Evolutionary Scientist Founded Scientific Disciplines
Big Bob
I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
This being the case, none of these disciplines could
have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
My question: how many scientific disciplines have
been founded by evolutionary scientist?
What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
of these disciplines?
IlBe...@gmail.com
I dont know who the Fathers were, but, heres a few of their
Students : http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
Tim Miller
Still with the dishonest, out of context quote mining, eh?
Your god is displeased with you...
Dave Oldridge
4b58-a34e-5...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
Old quotes and irrelevant considering that that the strong evidence for
evolution today is genetic while the fossils just provide useful
confirmation. The FACT is, the sequenced genomes of LIVING humans and
chimps (well, Clint the chimp is dead, but his DNA survuves him)
demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the two genomes share common
ancestry.
The earth and the universe are very old. Evolution happens. God said it
in the creation you persist in attributing to Him. Get used to hearing
that. If you persist in your career of making up cunning lies to deceive
the uneducated about evolution, it will be the LAST thing you hear, just
before things get very, very hot.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Andrew
> "IlBe...@gmail.com" <IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>
> Old quotes and irrelevant considering that that the strong evidence for
The "genetic code" unequivocally points to ----> special creation.
Big Bob
"Tim Miller" <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gtukc8$ph6$1...@news.motzarella.org...
meaning of these quotes, all you are doing is dodging.
>
> Your god is displeased with you...
>
Tim Miller
You're worse than pukester. You don't even try to HIDE your lies.
Tim Miller
It's been done. Not that I'd expect you to look:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>> Your god is displeased with you...
>>
> I'm sure you are concerned about pleasing God.
No more than I'm concerned about pleasing Santa Claus.
But I sort of expected "IlBeBauck" to be.
Big Bob
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:BIqdnX5eRMYdZp_X...@earthlink.com...
fact that the same code is used throughout the living world could
mean a common ancestor or a common designer.
What seems so improbable is the fact, that the standard code, which
must have originated at least 3 billion years ago, has not changed
significently over this vast span of time. The only exception is in the
mitochondria in humans and other life forms and viruses such as the
retroviruses
However the DNA uses the same four bases. Adenine "A", guanine
"G", cytosine "C", and thymine "T". In RNA the T is replaced with
uracil "U", also the deoxyribose sugar is substituted by another sugar
ribose. These bases are always in groups of three called codons, 4^3
or 64 possible condons. The genetic machinary is used to transfer
information and carry out the instructions for expressing the billions
of life forms both extinct and extant. Except for the minor variations
mentioned it seems incredible this could have arisen without intelligent
guidance.
>
>
Adam A. Wanderer
news:i%uMl.37497$i9.2...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
field is based on, or assisted by, Evolution.
Andrew
> "Big Bob" wrote:
>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>> of these disciplines?
>
> I'm not sure which were founded by Evolution, but most of
> our modern medical field is based on, or assisted by, Evolution.
Microevolution yes, change, variation and adaption within genetic
boundaries. But our modern medical field has not been benefited
by theories of common descent.
Andrew
Cory Albrecht
You forgot one thing - argument from incredulity is not evidence.
Cory Albrecht
Can you actually offer some evidence for that *other* than the assertion
"a code has to have a designer"?
Big Bob
"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uv8cd6x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
point the facts above as implying intelligent design. What I pointed out is
fact which needs an explanation. There is no empirical evidence which
shows exactly how the genetic code arose without intelligent guidance.
Only faith that it could have somehow arisen through natural means.
The just-so-stories are not empirical evidence. Furthermore, attacking the
character, honesty or education is no explanation for the evidence
presented.
Ray Fischer
Big Bob
founded since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution and by
evolutionary scientist. So far, this question has been avoided
like the plague. I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
haven't been very successful. However, I did find that most scientific
disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
primarily Christians and Jews. Most if not all were creationist.
One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling effect
on science.
>
> Andrew
>
Ray Fischer
>I would like to know just how many scientific disciplines were
>founded since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution and by
>evolutionary scientist.
Why?
> So far, this question has been avoided
>like the plague.
People aren't interested in doing your homework for you. The vast
majorty of medicine and biology, as well as atomic physics and
cosmology and electronics postdate Darwin. There are probably several
other fields as well.
> I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
>haven't been very successful. However, I did find that most scientific
>disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
>primarily Christians and Jews.
Or professed believers. Most of those scientists lived in cultures
where there was little religious freedom and non-Christians were
persecuted.
> Most if not all were creationist.
Crap.
>One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
>disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
>since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
>that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling effect
>on science.
The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Big Bob
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a03a992$0$1621$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Big Bob <bb...@attworldnet.com> wrote:
>>I would like to know just how many scientific disciplines were
>>founded since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution and by
>>evolutionary scientist.
>
> Why?
>
>> So far, this question has been avoided
>>like the plague.
>
> People aren't interested in doing your homework for you.
>
>
The vast
> majorty of medicine and biology, as well as atomic physics and
> cosmology and electronics postdate Darwin. There are probably several
> other fields as well.
>
evolutionary wcientist. Medicine and biology disciplines were
pre Darwin. Of course there have been advances in these fields
but the disciplines were not founded by evolutionary scientist.
>
>
>> I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
>>haven't been very successful. However, I did find that most scientific
>>disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
>>primarily Christians and Jews.
>
> Or professed believers. Most of those scientists lived in cultures
> where there was little religious freedom and non-Christians were
> persecuted.
>
>> Most if not all were creationist.
>
> Crap.
>
>
>>One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
>>disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
>>since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
>>that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling effect
>>on science.
>
> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Ray Fischer
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4a03a992$0$1621$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> Big Bob <bb...@attworldnet.com> wrote:
>>>I would like to know just how many scientific disciplines were
>>>founded since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution and by
>>>evolutionary scientist.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> So far, this question has been avoided
>>>like the plague.
>>
>> People aren't interested in doing your homework for you.
>>
>>
> The vast
>> majorty of medicine and biology, as well as atomic physics and
>> cosmology and electronics postdate Darwin. There are probably several
>> other fields as well.
>>
>You're saying nothing about scientific disciplines after Darwin by
>evolutionary wcientist.
Of course I am.
> Medicine and biology disciplines were
>pre Darwin.
Not in the modern form.
> Of course there have been advances in these fields
>but the disciplines were not founded by evolutionary scientist.
Obviously you have some agenda bent on attacking evolution.
>>> I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
>>>haven't been very successful. However, I did find that most scientific
>>>disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
>>>primarily Christians and Jews.
>>
>> Or professed believers. Most of those scientists lived in cultures
>> where there was little religious freedom and non-Christians were
>> persecuted.
>>
>>> Most if not all were creationist.
>>
>> Crap.
>>
>Exactly what I expected.
Your claim is without merit.
>>>One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
>>>disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
>>>since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
>>>that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling effect
>>>on science.
>>
>> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>>
>Interesting twist on what I wrote. But you did not dispute anything.
Now you're just being a dishonest asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Andrew
> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
Yes, but Darwinism is not properly classified as true
science.
"Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific
theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked
out in scientific garb"
-- Wolfgang, Smith
Cory Albrecht
One may point, but with out more than the pointing, saying the DNA is
evidence of intelligent design is nothing more than unsupported assertion.
> What I pointed out is
> fact which needs an explanation.
And science is attempting to find out the answer. Creationists, on the
other hand, think they already have the answer even though they've done
no research and discovered no facts.
> There is no empirical evidence which
> shows exactly how the genetic code arose without intelligent guidance.
None at all? I would consider the fact that we've found amino acids
floating in space to be at least one data point.
Intelligent design advocates, however, do have absolutely nothing.
> Only faith that it could have somehow arisen through natural means.
> The just-so-stories are not empirical evidence.
Then I hope you are similarly criticizing the just so stories of the
creationists and their sever lack of evidence and their even worse lack
of trying to find any.
> Furthermore, attacking the
> character, honesty or education is no explanation for the evidence
> presented.
Where, in that single short sentence, did I attack the character,
honesty or education of of Andrew?
Big Bob
Big Bob
organized and complex than anything we humans can design and build and
without direct empirical evidence of an alternative explanation -
intelligent
design is the only player in the game. In this case evidence of a designer
is
the highly complex design.
>
>> What I pointed out
>> is
>> fact which needs an explanation.
>
> And science is attempting to find out the answer. Creationists, on the
> other hand, think they already have the answer even though they've done no
> research and discovered no facts.
>
>
>> There is no empirical evidence which
>> shows exactly how the genetic code arose without intelligent guidance.
>
> None at all? I would consider the fact that we've found amino acids
> floating in space to be at least one data point.
>
does not indicate that a house made of stone, with electrical, pluming
doors etc. somehow happened without intelligent design and activity.
>
> Intelligent design advocates, however, do have absolutely nothing.
>
>
>> Only faith that it could have somehow arisen through natural means.
>> The just-so-stories are not empirical evidence.
>
> Then I hope you are similarly criticizing the just so stories of the
> creationists and their sever lack of evidence and their even worse lack of
> trying to find any.
>
>
>> Furthermore, attacking
>> the
>> character, honesty or education is no explanation for the evidence
>> presented.
>
> Where, in that single short sentence, did I attack the character, honesty
> or education of of Andrew?
