Things I've Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents
APOCALYPSE
Always talk about their theories in a confrontational setting: their
theories are never their theories, it's always them putting up their
theories against evolution, as if they can only pull their own theories
up by tearing the competing theory down. Evidence challenging evolution
isn't synonymous with evidence for Intelligent Design, yet they don't
seem to know the difference. They are locked into this non-sequitur
battle and it shows how their theory doesn't rely on evidence but
rather it is a default theory in lieu of evidence proving otherwise,
much like a fairy tale.
Evolution proponents can argue for evolution and against Intelligent
Design without conflating the two. The evolution proponents can show a
schizm between arguing FOR something and arguing AGAINST something.
It shows how their true agenda is to knock out evolution, not to
promote a scientifically valid worldview. ID both in theory and in
argument is used to knock out evolution because it doesn't rest on
evidence, it rests on lack of evidence for competing theories.
2. No Acknowledgement of Lack of Evidence
Not one word about the fact that there's no evidence for a being
capable of intelligent design. They don't seem to acknowledge the fact
that their theory is hampered by the lack of any conceivable process in
existence during the early stages of Earth that would have been capable
of creating lifeforms any other way than unguided processes. And
there's not one word on any sort of realistic finds or future
predictions.
To them, their theory "just makes sense". Where's the evidence to be
found that would lead to intelligent design? Where's the supporting
arguments that appeal to actual evidentiary finds? Where are the
designers, the designing processes, the evidence of designed organisms?
They are certain life was designed
3. Ignoring Contrary Evidence:
Here's how a typical rebuttal of ID goes:
1. They propose life was designed
2. Scientists show an example of an undesigned feature (bacterial
enzymes to break down nylon, fruit flies speciating)
3. They dismiss it for no reason whatsoever. They move the goalposts
and change their theory.
Their theory should say "Life was designed...except where it isn't."
because the only actual progress being made is scientists showing and
demonstrating examples of features and diversity arising on its own
with no guiding force.
4. The Sad, Sad Lies of the 500-poung gorilla known as Creationism
Now it's possible to believe in a theory of Intelligent Design without
believing in creationism. One can ignore Jerry Fallhard, Pat
Parkinson's and any of the other nuts too stupid to realize ID has to
get as far away from religion as possible.
But you can't ignore that for ID to be a scientific theory, it requires
faith in the existence of a designer for which there is no proof. That
works as a philosophy, but as a science, that means part of the theory
there is not one iota of evidence for.
5. Equivocating Evolution with Religion
According to IDists, extrapolating from evidence is bad science
(religion), when it supports a theory that's supposedly contrasts with
religion. Where are the cries for teaching that star-formation and
planetary formation are just theories? Where's the cry for labelling a
theory the idea that gravity, and not Intelligent Falling, was
responsible for the formation of planets and other bodies? Where are
the cries against forensic science, which extrapolates based on
evidence with little or no actual concrete proof? It's only evolution,
which they see as an attack on them, which gets special scrutiny.
AndreVan
>
> 5. Equivocating Evolution with Religion
>
> According to IDists, extrapolating from evidence is bad science
> (religion), when it supports a theory that's supposedly contrasts with
> religion. Where are the cries for teaching that star-formation and
> planetary formation are just theories? Where's the cry for labelling a
> theory the idea that gravity, and not Intelligent Falling, was
> responsible for the formation of planets and other bodies? Where are
> the cries against forensic science, which extrapolates based on
> evidence with little or no actual concrete proof? It's only evolution,
> which they see as an attack on them, which gets special scrutiny.
'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
and tertiary institutions.
They are all based on the interpretation of existing evidence. None of
them are proven scientific 'fact'.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> and tertiary institutions.
> They are all based on the interpretation of existing evidence. None of
> them are proven scientific 'fact'.
Physics and chemistry too, right?
I mean, just because HCl + NaOH gave me NaCl and H2O this time, doesn't
mean I can count on the same thing happening next time.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
thissteve
AndreVan wrote:
>
> Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> and tertiary institutions.
Does General Relativity belong in "philosophical studies"? Isn't it
just interpretation of evidence?
