> occurs.
gee those of us who've worked in hospitals and seen the effects of
MRSA...as well as being scared shitless of getting it...know that
evolution is a fact
>
> Darwinism presupposes Naturalism-Materialism.
as does physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and every other
science
so now ray has discovered that biology functions like a science
who cudda guessed?
>
> Again, why this is true will be explained in my paper. But we consider
> ourselves to represent Science and the majority you speak of to
> represent Scientism or pseudoscience.
and when i see it, i will use the same comment someone once used
regarding a bad review:
'i am sitting in the smallest room in my house. your paper is in front
of me. soon it will be behind me'.
ray's welcome to tell us how einstein used god to figure out
relativity. if 'god did it' is so powerful, it should have been all
over einstein's theory.
John S. Wilkins
> On Dec 7, 6:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Basic History of Science tells anyone who is interested that
> > Creationism was always a scientific hypothesis which Darwinism
> > conquered. Darwinism is simply a re-explanation theory; re-explaining
> > the evidence used to support the special creation hypothesis. ALL of
> > this evidence was originally produced and uncovered by Creationists.
> > In fact, all of Darwin's Beagle evidence (the evidence that convinced
> > him of transmutation) was collected when he was a Creationist
> > (1831-1836). The only original contribution by Darwin the Evolutionist
> > was natural selection, which was, of course, huge. If you don't
> > believe me then just ask John Wilkins.
>
> what a bizarre claim. he's effectively saying that people accept
> scientific theories until the data convinces them otherwise
Creationism was never a scientific hypothesis if by that is meant it was
a theory devised to account for observational data. In fact, it was
invented in 1686 by John Ray for reasons of piety only. And the main
champion of it, Linnaeus, to the end of his life had to abandon the
hypothesis in its pure form because he thought (wrongly as it
transpired, although we have since seen the phenomenon he thought he
saw) that species had been observed hybridising to form new ones.
Darwin's original contribution was not natural selection, which had been
proposed by various folk before him, even possibly including Adam Smith.
It was in fact common descent, or as he called it, descent with
modification, to account for the tree-like structure of taxonomies.
Darwin was never a creationist as such. That view had been long
abandoned. He was pious when on the Beagle, but not in any sense a
creationist - I suspect that he had partaken of the uniformitarian
philosophy mid-voyage in ways that made creationism look silly.
...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Basic History of Science tells anyone who is interested that
>Creationism was always a scientific hypothesis which Darwinism
>conquered.
Wrong. Creationism was NEVER science because it calls on the
supernatural.
--
Bob.
Dick C
> On Dec 6, 8:17 pm, Dick C <f00dic...@gmal.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote in talk.origins
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Three Facts:
>>
>> > 1. If God or His intelligence and power is involved with biological
>> > production then the same is not Darwinian evolution, but Creationism-
>> > ID.
>>
>> False, the TOE, which you label as Darwinian evolution, says that
>> mutations, that appear to be random, acted upon by a selective force
>> results in change. Whether those mutations are truly random, or caused
>> by some god, does not really matter. And even if the selection process
>> is god guided, it appears to happen the way science describes it. In
>> other
>> words, if god is doing it, then he is doing it in a way identical to
>> what we would expect nature to act on her own,
>>
>
> This commentary tells us that you are a victim of Talk Origins or Ken
> Miller or Francis Collins "fusion of contrary concepts" (= confusion)
> agenda.
>
> If God is involved with nature or biological production this is called
> Creationism.
Both creationism, although not in the young earth -literal bible- style
and theistic evolution.
>
> If God is not involved with nature or biological production this is
> called Darwinism.
Nope, it is called evolution. If populations change it is called evolution.
Darwin's original theory has been modified because of scientific findings
so that it is now just called the Theory of Evolution.
>>
>> > 2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
>> > invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
>> > called Deism).
>>
>> This is mostly correct, there is not evidence that supports an
>> invisible creator. Let alone one that either set or muddles with the
>> evolutionary process.
>>
>
> It is 100 percent correct. Christian evolutionists are fools.