>
on-going
thread and when they lack the capacity to deal with the message the will
resort
to character assassination, personal attacks, insults. All I was doing is
trying
to head off such despicable behavior. Once this happens, it can only sinkto
new lows. For all practical purposes the discussion is really over.
John Baker
wrote:
You're perhaps a bit better educated than the average creationist,
Bob, but you're quite obviously no more honest.
>
>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>
Big Bob
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:m8o80512dhp2sdud6...@4ax.com...
was an implied conditional clause. If the circumstances which I
suggested that most scientific _disciplines_ were founded by scientist
who were christian and Jews and few by evolutionary scientist, then
and only then would my statement be valid.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>
Matt Silberstein
<bb...@attworldnet.com> in
<PmDMl.39618$19.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Not a problem. Here is an extensive analysis of creationist quote
mining: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>> Your god is displeased with you...
>>
>I'm sure you are concerned about pleasing God.
>
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<bb...@attworldnet.com> in <7zNMl.38502$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>
>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:b_-dnXnk-ry86J7X...@earthlink.com...
>> "Adam A. Wanderer" wrote in message
>> news:6YadnWZWrrEYqJ7X...@earthlink.com...
>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which were founded by Evolution, but most of
>>> our modern medical field is based on, or assisted by, Evolution.
>>
>> Microevolution yes, change, variation and adaption within genetic
>> boundaries. But our modern medical field has not been benefited
>> by theories of common descent.
>>
>I would like to know just how many scientific disciplines were
>founded since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution and by
>evolutionary scientist.
How many do you think were founded by someone who rejected evolution?
> So far, this question has been avoided
>like the plague.
It is an odd question. I am not sure that I would say that any
scientific disciplines have been "founded" in the last 150 years.
There is chemistry and physics and biology and geology, all old. Of
course geology as a science starts when people realized that the world
was old.
>I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
>haven't been very successful.
Which ones are new in the last 150 years?
>However, I did find that most scientific
>disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
So? Do you posit that those who accept evolution don't believe in God?
>primarily Christians and Jews. Most if not all were creationist.
That is false or grossly misleading. The term "creationist" used to
mean someone who thought that souls were separately created and put
into bodies. It did not take on the modern meaning until after Darwin
published. So it is historically false to call those earlier
scientists creationists and it is dishonestly deceptive to imply that
they rejected evolution. Seriously, do you know of any scientific
discipline "founded" by someone who rejected evolution? If not, why
play word games?
>One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
>disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
>since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
>that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling effect
>on science.
My god that is the worst single example of logic I have seen this
year. Given the amount of creationist tripe I see that is impressive.
Let me see if I can unwrap your claim. You have equated "founding" a
scientific discipline with "advancing science". You have equated those
who never heard of Darwin or evolution with those who reject
evolution. You have decided that the *number* of disciplines founded
is somehow indicative of scientific progress. Not one of those is
sensible and the combination is blindingly wrong. As Jon Stewart just
asked of Marion Berry: what are you smoking?
>> Andrew
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" wrote in message news:4a03a992$0$1621$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>
>Yes, but Darwinism is not properly classified as true
>science.
Evolution is a "true" science.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Andrew
> "Big Bob" in
> <PmDMl.39618$19.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>"Tim Miller" wrote:
>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>
>>>> I dont know who the Fathers were, but, heres a few of their
>>>> Students : http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>>
>>> Still with the dishonest, out of context quote mining, eh?
>>>
>>Unless you can provide the context which would change the
>>meaning of these quotes, all you are doing is dodging.
>
> Not a problem. Here is an extensive analysis of creationist quote
> mining: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
The site has some good information, but it is hardly objective.
And I notice that those who refer to it usually have an agenda
that is not the truth and will accept no evidence that is outside
of their atheistic, materialistic paradigm.
In fact, you tried to use that source last month in saying that a
quote I used by Dr. Colin Patterson was "out of context" and
was even ~"dishonest."
When, if you or anyone with an objective mind had actually read
the source that you provided, it would be seen that it was -not-
misquoted, or in any way applied dishonestly. As I then stated,
either you did not even read it, or you have been blinded by a
fanatical and tenacious belief in a false hypothesis which has
distorted your ability to objectively evaluate evidence and to
arrive at truth.
Andrew
_____________________________________________________________
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:9b62v4dfbundv5187...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:15:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism , "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Cory Albrecht" wrote:
>>> Oh look! Yet *another* transitional fossil!
>>
>>I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a
>>watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent
>>are not applcable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?
>>Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy
>>enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find
>>reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories
>>are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
>>
>> -- Dr. Colin Patterson (paleontologist)
>
> Patterson was very upset that creationists would continually take his
> comments out of context and use them to support something entirely
> different than what he meant. Are you comfortable with being that
> dishonest?
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
> --
> Matt Silberstein
Your link proves that the above was not misquoted or taken out of context;
which means that, either you did not even read it, or you have been blinded
by a fanatical and tenacious belief in a false hypothesis, which has distorted
your ability to objectively evaluate the evidence and to arrive at the truth.
If you and others had maintained the scientific skepticism that Dr. Patterson
endorsed, you would not have declared of X baimoensis, "Yet *another*
transitional fossil!"
Andrew
****
I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance
may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,
[signed]
Colin Patterson
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html <---- From your link.
_____________________________________________________________
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>>"Adam A. Wanderer" wrote:
>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which were founded by Evolution, but most of
>>> our modern medical field is based on, or assisted by, Evolution.
>>
>>Microevolution yes, change, variation and adaption within genetic
>>boundaries. But our modern medical field has not been benefited
>>by theories of common descent.
>
> It actually has.
Can you give three examples?
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" wrote:
>>
>>> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>>
>>Yes, but Darwinism is not properly classified as true
>>science.
>
> Evolution is a "true" science.
"In conclusion, evolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not
qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
--Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology
from Brown University
Ray Fischer
I notice that you resort to a classic ad hominem in a feeble attempt
to discredit facts which you don't like.
Evolution is fact. Whining about it won't change anything.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Not that would satisfy you, as is pretty obvious from your request for
THREE examples when one would suffice.
People who quibble about "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" have an
obvious agenda and aren't going to be swayed by facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
1) Out-f-context quotes are crap.
2) Appeal-to-authority fallacies are crap.
3) Religious opinions of scientific facts are crap.
4) You're a dishonest moron.
I've read that essay and it nothing more than an opinion backed up
with not a single fact and riddled with falsehoods and distortions.
If you have nothing better than that then you're nothing more than
a religious sheep.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Cory Albrecht
You mean the Dr. David Menton of Answers in Genesis who is a liar?
Menton said on a DVD
(<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/07/story-walking-fish>)
"[t]he hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic
girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically
from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish
(including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral
fins."
Given that at the time Dr. Menton said that, absolutely *no* pelvic
skeleton information about Tiktaalik had been released, that makes Dr.
menton a liar since there's no way he could have possibly made that
comment truthfully.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message news:lmc905pud5u9klp4u...@4ax.com...
>> "Big Bob" in
>> <PmDMl.39618$19.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>"Tim Miller" wrote:
>>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont know who the Fathers were, but, heres a few of their
>>>>> Students : http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>>>
>>>> Still with the dishonest, out of context quote mining, eh?
>>>>
>>>Unless you can provide the context which would change the
>>>meaning of these quotes, all you are doing is dodging.
>>
>> Not a problem. Here is an extensive analysis of creationist quote
>> mining: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>
>The site has some good information, but it is hardly objective.
Reality doesn't have time for lies.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Ray Fischer" wrote in message news:4a04f2a1$0$1588$742e...@news.sonic.net...
When did he say it. What were the sentences before and after. How does
the context affect this?
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Indeed that essay is full of lies. Mr. Menton betrayed his education so
he could sell religious fraud. Andrew is just another willing victim of
Menton's lies.
With morally corrupt leaders like Menton, it's no surprise that the
followers worship the telling of lies.
Ray Fischer
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>>"Ray Fischer" wrote in message news:4a04f2a1$0$1588$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" wrote:
>>>>> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but Darwinism is not properly classified as true
>>>>science.
>>>
>>> Evolution is a "true" science.
>>
>>"In conclusion, evolution is not observable,
>> repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not
>> qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
>>
>> --Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology
>> from Brown University
>>
>When did he say it. What were the sentences before and after. How does
>the context affect this?
The context doesn't change the meaning, but what the quote deceptively
implies is that this is a scientific opin when, if you read the entire
essay, it clearly is not. It's the personal religious beliefs of
Menton with no basis in science or fact.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" wrote:
As I figured. You have none and there are none.
Ray Fischer
And now you resort to outright lying.
Typical cultist
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dave Oldridge
news:BIqdnX5eRMYdZp_X...@earthlink.com:
>"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
>news:Xns9C044DFCB1CAC...@69.16.185.247...
>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" <IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>
>> Old quotes and irrelevant considering that that the strong evidence
>> for evolution today is genetic..
>
>The "genetic code" unequivocally points to ----> special creation.
This is a LIE. Either the condition of the GULO gene in chimps and humans
is the result of common descent, or it is the "special creation" of a
malicious moron.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Dave Oldridge
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:BIqdnX5eRMYdZp_X...@earthlink.com...
>> "Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C044DFCB1CAC...@69.16.185.247...
>>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" <IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>>
>>> Old quotes and irrelevant considering that that the strong evidence
for
>>> evolution today is genetic..
>>
>> The "genetic code" unequivocally points to ----> special creation.