NashtOn
> 1. Confrontationism: ID versus Evolution, Creationism vs. the World:
>
> Always talk about their theories in a confrontational setting: their
> theories are never their theories, it's always them putting up their
> theories against evolution, as if they can only pull their own theories
> up by tearing the competing theory down. Evidence challenging evolution
> isn't synonymous with evidence for Intelligent Design, yet they don't
> seem to know the difference. They are locked into this non-sequitur
> battle and it shows how their theory doesn't rely on evidence but
> rather it is a default theory in lieu of evidence proving otherwise,
> much like a fairy tale.
>
> Evolution proponents can argue for evolution and against Intelligent
> Design without conflating the two. The evolution proponents can show a
> schizm between arguing FOR something and arguing AGAINST something.
>
> It shows how their true agenda is to knock out evolution, not to
> promote a scientifically valid worldview.
Evolution does this by itself. It is lacking and supports a worldview
where living beings are a product of randomness.
ID both in theory and in
> argument is used to knock out evolution because it doesn't rest on
> evidence, it rests on lack of evidence for competing theories.
There is evidence for evolution, but evolution is not observable. Any
scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific
and is in the realm of speculation and wishful thinking and in the case
of the ToE, according to a wroldview of materialism and G_dless naturalism.
>
>
> 2. No Acknowledgement of Lack of Evidence
>
> Not one word about the fact that there's no evidence for a being
> capable of intelligent design. They don't seem to acknowledge the fact
> that their theory is hampered by the lack of any conceivable process in
> existence during the early stages of Earth that would have been capable
> of creating lifeforms any other way than unguided processes. And
> there's not one word on any sort of realistic finds or future
> predictions.
>
> To them, their theory "just makes sense". Where's the evidence to be
> found that would lead to intelligent design? Where's the supporting
> arguments that appeal to actual evidentiary finds? Where are the
> designers, the designing processes, the evidence of designed organisms?
>
> They are certain life was designed
Many are certain that there is not enough proof for the ToE.
Yawn
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
AndreVan
belief that everything came from a primordial cell?
AndreVan
Radix2
Raymond Griffith
On 1/29/06 8:36 PM, in article
1138585017.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "APOCALYPSE"
<reigno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is a savvy calculation with an irony lost on the hearers.
Fundamentalism is a religion, but the followers will steadfastly deny being
"religious". They equate "religion" with futile attempts to know God
(despite the fact that James does not defame religion, but calls for one's
religion to be worth something!), calling their form of it a "relationship"
(which is not even a Bible word!).
It is a form of redefinition. "You are religious, and lost; we are not
religious and are 'saved by grace'." Funny that they seem to have forgotten
that "saved" means to be saved from ones sins and sinful behavior. Even
Peter says that we have been redeemed from our former manner of living.
Having made "religion" a dirty word, they then apply it to those scientists
who use the traditional definition of science. If you don't allow their
redefinition of terms, you are somehow a "religious atheist" or an
"Evolutionary religionist". They try to cloak themselves with the much more
respectable mantle of "scientific" (which they do by redefinition of terms
as well).
And of course, by "denying God" in their philosophy (to make themselves less
religious and more secular!) they seek to promote godliness and morality.
Those who wish to let others have their religious freedom (preventing
fundamentalists from enforcing their religious viewpoint on others),
Constitutionally protecting the freedom of religion for all are accused of
supporting atheism. The "moral" society envisioned by the reconstructionists
is not a society of free peoples. The only way for them to not be persecuted
is to let them persecute others.
It is all a grand confusion -- and the leaders of the cults know it.
Confusion is their major weapon. Turn every criticism of their wickedness
back onto others! Fundamentalists, needing to redefine history and theology
to fit their own reductionist viewpoint, also have to redefine everything
else. They even manage to take a majority power position in government and
make it seem like Christians are a persecuted minority rather than a
corruptible majority.
It is in many ways equivalent to the Orwellian Big Lie. Repeat a lie often
enough and people are sure to believe it. Those who protest the lie are
branded as liars themselves and mistrusted.
Fortunately, Fundamentalism is not equivalent to Christianity. It is too bad
we have such political apathy in our country where the center has given
control to the extremes. And if this is not corrected, the grand experiment
in democracy that America stands for will collapse as we become another
fundamentalist state.
One thing is certain -- the leaders of such a state will be more corrupt
than the "secularists" they would replace, and the laws they would pass
would be more unjust and cruel. They would not bring heaven on earth, but
would make life and living more hellish.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Lee Jay
> > What are you on? What does physics and chemistry have to do with the
> > belief that everything came from a primordial cell?