Not near the fools as strict creationists, those who reject nature
in favor of their religious interpretation of some holy book.
>
> But your opinion here contradicts your opening paragraph. Darwinism is
> NOT Agnostic "don't know." It is Atheistic: the God of Genesis is
> absent from nature, Creationism is false. No real Christian would
> agree that the Genesis Creator is absent from nature. CEists are not
> only fools they are deceived, which could explain their foolishness.
Actually, it is neither, it does not say there is no god, nor does it say
it doesn't know about god, it simply says nothing about god. Any god.
>
> Ray
Erwin Moller
Hi Ray,
Earle asked you a simple question.
Is it, in your opinion, possible the Big Creator created the universe
with our Earth in it, and that He decided to start the evolutionary
process we 'darwinists' are currently investigating?
That is a fair question methinks.
Why not answer it?
Do you think that is possible?
>
>>
>>
>>> 2. There is no evidence in existence that supports the idea that
>>> invisible Creator set the evolutionary process in motion (which is
>>> called Deism).
>> ***
>> You are absolutely right here.
>> ***
>>
>
> Since we agree why would anyone, especially myself, agree that God
> created the evolutionary process (your point above)?
It seems we all agree that there is no evidence to be found THAT God did
that.
But do you know Gods Ways?
He might have decided to start this evolutionthingy on Earth.
Maybe for fun. Maybe to test your faith. Maybe for Some Other Divine
Reason beyound our understanding.
I have no problems with such a thought experiment.
Do you?
>
>
>>
>>> 3. Evolutionists misrepresent these basic facts in order to deceive
>>> undecided Christians into accepting an origins theory that says their
>>> God is absent from reality (which is why all Atheists accept and
>>> defend evolution), and to protect existing Christian support from
>>> being seen as buffoonery.
>> ***
>> Evolutionists to my knowledge to not misrepresent these basic facts.
>> They make no claim as to who or what created the evolutionary process.
>> They only make observations, collect data, and attempt to explain what
>> they have observed. The evolutionary explanation is currently the best
>> explanation available that fits the observed evidence.
>> ***
>>
>
> Darwin and Darwinism explicitly says that the God of Genesis did not
> create and that He is not the invisible Designer. Go ahead: show me
> just one History of Science scholar who disagrees----just one.
While I am unsure myself if such a statement is ever made by Darwin I
think it is utterly unimportant.
What we have nowadays is the TOE that nicely describes how life is
changing, how new species come into the picture, etc.
But you have something really twisted up Ray when you say atheists
embrace TEO because it confirms their atheism.
That is NOT the case.
I can only speak for myself, but I was not born an atheist. I was born
agnostic, like everybody else.
You wrote that all atheists accept evolution because that renders God
absent from reality.
That is nonsense.
I am an atheist because I never found God anywhere untill now. Nor did
anybody else in a remotely reliable, reproducable way.
THAT is the problem we atheists have with God.
Not evolution!
In all honesty I must say that evolution/NS is indeed a very good
alternative to God-did-it, allthough it doesn't explain where the
universe came from, so you still have a place to put your God (of the Gaps).
Without the TOE we atheists would have a problem explaining life on Earth.
But try to look at this matter from a distance:
--> Suppose we DIDN'T have the TEO. <--
**********************************************************************
Question: Is there a God?
Answer: I don't know. I never saw Him.
Question: But there is life everywhere on Earth! Where did it come from
then?
Answer: How the heck should I know?
**********************************************************************
Ray, what is wrong with that last answer?
My point: Even if we didn't have TEO, we would still have no proof of
the existance of God.
The only thing TEO does is explaining how life works.
Nothing more, nothing less.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
No point in trying to debunk TEO if you want to proof God exists.
Even IF you suceed in debunking TEO, you still haven't proven God exists.
Ray, do you get my point?
Do you agree?
>
> With this fact established: why do Christians accept Darwinism?
>
> The answer is very ugly and will appear in my paper.
I hope you answer my posting before that paper is published.