>>
>The origin of the genetic code so early in the earth's history and the
>fact that the same code is used throughout the living world could
>mean a common ancestor or a common designer.
>What seems so improbable is the fact, that the standard code, which
>must have originated at least 3 billion years ago, has not changed
>significently over this vast span of time. The only exception is in the
>mitochondria in humans and other life forms and viruses such as the
>retroviruses
>However the DNA uses the same four bases. Adenine "A", guanine
>"G", cytosine "C", and thymine "T". In RNA the T is replaced with
>uracil "U", also the deoxyribose sugar is substituted by another sugar
>ribose. These bases are always in groups of three called codons, 4^3
>or 64 possible condons. The genetic machinary is used to transfer
>information and carry out the instructions for expressing the billions
>of life forms both extinct and extant. Except for the minor variations
>mentioned it seems incredible this could have arisen without intelligent
>guidance.
Or maybe it arose once and the resilts of that piece of evolution were
enough to preclude any new versions. Your argument is the classic
argument from incredulity fallacy.
Dave Oldridge
>"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uv8cd6x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
>> On 07/05/09 01:55 PM, Big Bob wrote:
>> You forgot one thing - argument from incredulity is not evidence.
>>
>One cannot hide, forever hide behind that dodge. OTOH one can certainly
>point the facts above as implying intelligent design. What I pointed
>out is fact which needs an explanation. There is no empirical evidence
>which shows exactly how the genetic code arose without intelligent
>guidance. Only faith that it could have somehow arisen through natural
>means. The just-so-stories are not empirical evidence. Furthermore,
>attacking the character, honesty or education is no explanation for the
>evidence presented.
Yes, but we SEE natural chemistry happening all the time. What empirical
evidence can you offer of a special miracle (beyond your argument from
personal incredulity).
Note that this is not and atheist vs. theist dichotomy. It's a special
miracle vs. natural process dichotomy.
Big Bob
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9C06CB902B7FC...@69.16.185.247...
step by step exactly how this the genetic code and the reproductive
mechanicisms originated via natural processes. It had to have happened
fast considering the first 500^6 years the earth was an Hadean Furnace
due to massive bombardment of left over space debris.
>
What empirical
> evidence can you offer of a special miracle (beyond your argument from
> personal incredulity).
>
redundant where I.D'ers are concerned. You are right, it _is_ a matter
of personal disbelief. If it's not rational. It's believiable or it's not
believable. This is not a matter of choice.
>
>
> Note that this is not and atheist vs. theist dichotomy. It's a special
> miracle vs. natural process dichotomy.
>
accept evolution and_not_ be an atheist. I learned this is the position
of my minister, a Methodist minister (UMC). He commented during
one of his sermons that he believed Darwin and he accepted Christ.
This, I think, raised a few eyebrows, but no one was upset. A year later
he is still our minister.
Nevertheless, What I discussed above regarding the origin of the
genetic code without an intelligence is simply is not believable,
unless one really desire to believe, or something akin to peer
pressure enforces belief.
Dave Oldridge
@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
Then stop lying about it and telling people it's science! The last I
heard, the commandment against that sort of thing had not been repealed.
>>
>>
>> Note that this is not and atheist vs. theist dichotomy. It's a
special
>> miracle vs. natural process dichotomy.
>>
>No, evolution is not equivalent or synonymous with atheism. One can
>accept evolution and_not_ be an atheist. I learned this is the position
>of my minister, a Methodist minister (UMC). He commented during
>one of his sermons that he believed Darwin and he accepted Christ.
>This, I think, raised a few eyebrows, but no one was upset. A year later
>he is still our minister.
>
>Nevertheless, What I discussed above regarding the origin of the
>genetic code without an intelligence is simply is not believable,
>unless one really desire to believe, or something akin to peer
>pressure enforces belief.
Lool, it's chemistry. We can even synthesize the kinds of chemical
precursors we would expect to eventually produce something like this.
The HUGE problem with this particular latter-day creationism is that it
fails to understand the basic Christian doctrine of God's universal
sovereignty and the FACT that, according to our most ancient traditions,
EVERYTHING, natural or not, is ultimately God's creation.
That, of course, is a matter for faith, not scientific inquiry and I'm
seriously opposed to what I see as sectarian theology being slid into
school science courses under the radar, so to speak.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Yes, and it includes a number of falsehoods. They were lies when Menton
wrote them because he knew that he was misrepresenting the state of
knowledge at the time and they are even more egregious lies now because
the false statements he made have all been shown by even more evidence
to be false.
Big Bob
anything. But I'm curious about where you think I lied.
Was it the statement about the four DNA basis: was it the statement
regarding the reproductive mechanics: was it the commonality of the
genetic code being a near universal code: or something else? Perhaps
you consider a personal opinion a lie.
>
The last I
> heard, the commandment against that sort of thing had not been repealed.
>
verse which says something about bearing false witness.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that this is not and atheist vs. theist dichotomy. It's a
> special
>>> miracle vs. natural process dichotomy.
>>>
>>No, evolution is not equivalent or synonymous with atheism. One can
>>accept evolution and_not_ be an atheist. I learned this is the position
>>of my minister, a Methodist minister (UMC). He commented during
>>one of his sermons that he believed Darwin and he accepted Christ.
>>This, I think, raised a few eyebrows, but no one was upset. A year later
>>he is still our minister.
>>
>>Nevertheless, What I discussed above regarding the origin of the
>>genetic code without an intelligence is simply is not believable,
>>unless one really desire to believe, or something akin to peer
>>pressure enforces belief.
>
> Lool, it's chemistry. We can even synthesize the kinds of chemical
> precursors we would expect to eventually produce something like this.
>
biologically active, all are left handed and ubiquous in living organisms.
However, all sugars are right handed as are all nucleic acids in RNA
and DNA. But in labs when amino acids are produced the chirality is
50/50.
The point is: the fact that many precursors can be produced, in labs
only emphasizes the fact that this was accomplished by an intelligent
being using thought out processes. The appearence of cement block
doesn't indicate that cement block buildings are a natural occurance.
>
> The HUGE problem with this particular latter-day creationism is that it
> fails to understand the basic Christian doctrine of God's universal
> sovereignty and the FACT that, according to our most ancient traditions,
> EVERYTHING, natural or not, is ultimately God's creation.
>
> That, of course, is a matter for faith, not scientific inquiry and I'm
> seriously opposed to what I see as sectarian theology being slid into
> school science courses under the radar, so to speak.
>
was illegal. Once a month there was an assembly in school. This was
not mandatory, and I usually skipped it. I felt I had been preached at
enough Sundays.
Andrew
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:4a062eeb$0$1636$742e...@news.sonic.net...
In other words, you believe that the naturalistic only
spontaneous origin of life and common descent IS
in fact observable, repeatable and refutable?
Amazing!
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
You need to master reality.
Cory Albrecht
> I am probably older than youand I remember before religion in schools
> was illegal. Once a month there was an assembly in school. This was
> not mandatory, and I usually skipped it. I felt I had been preached at
> enough Sundays.
Not being American, my impression of that was that American society was
simply so monolithicly uniformly whitebread Christian (even the
African-Americans) that 1) there were no complainers and 2) Americans
simply couldn't comprehend why anybody would be anythign other than
Christian, just like they didn't understand what was wrong with
masculine language referring to everybody including females, and how
they (in)famously assumed that everybody else on the planet was just
like them.
Ray Fischer
Quite probably, yes, which is miles ahead of anything else that
anybody else has come up with.
Evolution is observable. Creationism is not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Free Lunch
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
During the Red Scares, it was dangerously unwise to speak up against
religiosity. George Babbitt is still a highly accurate abstraction of
America.
John Baker
One lying sack of shit quoting another lying sack of shit. No
surprises there....
>
>
John Baker
Yes, your stupidity *is* amazing. It's a mystery how you even manage
to post.
>
>
John Baker
>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message news:lmc905pud5u9klp4u...@4ax.com...
>> "Big Bob" in
>> <PmDMl.39618$19.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>"Tim Miller" wrote:
>>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont know who the Fathers were, but, heres a few of their
>>>>> Students : http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>>>
>>>> Still with the dishonest, out of context quote mining, eh?
>>>>
>>>Unless you can provide the context which would change the
>>>meaning of these quotes, all you are doing is dodging.
>>
>> Not a problem. Here is an extensive analysis of creationist quote
>> mining: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>
>The site has some good information, but it is hardly objective.
>And I notice that those who refer to it usually have an agenda
>that is not the truth and will accept no evidence that is outside
>of their atheistic, materialistic paradigm.
>
>In fact, you tried to use that source last month in saying that a
>quote I used by Dr. Colin Patterson was "out of context" and
>was even ~"dishonest."
>
>When, if you or anyone with an objective mind had actually read
>the source that you provided, it would be seen that it was -not-
>misquoted, or in any way applied dishonestly. As I then stated,
>either you did not even read it, or you have been blinded by a
>fanatical and tenacious belief in a false hypothesis which has
>distorted your ability to objectively evaluate evidence and to
>arrive at truth.
>
>
>Andrew
Do you never get tired of being a complete idiot?
Big Bob
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ioc9055kcbnpa0p2p...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 May 2009 23:29:57 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , "Big Bob"
> <bb...@attworldnet.com> in <7zNMl.38502$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>>>news:b_-dnXnk-ry86J7X...@earthlink.com...