I know these don't need to be seconded, but I just can't help myself!
Seconded.
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
> There is evidence for evolution, but evolution is not observable. Any
> scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific
Ignoring for the moment the fact that evolution *is* observable, you
are arguing that the observations of black holes are not science
because black holes aren't observable. If you observe their effects
(tidal forces tearing apart stars, gravitation causing fast orbits,
accretion, radiation, magnetic fields, etc.), and you can't see the
object itself where it should be, you *can* conclude that it's a black
hole.
Electrons aren't observable. Does that mean you don't believe in
lightning (an observable effect of electrons on other molecules)? Does
it mean you don't believe in the electricity running the computer you
are currently using (another observable effect of electrons)? Does it
mean you don't believe in chemistry (which is really the study of
electrons)?
Lee Jay
Radix2
Just to be clear, this nomination was for the post from AndreVan.
Original at
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1a7123b76ce9a1d7
I'd hate to be tarred with that brush.... :-)
Lee Jay
> Just to be clear, this nomination was for the post from AndreVan.
> Original at
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1a7123b76ce9a1d7
>
> I'd hate to be tarred with that brush.... :-)
Whoops! My sincerest apologies for my over-use of the "delete" key!
I'll be more careful in the future. ;-)
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
Yes it does - just like the evidence for the theory of evolution. And
they're both called "theories", imagine that! If the evidence didn't
support them, they'd be called something like, "disproven hypotheses".
If there was no evidence yet, they would just be called, "hypotheses".
But since there is evidence, and the evidence supports them, they are
called "theories".
Lee Jay
wf...@comcast.net
>APOCALYPSE wrote:
>
>>
>> It shows how their true agenda is to knock out evolution, not to
>> promote a scientifically valid worldview.
>
>Evolution does this by itself. It is lacking and supports a worldview
>where living beings are a product of randomness.
only insofar as you think your worldview is the only legitimate one,
and science proves it's wrong.
other worldviews are not affected
>
> ID both in theory and in
>> argument is used to knock out evolution because it doesn't rest on
>> evidence, it rests on lack of evidence for competing theories.
>
>
>There is evidence for evolution, but evolution is not observable.
bacterial resistance development isn't observable??
Any
>scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific
>and is in the realm of speculation and wishful thinking and in the case
>of the ToE, according to a wroldview of materialism and G_dless naturalism.
your view of god. your view of nature.
which is completely arbitrary.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. Equivocating Evolution with Religion
>>
>> According to IDists, extrapolating from evidence is bad science
>> (religion), when it supports a theory that's supposedly contrasts with
>> religion. Where are the cries for teaching that star-formation and
>> planetary formation are just theories? Where's the cry for labelling a
>> theory the idea that gravity, and not Intelligent Falling, was
>> responsible for the formation of planets and other bodies? Where are
>> the cries against forensic science, which extrapolates based on
>> evidence with little or no actual concrete proof? It's only evolution,
>> which they see as an attack on them, which gets special scrutiny.
>>
>
>Yawn
he seems to be very tired. when his arguments are treated like a baby
treats a diaper,
he yawns, having no response
APOCALYPSE
and to the
Moderate religious people are good but unfortunately religious
moderation is more a supporter of status quo than an engine for any
real change. The only religious folks doing any changing are the
fundies with the money, TV stations and the ear of our nation's
president. More than any other group, Bush takes all his cues from the
most hate-filled fundamentalists in this nation.
APOCALYPSE
any evidence. Creationism is based on a word-for-word take on genesis
(with no interpreting the words: they are taken at face value) whereas
ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, as that would
call for actual modifications of the theory). evolution is based on
comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology,
zoology, geneology, and many other scientific branches, and putting it
all together into one coherent theory. Not to mention proven examples
of speciation in bacteria and fruit flies.
Mark VandeWettering
Have you ever seen an electron? A chemical bond forming or breaking?
Chemists would have you believe that you can take H2 and O2 and make
water, and H20 and break it back into H2 and O2. One of these reactions
is obviously in violation of the 2nd law of thermaldynamics.
If chemistry were of any use to anyone, it would be in the Bible.
Mark
Timberwoof
Mark VandeWettering <wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
> On 2006-01-30, AndreVan <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >
> >> Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> >> > 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> >> > and tertiary institutions.