>
> Ray
>
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Ray Martinez
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 6:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Basic History of Science tells anyone who is interested that
> > > Creationism was always a scientific hypothesis which Darwinism
> > > conquered. Darwinism is simply a re-explanation theory; re-explaining
> > > the evidence used to support the special creation hypothesis. ALL of
> > > this evidence was originally produced and uncovered by Creationists.
> > > In fact, all of Darwin's Beagle evidence (the evidence that convinced
> > > him of transmutation) was collected when he was a Creationist
> > > (1831-1836). The only original contribution by Darwin the Evolutionist
> > > was natural selection, which was, of course, huge. If you don't
> > > believe me then just ask John Wilkins.
>
> > what a bizarre claim. he's effectively saying that people accept
> > scientific theories until the data convinces them otherwise
>
> Creationism was never a scientific hypothesis if by that is meant it was
> a theory devised to account for observational data. In fact, it was
> invented in 1686 by John Ray for reasons of piety only.
Completely false.
Corruptive revisionism serving the Talk Origins agenda.
> And the main
> champion of it, Linnaeus, to the end of his life had to abandon the
> hypothesis in its pure form because he thought (wrongly as it
> transpired, although we have since seen the phenomenon he thought he
> saw) that species had been observed hybridising to form new ones.
>
Completely false.
Corruptive revisionism serving the Talk Origins agenda.
> Darwin's original contribution was not natural selection,
Completely false.
> which had been
> proposed by various folk before him, even possibly including Adam Smith.
Completely false.
> It was in fact common descent, or as he called it, descent with
> modification, to account for the tree-like structure of taxonomies.
>
Completely false.
> Darwin was never a creationist as such.
Completely false (corruption agenda).
> That view had been long
> abandoned. He was pious when on the Beagle, but not in any sense a
> creationist -
Pure corruption.
> I suspect that he had partaken of the uniformitarian
> philosophy mid-voyage in ways that made creationism look silly.
>
> ...
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wilkins is a fraud. Typical Atheist.
Ray
wf3h
>
> Wilkins is a fraud. Typical Atheist.
>
i was reviewing some of the history of our misguided intervention in
iraq the other day....came across some old footage of 'baghdad bob'
the iraqi info minister who insisted that, as american tanks rolled
behind him, americans would never enter baghdad
ray is the creationist baghdad bob.
Matt Silberstein
<f00d...@gmal.com> in
<Xns9B6E2D71B29C...@216.196.97.142> wrote:
It is called evolution whether or not God is involved.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Ray Martinez
Wilkins is Baghdad Bob.
Darwin admitted to being a Creationist. And we have his creationistic
interpretations of nature recorded before he converted to Materialism-
transmutation. Wilkins is announcing that he wants evolutionists to
follow his lead and deny Darwin a Creationist because Talk Origins
denies Creationism was ever science. Wilkins is saying: disregard what
the evidence says and spam the world with the assertion that it really
means "thus and such." His biggest convert Dana Tweedy plays this
game. No matter what a source says Wilkins is saying it really means
something else. I have never seen ONE scholar ever say that
Creationism was a religious conviction and not a scientific theory. Of
course when quotes are produced the corruption artists are exposed.
They then say it really means what they said it means. Of course they
can never produce any quotes supporting their corruption
interpretations. Even Ken MIller admits Creationism was scientific
before Darwinism rose to power.
Wilkins will misrepresent anything in order to serve the corruption
agenda of Talk Origins. He is not a scholar. Again: Wilkins is a
fraud. He is Baghdad Bob. I like that. From now on I will refer to
"Honest" John as Baghdad John. Thanks for the idea.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ddc7452-0d14-4263...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...snip
>> > > Why on earth not?
>> > If Creationism is religious conviction, objectively reversed and
>> > applied, the same makes Darwinism anti-religion conviction. Since all
>> > Atheists are Evolutionists this fact supports the claim. Who is more
>> > anti-religion than Atheists?
>
>> People believe evolution for the same reason they believe
>> any other scientific theory, because as a scientific theory,
>> it supplies a useful structure that permits observations to
>> be understood, and gives a direction to our understanding.