>>> "Adam A. Wanderer" wrote in message
>>> news:6YadnWZWrrEYqJ7X...@earthlink.com...
>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>
>>>> our modern medical field is based on, or assisted by, Evolution.
>>>
>>> Microevolution yes, change, variation and adaption within genetic
>>> boundaries. But our modern medical field has not been benefited
>>> by theories of common descent.
>>>
>>founded since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution and by
>>evolutionary scientist.
>
> How many do you think were founded by someone who rejected evolution?
>
This was not the question. But the majority of disciplines were founded
by scientist berore Darwin advanced his theory of evolution.
So, obviously they were not anti- evolution.
>
>> So far, this question has been avoided
>>like the plague.
>
> It is an odd question. I am not sure that I would say that any
> scientific disciplines have been "founded" in the last 150 years.
> There is chemistry and physics and biology and geology, all old. Of
> course geology as a science starts when people realized that the world
> was old.
>
But modern scientific disciplines of the sciences were based upon
the scientific method which itself was developed before evolution.
>
>>I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
>>haven't been very successful.
>
> Which ones are new in the last 150 years?
>
This I would like to know. Based upon my pursual of the net, few
would fall into this chronological period.
>
>>However, I did find that most scientific
>>disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
>
> So? Do you posit that those who accept evolution don't believe in God?
>
No, absolutely not.
>
>>primarily Christians and Jews. Most if not all were creationist.
>
> That is false or grossly misleading. The term "creationist" used to
> mean someone who thought that souls were separately created and put
> into bodies. It did not take on the modern meaning until after Darwin
> published. So it is historically false to call those earlier
> scientists creationists and it is dishonestly deceptive to imply that
> they rejected evolution.
>
You are reading something into my comments that never meant.
>
Seriously, do you know of any scientific
> discipline "founded" by someone who rejected evolution? If not, why
> play word games?
>
You've completely misunderstood my post. What you are infering was
not my intent.
>
>>One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
>>disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
>>since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
>>that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling effect
>>on science.
>
> My god that is the worst single example of logic I have seen this
> year. Given the amount of creationist tripe I see that is impressive.
> Let me see if I can unwrap your claim. You have equated "founding" a
> scientific discipline with "advancing science".
>
No: not at all!
>
You have equated those
> who never heard of Darwin or evolution with those who reject
> evolution.
>
Completely wrong. This was not my opinion.
>
You have decided that the *number* of disciplines founded
> is somehow indicative of scientific progress.
>
It was a simple question. It is obvious that most scientific disciplines
were founded before Darwin's theory of evolution. My question
is - why is this? I have recognized that great advances have
developed upon the pioneering work of these early scientist.
Not one of those is
> sensible and the combination is blindingly wrong. As Jon Stewart just
> asked of Marion Berry: what are you smoking?
>
What is blindingly wrong is you take upon what I wrote.
>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>
> --
> 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"
Big Bob
who appearently overlooked the first.
"Big Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> wrote in message news:...
> I neither said nor implied that they rejected evolution.
Matt Silberstein
<andrew....@usa.net> in
<Pu2dneunEpvsKZjX...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message news:lmc905pud5u9klp4u...@4ax.com...
>> "Big Bob" in
>> <PmDMl.39618$19.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>"Tim Miller" wrote:
>>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont know who the Fathers were, but, heres a few of their
>>>>> Students : http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>>>
>>>> Still with the dishonest, out of context quote mining, eh?
>>>>
>>>Unless you can provide the context which would change the
>>>meaning of these quotes, all you are doing is dodging.
>>
>> Not a problem. Here is an extensive analysis of creationist quote
>> mining: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>
>The site has some good information, but it is hardly objective.
Do you have a substantive objection? Are they inaccurate?
>And I notice that those who refer to it usually have an agenda
>that is not the truth and will accept no evidence that is outside
>of their atheistic, materialistic paradigm.
I guess you don't have any conflicting evidence. You have no support
for the dishonest quote mining so you are going to change the subject.
Does it bother you to work with such dishonest people? Do you ever
wonder if they have lied to you and you missed it?
>In fact, you tried to use that source last month in saying that a
>quote I used by Dr. Colin Patterson was "out of context" and
>was even ~"dishonest."
Yes. Patterson himself has repeatedly said that the quote was out of
context and dishonest.
>When, if you or anyone with an objective mind had actually read
>the source that you provided, it would be seen that it was -not-
>misquoted, or in any way applied dishonestly. As I then stated,
>either you did not even read it, or you have been blinded by a
>fanatical and tenacious belief in a false hypothesis which has
>distorted your ability to objectively evaluate evidence and to
>arrive at truth.
Patterson was making technical and correct claim that we can't know
that fossil X was the actually ancestor of organism Y. True, but
utterly irrelevant to the creationist claims. Patterson's point is
that we have to remember that all fossils are most likely side
branches. Maybe very small branches, but branches.
>
>Andrew
>_____________________________________________________________
>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
But they are transitional fossils, that is not scientifically
disputed, not even by Patterson. Let us take ancient population A,
with members a1, a2, a3, etc. Organism a4 is the one that is the
direct ancestor to population B. Population B members were b1, b2, b3,
etc. b9 is the direct ancestor of population C.
If we find fossils a6 and b2 and we have existent organism c7 we can
examine the features and see that the features of b2 put it between A
and C. It is a transitional fossil, but it is not the direct ancestor
of any organism in C. (Patterson's point is slightly *weaker* that
this. In my example we know that b2 is not the ancestor, in the real
world we don't know this, but it is the best guess.)
Now you can respond to the substance here or you can try again to
change the subject.
Matt Silberstein
Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> in
<6WLNl.39729$v8...@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I know, but your question was stupid.
>But the majority of disciplines were founded
>by scientist berore Darwin advanced his theory of evolution.
>So, obviously they were not anti- evolution.
And therefore counting them in your question is deceptive at best. You
may not have a problem lying to yourself about this, I don't want to
be lied to.
>>> So far, this question has been avoided
>>>like the plague.
>>
>> It is an odd question. I am not sure that I would say that any
>> scientific disciplines have been "founded" in the last 150 years.
>> There is chemistry and physics and biology and geology, all old. Of
>> course geology as a science starts when people realized that the world
>> was old.
>>
>But modern scientific disciplines of the sciences were based upon
>the scientific method which itself was developed before evolution.
And so your question is yet again irrelevant.
>>>I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
>>>haven't been very successful.
>>
>> Which ones are new in the last 150 years?
>>
>This I would like to know. Based upon my pursual of the net, few
>would fall into this chronological period.
And so it is rather irrelevant how many were founded by
"evolutionists". I would bet that not a single scientific discipline
was founded by someone who rejected evolution. How is that 0 for you?
>>>However, I did find that most scientific
>>>disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
>>
>> So? Do you posit that those who accept evolution don't believe in God?
>>
>No, absolutely not.
So why do you try to shift the discussion?
>>>primarily Christians and Jews. Most if not all were creationist.
>>
>> That is false or grossly misleading. The term "creationist" used to
>> mean someone who thought that souls were separately created and put
>> into bodies. It did not take on the modern meaning until after Darwin
>> published. So it is historically false to call those earlier
>> scientists creationists and it is dishonestly deceptive to imply that
>> they rejected evolution.
>>
>You are reading something into my comments that never meant.
No, I am pointing out that your meaning is historically incorrect. You
are playing games with the word "creationist". It means one thing in
one sentence and a different thing in another sentence. The relevant
meaning today is either someone who rejects evolutionary biology for a
"god did it" approach or someone who thinks there is a scientific
basis for a young Earth and static species. Neither of those meanings
appropriately applies to the time before Darwin.
> Seriously, do you know of any scientific
>> discipline "founded" by someone who rejected evolution? If not, why
>> play word games?
>>
>You've completely misunderstood my post. What you are infering was
>not my intent.
What was your intent then?
>>>One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
>>>disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
>>>since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
>>>that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling effect
>>>on science.
>>
>> My god that is the worst single example of logic I have seen this
>> year. Given the amount of creationist tripe I see that is impressive.
>> Let me see if I can unwrap your claim. You have equated "founding" a
>> scientific discipline with "advancing science".
>>
>No: not at all!
Yes, at all. You "easily" arrived that the conclusion that, based on
the number of disciplines "founded", that evolution "stifled" science.
You used an increase number of disciplines to suggest something about
advancing science. But by your admission above that there have been
few, if any, disciplines founded in the last 150 years *you* would
have to conclude that there has been no advance in science in that
time.
>You have equated those
>> who never heard of Darwin or evolution with those who reject
>> evolution.
>>
>Completely wrong. This was not my opinion.
So why count those earlier as creationists?
>You have decided that the *number* of disciplines founded
>> is somehow indicative of scientific progress.
>>
>It was a simple question. It is obvious that most scientific disciplines
>were founded before Darwin's theory of evolution. My question
>is - why is this?
Most disciplines were founded before 1800. Why is that?
>I have recognized that great advances have
>developed upon the pioneering work of these early scientist.
>Not one of those is
>> sensible and the combination is blindingly wrong. As Jon Stewart just
>> asked of Marion Berry: what are you smoking?
>>
>What is blindingly wrong is you take upon what I wrote.
--
Matt Silberstein
Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> in
<iTBOl.40892$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>This is the second time I posted this response to Mr. Silberstein,
>who appearently overlooked the first.
No, I was just off Usenet for several days.