> >> > They are all based on the interpretation of existing evidence. None of
> >> > them are proven scientific 'fact'.
> >>
> >> Physics and chemistry too, right?
> >>
> >> I mean, just because HCl + NaOH gave me NaCl and H2O this time, doesn't
> >> mean I can count on the same thing happening next time.
> > What are you on? What does physics and chemistry have to do with the
> > belief that everything came from a primordial cell?
>
> Have you ever seen an electron? A chemical bond forming or breaking?
> Chemists would have you believe that you can take H2 and O2 and make
> water, and H20 and break it back into H2 and O2. One of these reactions
> is obviously in violation of the 2nd law of thermaldynamics.
Hell, either charging or discharging a battery is just as much in violation of
the Second Law -- I'm not sure which, but it is!
> If chemistry were of any use to anyone, it would be in the Bible.
Well, it is. Didn't Jesus change some water into some wine?
(And God's car is a Plymouth. It says so in Genesis: "He drove them out in a
Fury.")
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Hell, either charging or discharging a battery is just as much in violation of
> the Second Law -- I'm not sure which, but it is!
Charging a battery does not violate any law of thermodynamics. The
energy used in pushing a stream of electrons into a battery is then
transformed when the elements of the elctrolyte are separated. No energy
is created out of nothing.
Some energy is lost in heat in the process, so the energy recovered from
a re-charged battery is less than the energy that went in to charge it up.
Bob Kolker
Stuart
Creation science is based on bullshit.
None of
> them are proven scientific 'fact'.
Neither is QM. Yet your computer works.
Fancy that.
Stuart
Stuart
Everything.
Stuart
Jesus H Christ
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> and tertiary institutions.
What fucking bullshit.
Evolutionary theory is a product of the scientific process.
The others are not.
> They are all based on the interpretation of existing evidence.
You ignoramus, interpretation of 'existing' eg historical evidence is NOT
the only scientific support of evolution.
Go read some modern evolutionary science before opening your mouth again,
assclown.
> None of
> them are proven scientific 'fact'.
And there we have the idiotic assertion of the week.
ASSCLOWN, EVOLUTION AND COMMON DESCENT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
THE *ONLY* MATTERS UP FOR DISCUSSION ARE *HOW* AND *HOW FAST*.
Iain
NashtOn wrote:
> APOCALYPSE wrote:
> > 1. Confrontationism: ID versus Evolution, Creationism vs. the World:
> >
> > Always talk about their theories in a confrontational setting: their
> > theories are never their theories, it's always them putting up their
> > theories against evolution, as if they can only pull their own theories
> > up by tearing the competing theory down. Evidence challenging evolution
> > isn't synonymous with evidence for Intelligent Design, yet they don't
> > seem to know the difference. They are locked into this non-sequitur
> > battle and it shows how their theory doesn't rely on evidence but
> > rather it is a default theory in lieu of evidence proving otherwise,
> > much like a fairy tale.
> >
> > Evolution proponents can argue for evolution and against Intelligent
> > Design without conflating the two. The evolution proponents can show a
> > schizm between arguing FOR something and arguing AGAINST something.
> >
> > It shows how their true agenda is to knock out evolution, not to
> > promote a scientifically valid worldview.
>
> Evolution does this by itself. It is lacking and supports a worldview
> where living beings are a product of randomness.
No soul on earth believes that. Show me one.
~Iain
Ye Old One
Two are pure religion, evolution is pure science.
--
Bob.
Iain
Lee Jay wrote:
> NashtOn wrote:
> > There is evidence for evolution, but evolution is not observable. Any
> > scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific
> > and is in the realm of speculation and wishful thinking...
>
> Ignoring for the moment the fact that evolution *is* observable, you
> are arguing that the observations of black holes are not science
> because black holes aren't observable.
The best analogy for the observability of evolution is continental
drift, et cetera.
~Iain
APOCALYPSE
I'm curious if you can do more than spout unfounded, refuted assertions
or if your intellectual capacities were taxed to even produce that.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> and tertiary institutions. They are all based on the interpretation
> of existing evidence. None of them are proven scientific 'fact'.
But the same thing could be said of "atomic theory." Nobody can
actually see an atom (or even a molecule); our understanding of atomic
theory is completely based upon evidence at two or more removes from the
atoms themselves. Do you believe that atomic theory belongs in a
religious studies class?