>
>Non-sequitur.
How is this a non sequitur? Your claim was that atheists accept evolution
for "anti religion" reasons. John is pointing out that acceptance of
evolution has nothing to do with religion, or anti religion.
>
>
>> > Every time Evolutionists misrepresent Creationism as "wholly
>> > religious" as opposed to part religious (which is true) the
>> > misrepresentation opens the door to point out that Darwinism is anti-
>> > religious based on fanatical and unanimous support by Atheists.
>
>> There are different types of creationism, but every one of them
>> consists of manufacturing phoney science to
>> attack some part of mainstream science that is perceived to
>> not be in agreement with conclusions derived from purely religious
>> sources.
>
>Basic History of Science tells anyone who is interested that
>Creationism was always a scientific hypothesis which Darwinism
>conquered. Darwinism is simply a re-explanation theory
Actually, "basic history of science" indicates that creationism was a
religious belief, and never science. "Darwinism" did not conquer
creationism, it replaced it as a scientific explanation instead of a
religious one.
>; re-explaining
>the evidence used to support the special creation hypothesis.
The evidence didn't support "special creation" which was a religous belief,
not a hypothesis.
>ALL of
>this evidence was originally produced and uncovered by Creationists.
All of that evidence was discovered by scientist, who ultimately rejected
creationism as not being scientific.
>In fact, all of Darwin's Beagle evidence (the evidence that convinced
>him of transmutation) was collected when he was a Creationist
>(1831-1836).
It was collected when Darwin was a scientist, which was all his adult life.
> The only original contribution by Darwin the Evolutionist
>was natural selection, which was, of course, huge. If you don't
>believe me then just ask John Wilkins.
You've obviously misunderstood John Wilkins.
snip
>> There is anonymous support of the notion of evolution by
>> scientists who work in fields that are directly impacted by
>> faunal succession and genetics. There is nearly anonymous
>> support of the theory of evolution among competent scientists
>> of all fields. This has nothing to do with "atheism" or religious
>> belief, but has to do with the fact that owing to the adherence to
>> the ethics of science, we trust science to yield results that are
>> the best for the era in which they are stated.
>
> Evolution is a presupposition.
No, evolution is a scientific theory. The "presupposition" is that it
operates by the scientific method.
>It is not on the table eligible for
>falsification or modification.
That's simply wrong. Evolution could be falsified, like all scientific
theories.
>The only aspect of evolutionary theory
>eligible for modification (not falsification) is how transmutation
> occurs.
How evolution operates is what's currently under discussion in science,
because the question of if evolution occurs is already so well established,
it's not likely to be ever overturned. That doesn't mean it could not be
overturned.
>> As far as "Darwinism" being "blended with physics", this
>> reflects the fact that a young-earth global-flood biblical literalist
>> worldview is in contradiction with results from a broader collection
>> of mainstream scientific fields. Faced with this Ray has to attempt
>> to manufacture a grand atheist conspiracy theory to explain away
>> the fact that his creationists notions come up short against
>> an ever increasing range of sciences.
>
> I am a Old Earth Creationist-species immutabilist.
Which only means your even more loopy than most creationists.
>
snip
>>
>> The scientific evidence does not support an interventionist
>> worldview.
> Yes, it does. We disagree.
Then produce some evidence to support that "interventionist" view.
>> That is a basic fact that folks like Ray have to
>> try to diffuse by making the erroneous claim that there is some
>> sort of pre-supposition of atheism or deism in science. There
>> is no presupposition. There simply is no evidence to support
>> the sort of interventionism that Ray would like to be true.
>
> Darwinism presupposes Naturalism-Materialism.
No, science "presupposes" methodological naturalism. Evolution, like any
science, forbids appeals to the supernatural.
>The latter presuppose
>Atheism ideology (= the idea that God is absent from reality and
>therefore does not exist).
This too is wrong. Science does not suppose "atheism ideolgy", such as
your belief that in order for God to exist, he must be visble to science.
Science only uses methodological naturalism, which makes no comment on God,
or God's existence.