Big Bob
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 22:27:09 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , "Big
> Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> in
> <6WLNl.39729$v8...@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>message news:ioc9055kcbnpa0p2p...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 23:29:57 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , "Big Bob"
>>> <bb...@attworldnet.com> in <7zNMl.38502$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:b_-dnXnk-ry86J7X...@earthlink.com...
>>>>> "Adam A. Wanderer" wrote in message
>>>>> news:6YadnWZWrrEYqJ7X...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I would like to know just how many scientific disciplines were
>>>>founded since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution and by
>>>>evolutionary scientist.
>>>
>>> How many do you think were founded by someone who rejected evolution?
>>>
>>This was not the question.
>
> I know, but your question was stupid.
>
that early scientist had rejected evolution. That never crossed my mind.
>
>>But the majority of disciplines were founded
>>by scientist berore Darwin advanced his theory of evolution.
>>So, obviously they were not anti- evolution.
>
> And therefore counting them in your question is deceptive at best. You
> may not have a problem lying to yourself about this, I don't want to
> be lied to.
>
before Darwin? The founders could _not_ have been anti-evolution, since
the theory of evolution had not been advanced at this time. So, that cannot
be your problem with what I wrote. I do not understand.
>
>>>> So far, this question has been avoided
>>>>like the plague.
>>>
>>> It is an odd question. I am not sure that I would say that any
>>> scientific disciplines have been "founded" in the last 150 years.
>>> There is chemistry and physics and biology and geology, all old. Of
>>> course geology as a science starts when people realized that the world
>>> was old.
>>>
>>But modern scientific disciplines of the sciences were based upon
>>the scientific method which itself was developed before evolution.
>
> And so your question is yet again irrelevant.
>
>
>>>>I'm sure there are some, but browsing the web, I
>>>>haven't been very successful.
>>>
>>> Which ones are new in the last 150 years?
>>>
>>This I would like to know. Based upon my pursual of the net, few
>>would fall into this chronological period.
>
> And so it is rather irrelevant how many were founded by
> "evolutionists". I would bet that not a single scientific discipline
> was founded by someone who rejected evolution. How is that 0 for you?
>
issue. I never made such a claim, yet you are crediting me with it.
>
>>>>However, I did find that most scientific
>>>>disciplines were founded by scientist who were believers in God,
>>>
>>> So? Do you posit that those who accept evolution don't believe in God?
>>>
>>No, absolutely not.
>
> So why do you try to shift the discussion?
>
I'm beginning to think you've confused me with another poster.
>
>>>>primarily Christians and Jews. Most if not all were creationist.
>>>
>>> That is false or grossly misleading. The term "creationist" used to
>>> mean someone who thought that souls were separately created and put
>>> into bodies. It did not take on the modern meaning until after Darwin
>>> published. So it is historically false to call those earlier
>>> scientists creationists and it is dishonestly deceptive to imply that
>>> they rejected evolution.
>>>
>>You are reading something into my comments that never meant.
>
> No, I am pointing out that your meaning is historically incorrect.
>
this is revelent. I think you are splitting hairs, perhaps, for no reason
other than for the sake of taking issue with me.
>
You
> are playing games with the word "creationist". It means one thing in
> one sentence and a different thing in another sentence. The relevant
> meaning today is either someone who rejects evolutionary biology
>
>
for a
> "god did it" approach or someone who thinks there is a scientific
> basis for a young Earth and static species. Neither of those meanings
> appropriately applies to the time before Darwin.
>
After Darwin the exact opposite was the opinion.
>
What I mean by creationist is that most if not all believed that God
created the world and everything in it. It had nothing to do with
beliefs concerning souls before or after Darwin.
>
>> Seriously, do you know of any scientific
>>> discipline "founded" by someone who rejected evolution? If not, why
>>> play word games?
>>>
>>You've completely misunderstood my post. What you are infering was
>>not my intent.
>
> What was your intent then?
>
the advent of evolution and few if any new disciplines have been founded
afterwards.
While great advances have been built upon the foundations laid by scientist
before evolution, virtually no new disciplines have been establisned
afterwards.
This seems to be factual, based upon researching the net. If so is this
coincidence? Or is there another reason.
Scientist who founded scientfic disciplines before the advent of evolution.
Roger Bacon, Jonannes Kipler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, John Dalton,
Anton van Leeuwenhoek,Carolus Linneaus, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel,
James Joule, Matthew Mauray, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell,
William Ockham and others.
I'm sure you know the disciplines each of these scientist founded or is
called the father of.......
Most of these men founded various scientific disciplines, but all were
Jewish
or Christian of various denomiations.
>
>>>>One could easily arrive at the conclusion that since the number of
>>>>disciplines founded by believers far outstrip those disciplines
>>>>since the advent of evolution by evolutionary scientist, then it holds
>>>>that evolution, rather than advancing science, has had a stiffling
>>>>effect
>>>>on science.
>>>
>>> My god that is the worst single example of logic I have seen this
>>> year. Given the amount of creationist tripe I see that is impressive.
>>> Let me see if I can unwrap your claim. You have equated "founding" a
>>> scientific discipline with "advancing science".
>>>
>>No: not at all!
>
> Yes, at all. You "easily" arrived that the conclusion that, based on
> the number of disciplines "founded", that evolution "stifled" science.
> You used an increase number of disciplines to suggest something about
> advancing science. But by your admission above that there have been
> few, if any, disciplines founded in the last 150 years *you* would
> have to conclude that there has been no advance in science in that
> time.
>
There has been great advances in science, since the last scientific
discipline
was founded, however, these advances were built upon foundations
that were already in place. For example atomic theory is built upon
physics, so is quantium mechanics. Even evolution is built in part upon
paleontology, biology and genetics. One can only wonder what new
disciplines might have been established if the same creative, adventurous
minds as existed 150 years ago did not wither away. So, I think evolution
stiffled this mind.
Matt Silberstein
Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> in
<yfNOl.42308$19.1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>To show that most scientific disciplines were founded by scientist before
>the advent of evolution and few if any new disciplines have been founded
>afterwards.
How about this: how many were founded in the 150 years before Darwin
and the 150 years after? That might tell you something, But I still
don't grasp what meaning you get from the number of scientific
disciplines founded. I could argue that Astrophysics is a scientific
discipline founded after Darwin, but it has utterly nothing to do with
evolutionary biology.
>While great advances have been built upon the foundations laid by scientist
>before evolution, virtually no new disciplines have been establisned
>afterwards.
So? There is no relationship between "scientific advances" and "new
disciplines". Disciplines are how we divide the subject matter,
advances are what we learn.
>This seems to be factual, based upon researching the net. If so is this
>coincidence?
At the moment coincidence. You have taken two data points. If you
really want to examine this then you would need to somehow chart
#disciplines/time and see if there are any interesting changes and
then go and see what was happening in the society to bring that about.
Asking just about one date tells you nothing at all. Is 1850 more
significant than 1750? Can you tell?
>Or is there another reason.
>Scientist who founded scientfic disciplines before the advent of evolution.
>Roger Bacon, Jonannes Kipler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, John Dalton,
>Anton van Leeuwenhoek,Carolus Linneaus, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel,
>James Joule, Matthew Mauray, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell,
>William Ockham and others.
What discipline did Ockham found? Kepler? Pascal? Boyle? Mendel? I
have no idea what list you have there, but it is not founders of any
discipline.
(BTW, Maxwell published after Darwin.)
>I'm sure you know the disciplines each of these scientist founded or is
>called the father of.......
No, I don't. Leeuwenhoek made one of the first microscope and was the
first to report on bacteria. But he was not particularly a scientist
or the father of anything. Dalton is known for showing that atoms
exist, but was not the father of any scientific discipline.
>Most of these men founded various scientific disciplines, but all were
>Jewish
>or Christian of various denomiations.
Or atheist. So?
[snip]
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew"
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, but Darwinism is not properly classified as true
>>>>>>>science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evolution is a "true" science.
>>>>>
>>>>>"In conclusion, evolution is not observable,
>>>>> repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not
>>>>> qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
>>>>>
>>>>> --Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology
>>>>> from Brown University
>>>>>
>>>>When did he say it. What were the sentences before and after. How does
>>>>the context affect this?
>>>
>>> The context doesn't change the meaning, but what the quote deceptively
>>> implies is that this is a scientific opin when, if you read the entire
>>> essay, it clearly is not. It's the personal religious beliefs of
>>> Menton with no basis in science or fact.
>>
>>In other words, you believe that the naturalistic only
>>spontaneous origin of life and common descent IS
>>in fact observable, repeatable and refutable?
>
> Quite probably, yes, which is miles ahead of anything else that
> anybody else has come up with.
>
> Evolution is observable. Creationism is not.
No, what is observable are adaptions which the
Creator has programmed into the initial creation
with the genetic ability to make.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
Andrew
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Ray Fischer" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but Darwinism is not properly classified as true
>>>> science.
>>>
>>> Evolution is a "true" science.
>>
>> "In conclusion, evolution is not observable,
>> repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not
>> qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
>>
>> --Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology
>> from Brown University
>
I notice that you resort to a classic ad hominem in a feeble attempt
to discredit facts which you don't like. Creation is a fact. Whining
about it will not change anything.
Tim Miller
>> Evolution is observable. Creationism is not.
>
> No, what is observable are adaptions which the
> Creator
WHOOPS! Wrong already!