Elf
Josh M.
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138618787.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Have you ever met a creationist?
Joe Cooper
> If chemistry were of any use to anyone, it would be in the Bible.
>
> Mark
>
Isnt there a web page for penetrating and intelligent remarks
supporting creationism
Joe Cooper
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/Schools/what/atoms.html
--
Bob.
Glend
> 1. Confrontationism: ID versus Evolution, Creationism vs. the World:
>
> Always talk about their theories in a confrontational setting: their
> theories are never their theories, it's always them putting up their
> theories against evolution, as if they can only pull their own theories
> up by tearing the competing theory down. Evidence challenging evolution
> isn't synonymous with evidence for Intelligent Design, yet they don't
> seem to know the difference. They are locked into this non-sequitur
> battle and it shows how their theory doesn't rely on evidence but
> rather it is a default theory in lieu of evidence proving otherwise,
> much like a fairy tale.
>
> Evolution proponents can argue for evolution and against Intelligent
> Design without conflating the two. The evolution proponents can show a
> schizm between arguing FOR something and arguing AGAINST something.
>
> It shows how their true agenda is to knock out evolution, not to
> argument is used to knock out evolution because it doesn't rest on
> evidence, it rests on lack of evidence for competing theories.
>
>
>
> According to IDists, extrapolating from evidence is bad science
> (religion), when it supports a theory that's supposedly contrasts with
> religion. Where are the cries for teaching that star-formation and
> planetary formation are just theories? Where's the cry for labelling a
> theory the idea that gravity, and not Intelligent Falling, was
> responsible for the formation of planets and other bodies? Where are
> the cries against forensic science, which extrapolates based on
> evidence with little or no actual concrete proof? It's only evolution,
> which they see as an attack on them, which gets special scrutiny.
Nearly all of this can be collapsed down to one observation about
IDists: They wish to simply define the complexity of life as
"designed", and they wish for this definition to supersede all normal
measures of design.
Were they serious about showing life to be designed using accepted
measure for design, they would be moving past Paley's, "I know it when
I see it". They'd show us how everything is designed at least as well
as a human would design things, the purposes of the "designs" we see in
nature, the constraints (if any) that the designer encountered, and
most of all, that intelligence is actually capable of designing the
complexities of life.
I think the latter is particularly telling about ID. How absurd to
suggest that complex structures we as intelligent beings couldn't even
begin to produce at the present time (alongside design elements that
we'd immediately improve in a some cases) should, by analogy with human
design, be considered to be the default explanation for life's
complexities. Not that anything could really be the default
explanation, but clearly the intelligence that we know is not even in
the running as a candidate for a default explanation for life.
The reasons why gods were invoked as the explanation for life in the
first place is that human-type design is not evident in nature, with
neither human purposes nor human capabilities being evident in
organisms (which is why the "designer" of the IDists is neither human
nor humanoid, meaning once again that it is God). The IDiots are so
far removed from both science, and religion in its "natural state",
that they fail to notice that their anthropoid analogy is completely
inadequate for explaining organisms (OK, some are probably lying at
least in part, but if one notices how inept one like Behe is at dealing
with the overall issues, one realizes that at least some of these
people are incredibly ignorant sods), that no aliens would ever be
supposed by competent scientists to be the source of wild-type genetic
codes, and that any animal-designer would have designed for such
different purposes and through such different means than we recognize
that such a being would have to be a god of some kind.
It all comes back to the fact that they simply wish to re-define life
as designed, and not to bother with the evidence except in the most
tangential fashion. They re-define what "counts as evidence for
design", without any supporting evidence for their assertions, and
re-define the default position of what is not known to be "God's
doings" (OK, "Designer's doings"). This is their entire "scientific
project", indeed, this attempt to bypass the actual predictions
possible as a design hypothesis (because all such predictions have
failed), and to substitute unsubstantiated measures of design in place
of the scientific measures of design (to be sure, we don't really have
"measures of design" (since "design" doesn't really capture human's
animal purposes for manipulating the world), only various means of
showing that humans were responsible for various objects, but we can
use "measure of design" loosely in this context if we wish).