> That is why transmutation is made
> necessary.
The fact that species are not fixed is what made theories to explain that
fact necessary.
>Fact: Young Earth Fundamentalist Creationists accept microevolution
> like all Atheist evolutionists. We see extreme confusion in this fact.
One sees even worse confusion in Ray, who seem to think that microevolution
doesn't happen, even though he admits that variations in populations happen.
>Interventionism is supported massively, that is why I am a special
> creationist.
If it is "massively supported", why can't you show the slightest shred of
evidence of such?
>
>
>> > The facts above then elicit the following question: why do Theists/
>> > Christians support what Atheists support? One group must be confused
>> > about the ***real*** claims of Darwinian-evolution? Of course the
>> > Atheists are not the ones confused, here.
>
>> Anybody with a mainstream understanding of science recognizes
>> that creationism/interventionism is false. Only people on the
>> fringe believe in explicit interventionism.
>
> I agree.
Whenever Ray says he agrees, it's usually a sign he doesn't understand.
>Again, why this is true will be explained in my paper.
This is just hiding behind your non existent paper.
> But we consider
>ourselves to represent Science and the majority you speak of to
>represent Scientism or pseudoscience.
Who is the "we" here, Ray? You don't represent science at all, only your
own loopy ideas.
snip
>>
>> There is no such thing as "Darwinism" (which is to say an
>> atheist conspiracy). Ray's statements here are an example of
>> the sort of ranting misrepresentations that creationists resort to
>> in order to try to achieve philosophical comfort.
>
> A.R. Wallace wrote a book called "Darwinism."
However it doesn't exist in the form of the "atheist conspiracy" you seem to
believe in.
snip
>> Paley's notions were obsoleted with the rise of modern science.
>> Natural theology is the phlogiston of the 19th century, and the
>> astrology of the 20th.
>
> Atheism ideology.
No, "atheism ideology" is that for God to exist, he must be visible to
science.
snip
>> Actually, most modern scientists do not read Origin of Species,
>> because it has been superceded by much more modern works.
>> Science isn't religion.
>
> Yeah, they are ignorant. Thanks for confirming.
The irony of Ray, the poster child for ignorance calling others "ignorant"
is quite rich. Reading Origin of Species is not necessary to understand
modern evolutionary theory.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>snip
>> Creationism was never a scientific hypothesis if by that is meant it was
>> a theory devised to account for observational data. In fact, it was
>> invented in 1686 by John Ray for reasons of piety only.
> Completely false.
Here's Ray, an "internet nobody" telling a Ph.D that he's wrong?
> Corruptive revisionism serving the Talk Origins agenda.
Ray, there is no such "agenda", and no "revisionism". John is quite
right, creationsm was never science.
>> And the main
>> champion of it, Linnaeus, to the end of his life had to abandon the
>> hypothesis in its pure form because he thought (wrongly as it
>> transpired, although we have since seen the phenomenon he thought he
>> saw) that species had been observed hybridising to form new ones.
>
> Completely false.
Much of what you say is completly false, Ray.
> Corruptive revisionism serving the Talk Origins agenda.
No such "agenda".
>> Darwin's original contribution was not natural selection,
> Completely false.
Note that Ray is unable to support any of his objections.
snipping more of Ray's unsupported denial.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
On Dec 8, 1:52 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 3:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> > Wilkins is a fraud. Typical Atheist.
>
>> i was reviewing some of the history of our misguided intervention in
>> iraq the other day....came across some old footage of 'baghdad bob'
>> the iraqi info minister who insisted that, as american tanks rolled
>> behind him, americans would never enter baghdad
>
>> ray is the creationist baghdad bob.
>Wilkins is Baghdad Bob.
Then why are you issuing all the unsupported and obviously false denial?
> Darwin admitted to being a Creationist.
Not in the sense you want, however.
>And we have his creationistic
>interpretations of nature recorded before he converted to Materialism-
> transmutation.
What "creationistic interpretations" are those, Ray? Darwin was always a
careful scientist, which means he followed methodological naturalism. He
never "converted" to "materialism".