Andrew
> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>"Cory Albrecht" wrote:
>>>>> Big Bob wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
The atheist is here forced into the position where he has to appeal to the
authority of, and the commandment of, the Creator of the universe..and
he testifies that the Commandments of -God- have NOT been repealed!
Andrew
Atheists know.
Tim Miller
> Creation is a fact.
Well, no, it isn't.
Andrew
The atheistic, materialistic only origins myth has contributed -nothing- for the
advancement of true science, and has provided no benefit to mankind. It is a
theory which has only degraded man's image of himself, and has promoted a
moral relativism that has degraded humanity....as opposed to other scientific
disciplines which are based on empirical truth. These have served to benefit
humanity either directly or indirectly.
Andrew
Ralph
Creation is an assertion, made by ignorant people.
Ralph
So you follow the commandments of the Old Testament. Glad to know that,
there aren't many like you:-))).
Ray Fischer
Yes. Don't lie.
> what is observable are adaptions which the
>Creator has programmed into the initial creation
>with the genetic ability to make.
Except that you have exactly NO observable evidence to support that
little, er, "theory".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Matt Silberstein
<andrew....@usa.net> in
<SqKdnX-jtugMI5HX...@earthlink.com> wrote:
Baby Jesus cries when you lie. Why do you want to make Baby Jesus cry?
Andrew
Then give several examples of observed evolution that are
not in fact simply adaptions, that the original creation was
programmed with the genetic ability to make.
>> what is observable are adaptions which the
>>Creator has programmed into the initial creation
>>with the genetic ability to make.
>
> Except that you have exactly NO observable
> evidence to support that little, er, "theory".
Please give your evidence, since you made
the claim. --> "Evolution is observable."
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Andrew
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lK3Pl.15663$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
According to Dave Oldridge......."they have NOT been repealed."
Ray Fischer
Always the narrow exceptions.
Here, I'll make it simple for you: Provide evidence for creationism.
>>> what is observable are adaptions which the
>>>Creator has programmed into the initial creation
>>>with the genetic ability to make.
>>
>> Except that you have exactly NO observable
>> evidence to support that little, er, "theory".
>
>Please give your evidence,
Run along, asshole. You worship a perverted little cult.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Augray
wrote in <Pu2dneunEpvsKZjX...@earthlink.com> :
>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message news:lmc905pud5u9klp4u...@4ax.com...
>> "Big Bob" in
>> <PmDMl.39618$19.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>"Tim Miller" wrote:
>>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont know who the Fathers were, but, heres a few of their
>>>>> Students : http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>>>
>>>> Still with the dishonest, out of context quote mining, eh?
>>>>
>>>Unless you can provide the context which would change the
>>>meaning of these quotes, all you are doing is dodging.
>>
>> Not a problem. Here is an extensive analysis of creationist quote
>> mining: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>
>The site has some good information, but it is hardly objective.
I'm one of the contributors to the Quote Mine Project. In what way is
it not objective?
>And I notice that those who refer to it usually have an agenda
>that is not the truth and will accept no evidence that is outside
>of their atheistic, materialistic paradigm.
>
>In fact, you tried to use that source last month in saying that a
>quote I used by Dr. Colin Patterson was "out of context" and
>was even ~"dishonest."
>
>When, if you or anyone with an objective mind had actually read
>the source that you provided, it would be seen that it was -not-
>misquoted, or in any way applied dishonestly. As I then stated,
>either you did not even read it, or you have been blinded by a
>fanatical and tenacious belief in a false hypothesis which has
>distorted your ability to objectively evaluate evidence and to
>arrive at truth.
>
>
>Andrew
>_____________________________________________________________
>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
Then why does Patterson cite Archaeopteryx as a "missing link in his
1978 book?
>Andrew
>
>
> ****
>
>I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance
>may expose us to ridicule.
>Yours Sincerely,
>[signed]
>Colin Patterson
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html <---- From your link.
Then why does he accept the reality of evolution?
Big Bob
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:49:52 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , "Big
> Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> in
> <yfNOl.42308$19.1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>To show that most scientific disciplines were founded by scientist before
>>the advent of evolution and few if any new disciplines have been founded
>>afterwards.
>
> How about this: how many were founded in the 150 years before Darwin
> and the 150 years after? That might tell you something, But I still
> don't grasp what meaning you get from the number of scientific
> disciplines founded. I could argue that Astrophysics is a scientific
> discipline founded after Darwin, but it has utterly nothing to do with
> evolutionary biology.
>
>>While great advances have been built upon the foundations laid by
>>scientist
>>before evolution, virtually no new disciplines have been establisned
>>afterwards.
>
> So? There is no relationship between "scientific advances" and "new
> disciplines". Disciplines are how we divide the subject matter,
> advances are what we learn.
>
>
>>This seems to be factual, based upon researching the net. If so is this
>>coincidence?
>
> At the moment coincidence. You have taken two data points. If you
> really want to examine this then you would need to somehow chart
> #disciplines/time and see if there are any interesting changes and
> then go and see what was happening in the society to bring that about.
> Asking just about one date tells you nothing at all. Is 1850 more
> significant than 1750? Can you tell?
>
Is 1850 more significent than 1750? Not necessarily. But after
the 1850s to the present there seems to be some significence.
>
>>Or is there another reason.
>
>>Scientist who founded scientfic disciplines before the advent of
>>evolution.
>>Roger Bacon, Jonannes Kipler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, John Dalton,
>>Anton van Leeuwenhoek,Carolus Linneaus, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel,
>>James Joule, Matthew Mauray, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell,
>>William Ockham and others.
>
> What discipline did Ockham found?
>
philosopher who was first (as far asI know) to propose that
"entities should not be multiplied unnessarially", which became
known as Ockham's razor.
Kepler - Celestial mechanics
>
Pascal - Hydrostatics.
Boyle - chemistry, gas Dynamics
Mendel- called father of genetics
>I have no idea what list you have there, but it is not founders of any
> discipline.
> (BTW, Maxwell published after Darwin.)
>
Yes, you are right, he published two years after Darwin. He was a
Christian attending the Presbyterian and Episcopalian Church
services.
>
Yes, these division are amoung others: Physics, biology, astronomy,
geology, paleontology, anthropology, computers, mathematics, medicine.
>
>>I'm sure you know the disciplines each of these scientist founded or is
>>called the father of.......
>
> No, I don't.
>
Leeuwenhoek made one of the first microscope and was the
> first to report on bacteria. But he was not particularly a scientist
> or the father of anything. Dalton is known for showing that atoms
> exist, but was not the father of any scientific discipline.
>
Ok, I'm wrong about this. But there were others: Michael Faraday -
Electro-magnetics, Electric generators; Georges Cuvier -Camparative
Anatomy, Vertebrate Paleontolog; Lord Kelvin -Thermodynamics;
Carolus Carolus - Classification system; Matthew Lister - Antiseptic
surgery; Issac Newton - Law of Gravity, Calculus; Louis Pasteur -
Immunisation, Bactiology; John Woodward - Paleontology
I think I was too narrow by limiting to being just the founders of
disciplines and father of ...
>>Most of these men founded various scientific disciplines, but all were
>>Jewish or Christian of various denomiations.
>
> Or atheist. So?
>
I know of no atheist during this period who were well known scientist.
This is not to say there were none.
BTW you and my brother were carying on a discussion before he
lost his job. This really stressed him. His company closed their plants
and moved all manufacturing off-shore. The CEO asked him to
be part of the team to direct and oversee the moves, but he declined.
He said to me, he wanted no part putting hundreds of people out of
work.
Ralph
They haven't. Don't you read your own bible?
Ray Fischer
Matt Silberstein
Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> in
<CgBPl.43260$19.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:bc6p05hf4pmaueuep...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:49:52 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , "Big
>> Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> in
>> <yfNOl.42308$19.1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>To show that most scientific disciplines were founded by scientist before
>>>the advent of evolution and few if any new disciplines have been founded
>>>afterwards.
>>
>> How about this: how many were founded in the 150 years before Darwin
>> and the 150 years after? That might tell you something, But I still
>> don't grasp what meaning you get from the number of scientific
>> disciplines founded. I could argue that Astrophysics is a scientific
>> discipline founded after Darwin, but it has utterly nothing to do with
>> evolutionary biology.
>>
>>>While great advances have been built upon the foundations laid by
>>>scientist
>>>before evolution, virtually no new disciplines have been establisned
>>>afterwards.
>>
>> So? There is no relationship between "scientific advances" and "new
>> disciplines". Disciplines are how we divide the subject matter,
>> advances are what we learn.
>>
>Yes. A point of agreement.
So you had no argument at all. Nothing. You used a claimed (but not
substantiated in anyway) reduction in the number of new disciplines to
show a claimed, but now agreed to be unrelated, change in advance in
science. Now how about this: science has advanced enormously since
1850, that except for mechanics almost nothing is recognizable. And
that in particular biology, the study of life, has expanded enormously
not only since, but due to, the theory of evolution. As Dobzhansky
said, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
>>
>>>This seems to be factual, based upon researching the net. If so is this
>>>coincidence?
>>
>> At the moment coincidence. You have taken two data points. If you
>> really want to examine this then you would need to somehow chart
>> #disciplines/time and see if there are any interesting changes and
>> then go and see what was happening in the society to bring that about.
>> Asking just about one date tells you nothing at all. Is 1850 more
>> significant than 1750? Can you tell?