Their entire motivation in the matter of life is to brush off the
science that has failed their prejudices, and to redefine "science" to
fit their prejudices. Any scientific discussion of the evidences
simply gets in the way of this project that they are focused upon, and
in their minds it only makes sense to dismiss all real science and to
get back to their attempt to make science into an apologia for their
religion.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
APOCALYPSE
The ID theory (or pseudotheory) only works in the absence of competing
explanations. Unlike other scientific explanations which rest on
evidence, ID rests on not having any other explanations:
The very wording is clear "Life is too complex to be explained without
a designer." because the theory itself was created to knock out a
competing explanation. Such a bias constrains IDists to discrediting
other theories to make their own theory the "best" explanation, which
is why IDists are so adamant about repeating falsities and untruths
about evolution and being virtually silent on what role natural
selection plays in ID.
Ash
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
>>> and tertiary institutions.
>>> They are all based on the interpretation of existing evidence. None of
>>> them are proven scientific 'fact'.
>>
>> I mean, just because HCl + NaOH gave me NaCl and H2O this time, doesn't
>> mean I can count on the same thing happening next time.
> What are you on? What does physics and chemistry have to do with the
> belief that everything came from a primordial cell?
huh?
I can't see any mention of primordial cell, so what the hell are you
babling about?
Ash
> thissteve wrote:
>> AndreVan wrote:
>>> Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
>>> 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
>>> and tertiary institutions.
>> just interpretation of evidence?
> Does the evidence support it or not?
>
John Burton
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
>>'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
>>and tertiary institutions.
>>them are proven scientific 'fact'.
>
>
> Physics and chemistry too, right?
>
> I mean, just because HCl + NaOH gave me NaCl and H2O this time, doesn't
> mean I can count on the same thing happening next time.
>
How do you know you started with HCl aND NaOH? Could you see the
molecules? If you could, how did you identify them? If you did identify
them properly, how do you know they did not change into something else
before the reaction? How do you know these terms you are using aren't
just different names for the same things? How do you know the latter
molecules didn't pop into existence spontaneously with no relation to
the former ones? How do you know God didn't change the first molucules
into the second ones? How do we know you didn't just present NaCl and
H2O that you got from somewhere else and then claim that it came from
HCl and NaOH? How do we know that chemistry is not just a godless cult
bent on the destruction of everything Godly and American?
John
NashtOn
> NashtOn wrote:
>
>>There is evidence for evolution, but evolution is not observable. Any
>>scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific
>>and is in the realm of speculation and wishful thinking...
>
>
> Ignoring for the moment the fact that evolution *is* observable, you
> are arguing that the observations of black holes are not science
> (tidal forces tearing apart stars, gravitation causing fast orbits,
> accretion, radiation, magnetic fields, etc.), and you can't see the
> object itself where it should be, you *can* conclude that it's a black
> hole.
>
> Electrons aren't observable. Does that mean you don't believe in
> lightning (an observable effect of electrons on other molecules)? Does
> it mean you don't believe in the electricity running the computer you
> are currently using (another observable effect of electrons)? Does it
> mean you don't believe in chemistry (which is really the study of
> electrons)?
>
> Lee Jay
>
Do people who study black holes and other astrophysical phenomena also
xpost to atheism ngs? ;)
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Richard Forrest
NashtOn wrote:
> Lee Jay wrote:
> > NashtOn wrote:
> >
> >>There is evidence for evolution, but evolution is not observable. Any
> >>scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific
> >>and is in the realm of speculation and wishful thinking...
> >
> >
> > Ignoring for the moment the fact that evolution *is* observable, you
> > are arguing that the observations of black holes are not science
> > because black holes aren't observable. If you observe their effects
> > (tidal forces tearing apart stars, gravitation causing fast orbits,
> > accretion, radiation, magnetic fields, etc.), and you can't see the
> > object itself where it should be, you *can* conclude that it's a black
> > hole.
> >
> > Electrons aren't observable. Does that mean you don't believe in
> > lightning (an observable effect of electrons on other molecules)? Does
> > it mean you don't believe in the electricity running the computer you
> > are currently using (another observable effect of electrons)? Does it
> > mean you don't believe in chemistry (which is really the study of
> > electrons)?
> >
> > Lee Jay
> >
>
> Do people who study black holes and other astrophysical phenomena also
> xpost to atheism ngs? ;)
Killer argument!
If people who study black holes post to atheism ngs, black holes can
not exist.