>Wilkins is announcing that he wants evolutionists to
>follow his lead and deny Darwin a Creationist because Talk Origins
> denies Creationism was ever science.
The facts deny that creationism was ever science. Darwin wasn't a
"creationist" in the sense that he believed in your form of "special
creation", ie magical "poofing" organisms into existence.
>Wilkins is saying: disregard what
>the evidence says and spam the world with the assertion that it really
>means "thus and such."
Wilkins is not disregarding the evidence, he's accepting the evidence.
> His biggest convert Dana Tweedy plays this
> game.
Ray, John Wilkins had absolutely no impact on my knowlege of the fact that
creationsm was not science. I knew that long before I had even heard of
Dr. Wilkins.
>No matter what a source says Wilkins is saying it really means
> something else.
Actually, John , as well as anyone else educated on the matter, simply
points out that you are wrong in your reading of that "source".
> I have never seen ONE scholar ever say that
> Creationism was a religious conviction and not a scientific theory.
Then obviously you haven't been reading any scholars, or ignoring what they
say.
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_print.asp
"Creationism, creation science, and intelligent design are religious
explanations for the origins of humankind and the universe. "
> Of
>course when quotes are produced the corruption artists are exposed.
Of course, Ray, like most creationists depends on out of context quotations.
>They then say it really means what they said it means. Of course they
>can never produce any quotes supporting their corruption
> interpretations. Even Ken MIller admits Creationism was scientific
> before Darwinism rose to power.
Actually, Dr. Miller has never made such a claim.
>Wilkins will misrepresent anything in order to serve the corruption
> agenda of Talk Origins. He is not a scholar. Again: Wilkins is a
>fraud.
There's no such "agenda". You are just wrong, and spewing insults because
you can't refute.
>He is Baghdad Bob. I like that. From now on I will refer to
> "Honest" John as Baghdad John. Thanks for the idea.
Calling a respected scholar names doesn't support your own position.
DJT
wf3h
> On Dec 8, 1:52 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 8, 3:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wilkins is a fraud. Typical Atheist.
>
> > i was reviewing some of the history of our misguided intervention in
> > iraq the other day....came across some old footage of 'baghdad bob'
> > the iraqi info minister who insisted that, as american tanks rolled
> > behind him, americans would never enter baghdad
>
> > ray is the creationist baghdad bob.
>
> Wilkins is Baghdad Bob.
>
> Darwin admitted to being a Creationist.
and newton didn't accept relativity because he didn't know about it.
darwin was a creationist until he wasn't. that's what evidence does.
it changes your mind
And we have his creationistic
> interpretations of nature recorded before he converted to Materialism-
> transmutation
thus the way of all science.
. Wilkins is announcing that he wants evolutionists to
> follow his lead and deny Darwin a Creationist because Talk Origins
> denies Creationism was ever science.
creationism wasn't science in the way science is understood today.
science evolved. the way we do science developed as our understanding
of the methods changed. it happened in physics, chemistry and in
biology
Wilkins is saying: disregard what
> the evidence says and spam the world with the assertion that it really
> means "thus and such." His biggest convert Dana Tweedy plays this
> game. No matter what a source says Wilkins is saying it really means
> something else. I have never seen ONE scholar ever say that
> Creationism was a religious conviction and not a scientific theory.
i have never seen anyone say creationism was a scientific theory. and
that's because 'science' was not science as we understand it. you
creationists keep trying to morph centuries past into today's ideas.
that's because you don't know history
Of
> course when quotes are produced the corruption artists are exposed.
> They then say it really means what they said it means. Of course they
> can never produce any quotes supporting their corruption
> interpretations. Even Ken MIller admits Creationism was scientific
> before Darwinism rose to power.
>
> Wilkins will misrepresent anything in order to serve the corruption
> agenda of Talk Origins. He is not a scholar. Again: Wilkins is a
> fraud. He is Baghdad Bob. I like that. From now on I will refer to
> "Honest" John as Baghdad John. Thanks for the idea.
>
do you own a beret? baghdad bob had one.