>>
>It could be coincidence and there may be another reason.
>Is 1850 more significent than 1750? Not necessarily. But after
>the 1850s to the present there seems to be some significence.
Why? You made no effort to show anything, you just waved your hands.
To show that 1850 is significant, do the work. You have yet to show
any significance at all to the number of disciplines. You have yet to
show that 1850 is a special date of any sort. Do the work, chart the
number of disciplines "founded" by time and see if there is any
pattern.
>>>Or is there another reason.
>>
>>>Scientist who founded scientfic disciplines before the advent of
>>>evolution.
>>>Roger Bacon, Jonannes Kipler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, John Dalton,
>>>Anton van Leeuwenhoek,Carolus Linneaus, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel,
>>>James Joule, Matthew Mauray, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell,
>>>William Ockham and others.
>>
>> What discipline did Ockham found?
>>
>WIlliam Ockham was a member of a Franciscan Order and scientific
>philosopher who was first (as far asI know) to propose that
>"entities should not be multiplied unnessarially", which became
>known as Ockham's razor.
Yes, I happen to know an enormous amount about Ockham. He was a major
figure in the development of Nominalism, the way out of the morass of
Idealism/Essentialism that burdened philosophy. He was also a major
figure in the development of political philosophy. Now answer my
question: what scientific discipline did he found?
>Kepler - Celestial mechanics
Nope. Celestial mechanics is not a scientific discipline.
>Pascal - Hydrostatics.
>Boyle - chemistry, gas Dynamics
He did not found chemistry and gas dynamics is not a scientific
discipline.
>Mendel- called father of genetics
Mendel did not found genetics. He did some early work. But if you are
going to take that route then I bet most scientific disciplines have
been founded since 1850: there has been an increase in specialization.
So we get biochem, organic chem, etc.
>>I have no idea what list you have there, but it is not founders of any
>> discipline.
>> (BTW, Maxwell published after Darwin.)
>>
>Yes, you are right, he published two years after Darwin. He was a
>Christian attending the Presbyterian and Episcopalian Church
>services.
So he was a Christian? How was that relevant at all? I wonder if your
ideas seem coherent to you.
>Yes, these division are amoung others: Physics, biology, astronomy,
>geology, paleontology, anthropology, computers, mathematics, medicine.
Anthro was not a science in 1850 nor was paleontology. Computer
science is new. Math is not a science. I think you had better drop
this line before you are further embarrassed.
>>
>>>I'm sure you know the disciplines each of these scientist founded or is
>>>called the father of.......
>>
>> No, I don't.
>>
>Leeuwenhoek made one of the first microscope and was the
>> first to report on bacteria. But he was not particularly a scientist
>> or the father of anything. Dalton is known for showing that atoms
>> exist, but was not the father of any scientific discipline.
>>
>Ok, I'm wrong about this. But there were others: Michael Faraday -
>Electro-magnetics, Electric generators;
How is "electric generators" a scientific discipline?
>Georges Cuvier -Camparative
>Anatomy,
Pre-dates him, but so what?
>Vertebrate Paleontolog; Lord Kelvin -Thermodynamics;
No, he did not found that field. You are just taking big names in a
field and asserting that they founded something or other.
>Carolus Carolus - Classification system;
Not a scientific discipline.
>Matthew Lister - Antiseptic surgery;
Not a scientific discipline.
>Issac Newton - Law of Gravity, Calculus;
Not a scientific discipline. And he did not found physics.
>Louis Pasteur - Immunisation, Bactiology;
Not a scientific discipline.
>John Woodward - Paleontology
>
>I think I was too narrow by limiting to being just the founders of
>disciplines and father of ...
Narrow, you are all over the place.
>>>Most of these men founded various scientific disciplines, but all were
>>>Jewish or Christian of various denomiations.
>>
>> Or atheist. So?
>>
>I know of no atheist during this period who were well known scientist.
So you don't know. How is your knowledge relevant.
>This is not to say there were none.
>
>BTW you and my brother were carying on a discussion before he
>lost his job. This really stressed him. His company closed their plants
>and moved all manufacturing off-shore. The CEO asked him to
>be part of the team to direct and oversee the moves, but he declined.
>He said to me, he wanted no part putting hundreds of people out of
>work.
Is R.D. your brother? Anyway, good for him.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
So now you want to bring Jesus into the equation, and are unable to refute the
truth, that the atheistic, materialistic only origins myth has contributed nothing
for the advancement of true science and has provided no benefit to mankind.
This theory has promoted a moral relativism that has degraded humanity...as
opposed to scientific disciplines which are based on empirical truth.
Andrew
Andrew
>"Andrew" wrote:
>>"Matt Silberstein" wrote:
>>>>"Tim Miller" wrote:
>>>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> "Big Bob" wrote:
>>>>>>> I reciently read that numerous scientific disciplines
>>>>>>> were founded by scientist before Charles Darwin.
>>>>>>> This being the case, none of these disciplines could
>>>>>>> have been founded by evolutionary scientist.
>>>>>>> My question: how many scientific disciplines have
>>>>>>> been founded by evolutionary scientist?
>>>>>>> What disciplines and who are the recognized fathers
>>>>>>> of these disciplines?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dont know who the Fathers were, but, heres a few of their
>>>>>> Students : http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Still with the dishonest, out of context quote mining, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>Unless you can provide the context which would change the
>>>>meaning of these quotes, all you are doing is dodging.
>>>
>>> Not a problem. Here is an extensive analysis of creationist quote
>>> mining: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>>
>>The site has some good information, but it is hardly objective.
>
> I'm one of the contributors to the Quote Mine Project. In what way is
> it not objective?
Well for one thing, just look at the title:
The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are the words of a nonobjective fanatic
who is desperately trying to defend their false
atheistic, materialistic only, origins philosophy.
Are you the author of these words, Jon? Why
the fanaticism; and you honestly think that the
site is an objective evaluation of the references
examined?
If it were to be an objective project it would be
conducted by an objective panel having truth as
its paramount objective.
Not by a group of intellectual fanatics whose
paramount agenda is to defend at all costs a
pseudo-scientific hypothesis which is akin to
a religion.
Perhaps that is what he believed at -that- time. What do you believe now?
>
>>Andrew
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>>I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance
>>may expose us to ridicule.
>>Yours Sincerely,
>>[signed]
>>Colin Patterson
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html <---- From your link.
>
> Then why does he accept the reality of evolution?
You imply that for one to maintain a stance of skepticism
they cannot be an evolutionist, therefore acknowledging
that it cannot hold up to critical examination. Interesting.
Andrew
Tim Miller
Pretty much sums it up. You quote miners are a pack
of dishonest, lying bastards. The FACTS are all there.
You CAN'T refute them.
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
Typical religious asshole. You lie about people, lie about science,
sow hatred, and all while pretending to do the work of God.
You are evil.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dave Oldridge
news:pgGNl.39924$qa.3...@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
>"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:Xns9C07244853678...@69.16.185.247...
>> "Big Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> wrote in news:WEsNl.38698$i9.35152
>> @bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>>"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9C06CB902B7FC...@69.16.185.247...
>>>> "Big Bob" <bb...@attworldnet.com> wrote in
>>>> news:fgLMl.39799$19.1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
>>>>
>>>>>"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:uv8cd6x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
>>>>>> On 07/05/09 01:55 PM, Big Bob wrote:
>>>>>>> "Andrew"<andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:BIqdnX5eRMYdZp_X...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>> "Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C044DFCB1CAC...@69.16.185.247...
>What, in particular, do you think was a lie? I have not witting lied
>about anything. But I'm curious about where you think I lied.
>Was it the statement about the four DNA basis: was it the statement
>regarding the reproductive mechanics: was it the commonality of the
>genetic code being a near universal code: or something else? Perhaps
>you consider a personal opinion a lie.
The lie is in the fallacy. Your personal incredulity is not scientific
evidence, but you have pretty much claimed it is.
>>
>The last I
>> heard, the commandment against that sort of thing had not been
>> repealed.
>>
>If you cannot show where I specifically lied about science, there is a
>verse which says something about bearing false witness.
Yes, there is. And the politics of ID is a form of it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that this is not and atheist vs. theist dichotomy. It's a
>> special
>>>> miracle vs. natural process dichotomy.
>>>>
>>>No, evolution is not equivalent or synonymous with atheism. One can
>>>accept evolution and_not_ be an atheist. I learned this is the
>>>position of my minister, a Methodist minister (UMC). He commented
>>>during one of his sermons that he believed Darwin and he accepted
>>>Christ. This, I think, raised a few eyebrows, but no one was upset. A
>>>year later he is still our minister.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, What I discussed above regarding the origin of the
>>>genetic code without an intelligence is simply is not believable,
>>>unless one really desire to believe, or something akin to peer
>>>pressure enforces belief.
>>
>> Lool, it's chemistry. We can even synthesize the kinds of chemical
>> precursors we would expect to eventually produce something like this.
>>
>Sure, there's 100+ naturally occuring amino acids, but only 20, are
>biologically active, all are left handed and ubiquous in living
>organisms.
> However, all sugars are right handed as are all nucleic acids in RNA
>and DNA. But in labs when amino acids are produced the chirality is
> 50/50.
>The point is: the fact that many precursors can be produced, in labs
>only emphasizes the fact that this was accomplished by an intelligent
>being using thought out processes. The appearence of cement block
>doesn't indicate that cement block buildings are a natural occurance.
Actually, it doesn't. Those working in labs are seeking to find out what
can happen in nature. They are quite careful to point out which of their
products are possible candidates for natural polymers. The thing is,
this marvellous trick of self-replication that DNA does so handily is
euqally possible in small (under 200 atoms) molecules that are well
within the range of random polymers. It is also known that such
molecules evolve into better and better replicators by mutation and
natural selection. The appearance of design does not NECESSARILY connote
deliberate, intervention, whether by aliens or fairies.
>> The HUGE problem with this particular latter-day creationism is that
>> it fails to understand the basic Christian doctrine of God's
>> universal sovereignty and the FACT that, according to our most
>> ancient traditions, EVERYTHING, natural or not, is ultimately God's
>> creation.
>>
>> That, of course, is a matter for faith, not scientific inquiry and
>> I'm seriously opposed to what I see as sectarian theology being slid
>> into school science courses under the radar, so to speak.
>>
>I am probably older than you and I remember before religion in schools
>was illegal. Once a month there was an assembly in school. This was
>not mandatory, and I usually skipped it. I felt I had been preached at
>enough Sundays.
SECTARIAN religion in the schools was always illegal, even when the law
was successfully flouted. Not so here and in the UK where there was an
established church. You are probably NOT older than me (unless you
remember ALL of WWII). We had morning prayer every day. But my science
classes did not teach about alleged miracles.
The sectarianism of ID is more subtle than that of YEC, but it is
present.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Dave Oldridge
news:gZ6dnQw8ac30I5HX...@earthlink.com:
Whatever gave you the impression that I am an atheist? The fact that I
don't believe the father of lies is a god?
Dave Oldridge
news:LXCPl.16701$pr6....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com:
The commandment against false witness is reiterated, not repealed, in the
new.
Matt Silberstein
<andrew....@usa.net> in
<-pWdnZ2pWvkP1JLX...@earthlink.com> wrote:
No, Andrew, I am just pointing out that you don't care about making
Baby Jesus cry.
>that the atheistic, materialistic only origins myth has contributed nothing
>for the advancement of true science and has provided no benefit to mankind.
>This theory has promoted a moral relativism that has degraded humanity...as
>opposed to scientific disciplines which are based on empirical truth.
Baby Jesus cries when you lie. Why do you keep making Baby Jesus cry?
Matt Silberstein
<andrew....@usa.net> in
<BeadnZMFy9WJ15LX...@earthlink.com> wrote:
Do you realize you did not actually give any evidence of the lack of
objectivity? I happen to know that more than one Christian worked on
that project, but you don't seem to care about that. So how about you
point out where in the content you see something wrong, where in the
content you see some inappropriate subjective material>
>
>Are you the author of these words, Jon? Why
>the fanaticism; and you honestly think that the
>site is an objective evaluation of the references
>examined?
>
>If it were to be an objective project it would be
>conducted by an objective panel having truth as
>its paramount objective.
>
>Not by a group of intellectual fanatics whose
>paramount agenda is to defend at all costs a
>pseudo-scientific hypothesis which is akin to
>a religion.
Which specific people are intellectual fanatics? And what did they
write that was false?
[snip]
John Baker
wrote:
Well, Andy, instead of just sitting there behind your keyboard whining
like a man who's been caught in yet another lie and can't figure a way
to weasel out of it that won't make him look even more dishonest than
he already looks, why don't you try actually backing up your claims
for once?
What evidence (other than your own unsubstantiated claims) do you have
that the Quote Mine Project is *not* objective?
What evidence (again, other than your say-so) do you have that
creationist quote miners are *not* a bunch of damned liars and frauds?
We're waiting....
Augray
wrote in <BeadnZMFy9WJ15LX...@earthlink.com> :
Really? How so?
>Are you the author of these words, Jon?
No, I'm not. But I'm sure you recognize if as an allusion to the
phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".
>Why
>the fanaticism; and you honestly think that the
>site is an objective evaluation of the references
>examined?
Would you care to demonstrate that it's not?
>If it were to be an objective project it would be
>conducted by an objective panel having truth as
>its paramount objective.
How do you know that an objective panel wasn't involved?
>Not by a group of intellectual fanatics whose
>paramount agenda is to defend at all costs a
>pseudo-scientific hypothesis which is akin to
>a religion.
If only you were able to back up that claim.
Personally, I think that Archaeopteryx is a great example of a
transitional form.
>>>I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance
>>>may expose us to ridicule.
>>>Yours Sincerely,
>>>[signed]
>>>Colin Patterson
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html <---- From your link.
>>
>> Then why does he accept the reality of evolution?
>
>You imply that for one to maintain a stance of skepticism
>they cannot be an evolutionist, therefore acknowledging
>that it cannot hold up to critical examination. Interesting.
Where on Earth did you get that idea?
Augray
<4a0f1262$0$1593$742e...@news.sonic.net> :
I've never encountered him before, so I don't know.
Ray Fischer
The let me put it another way: Have you encountered an anti-evolution
creationist who was capable of an honest discussion?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Ray Fischer" wrote in message news:4a074f8d$0$1621$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>No, what is observable are adaptions which the
>Creator has programmed into the initial creation
>with the genetic ability to make.
No evidence at all supports your contention that there was programmed
adaptations and a substantial amount of evidence is contrary to your
assertion.
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Ray Fischer" wrote in message news:4a0cdf7b$0$1630$742e...@news.sonic.net...
So, you want us to give you evidence about evolution as long as we
ignore all of the evidence about evolution. Thanks for showing us that
you have no integrity at all.
>>> what is observable are adaptions which the
>>>Creator has programmed into the initial creation
>>>with the genetic ability to make.
>>
>> Except that you have exactly NO observable
>> evidence to support that little, er, "theory".
>
>Please give your evidence, since you made
>the claim. --> "Evolution is observable."
>
Evolution has been observed. You don't like that fact, so you try to
redefine the words to let your false doctrines get past the credulous.
You worship your lies and nothing else.
You have invented a false god.
Augray
<4a10e765$0$1597$742e...@news.sonic.net> :
They do show up occasionally, and then there are the lurkers to keep
in mind.
Big Bob
prove it so, you're grasping. I suppose bearing false witness is
ok in your world.
>
> Your personal incredulity is not scientific
> evidence, but you have pretty much claimed it is.
>
claimed or even hinted at it being evidence of any kind scientific or
otherwise.
>>>
>>The last I
>>> heard, the commandment against that sort of thing had not been
>>> repealed.
>>>
>>If you cannot show where I specifically lied about science, there is a
>>verse which says something about bearing false witness.
>
> Yes, there is. And the politics of ID is a form of it.
>
a lie. Who are you?
RNA is self-replicating under certain conditions.
>
>>> The HUGE problem with this particular latter-day creationism is that
>>> it fails to understand the basic Christian doctrine of God's
>>> universal sovereignty and the FACT that, according to our most
>>> ancient traditions, EVERYTHING, natural or not, is ultimately God's
>>> creation.
>>>
>>> That, of course, is a matter for faith, not scientific inquiry and
>>> I'm seriously opposed to what I see as sectarian theology being slid
>>> into school science courses under the radar, so to speak.
>>>
>>I am probably older than you and I remember before religion in schools
>>was illegal. Once a month there was an assembly in school. This was
>>not mandatory, and I usually skipped it. I felt I had been preached at
>>enough Sundays.
>
> SECTARIAN religion in the schools was always illegal, even when
> the law was successfully flouted.
>
amendment to the constitution, religion in schools was not illegal.
But they were very brief. The services I attended were non-denominational.
Not so here and in the UK where there was an
> established church. You are probably NOT older than me (unless you
> remember ALL of WWII).
>
You got me there. This was a little before my time.
>
We had morning prayer every day. But my science
> classes did not teach about alleged miracles.
>
Do you know of any that did. I took physics and biology in public school
and miracles were never mentioned.
>
> The sectarianism of ID is more subtle than that of YEC, but it is
> present.
>
I agree with those who argue that by defination, intelligent design is not
scientific, in that it cannot be observed, repeated or tested. We cannot
go back into the past, neither is the past events repeatable, also the
designer, whoever of whatever it may be does not summit itself to the
scientific method.
Cory Albrecht
> "Cory Albrecht" wrote in messagenews:ejehd6x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Ray Fischer" wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> "Ray Fischer" wrote:
>
> >>>>> The notion that science stifles science is ridiculous.
>
> >>>> Yes, but Darwinism is not properly classified as true
> >>>> science.
>
> >>> Evolution is a "true" science.
>
> >> "In conclusion, evolution is not observable,
> >> repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not
> >> qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
>
> >> --Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology
> >> from Brown University
>
>
> I notice that you resort to a classic ad hominem in a feeble attempt
> to discredit facts which you don't like. Creation is a fact. Whining
> about it will not change anything.
You know, Andrew, I find it *very* interesting that in for you to make
this claim against me and make it look like I am using an ad hominem
attack that you had to snip over 90% of what I actually said? And that
includes the link containing the information which shows that Dr.
Menton was being less than truthful.
So because I supplied evidence for my claim that Dr. Menton is a liar,
at best that makes calling him a liar an insult but not an ad hominem.
Now whether you want to say that calling somebody a liar is still an
insult even when it is demonstrably true, well, that's a whole
different kettle of fishapods.
Andrew, you're engaging in the same type of dishonest quote mining to
distort that your heroes also engage in.