We'd better cross-check the logs of those groups to resolve the problem
with which physicists have been struggling for decade. What a waste of
time for academics like Steven Hawkin to spend their lives trying to
figure out the mathematical conundrums of quantum physics: all he
needed to do was to wait for the invention of the internet, and see who
posts on the newsgroups.
RF
Ye Old One
Why do you use Godly and American in conjunction?
--
Bob.
AndreVan
> AndreVan wrote:
> > thissteve wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> > > > 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> > > > and tertiary institutions.
> > >
> > > just interpretation of evidence?
> > Does the evidence support it or not?
>
> they're both called "theories", imagine that!
Two questions for you and any others on this forum to answer:
1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
showing it to be a fact?
2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
theory, just a weak hypothesis.
Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>If the evidence didn't support them, they'd be called something like, "disproven hypotheses".
> If there was no evidence yet, they would just be called, "hypotheses".
> But since there is evidence, and the evidence supports them, they are
> called "theories".
AndreVan
I was referring to the issue of origins, ie: evolution, creation and
intelligent design; NOT physics and chemistry. Read the posts more
carefully.
Origin stories should be in religious studies or philosophy classes,
not in the science classes, this includes the story of evolution.
VoiceOfReason
AndreVan wrote:
> 1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
> showing it to be a fact?
There are buildings called libraries. They have lots of books.
> Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
One of those books is called a dictionary.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
SRNissen
Mr Kolker, I suggest that you aquire a sense of humor.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>Lee Jay wrote:
>> AndreVan wrote:
>> > thissteve wrote:
>> > > AndreVan wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
>> > > > 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
>> > > > and tertiary institutions.
>> > >
>> > > Does General Relativity belong in "philosophical studies"? Isn't it
>> > > just interpretation of evidence?
>> > Does the evidence support it or not?
>>
>> Yes it does - just like the evidence for the theory of evolution. And
>> they're both called "theories", imagine that!
>Two questions for you and any others on this forum to answer:
>
>1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
>showing it to be a fact?\\
evolution is seen in the fossil record and in the lab. 'molecules to
man' evolution is irrelevant since evolution is established fact
>2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
>evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
we can't cure the common cold but that doesn't mean viruses dont
exist. you're pushing god of the gaps here.
>
>I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
>theory, just a weak hypothesis.
>Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
except that the world's scientific community disagrees with your
unsubstantiated assertion.
SRNissen
Since you apparantly do not understand evolution, let me spell it out
to you:
Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
=> 2H_2O
VoiceOfReason
Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
rationalization.
CreateThis
> Two questions for you and any others on this forum to answer:
Do you think that asking self-serving questions of a few mostly amateur
scientists is an honest attempt to investigate evolution? Do you think
displaying your own willful, lazy ignorance reflects negatively on
evolution?
CT
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
>showing it to be a fact?
I, personally, was once just a bunch of molecules. Today I am an
adult human male. Ergo, molecules to man. (Yes, I am still just a
bunch of molecules as well, but that does not invalidate the
conclusion.)
>2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
>evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
I can observe, test, and repeat the process of biological evolution,
yes.
Your turn. Can you observe, test, and repeat the process of divine
creation?
>I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
>theory, just a weak hypothesis.
And you are wrong.
>Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
Creationists sure hate religion a lot. I wish they would not. The
hatred, hubris, gullibility, and stupidity which they bring to their
religion is not necessarily true of all religion.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dana Tweedy
"AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140077368.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Lee Jay wrote:
>> AndreVan wrote:
>> > thissteve wrote:
>> > > AndreVan wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
>> > > > 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in
>> > > > schools
>> > > > and tertiary institutions.
>> > >
>> > > Does General Relativity belong in "philosophical studies"? Isn't it
>> > > just interpretation of evidence?
>> > Does the evidence support it or not?
>>
>> Yes it does - just like the evidence for the theory of evolution. And
>> they're both called "theories", imagine that!
> Two questions for you and any others on this forum to answer:
>
> 1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
> showing it to be a fact?
Yes, I can, but it would take up too much space in a simple usenet posting.
Here's just a sampling of the lines of evidence:
Genetic evidence
Anatomical evidence
Fossil evidence
Biochemical evidence
Molecular evidence
Biogeographical evidence
Biostratographcial evidence
> 2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
> evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
Yes, you can.
>
> I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
> theory, just a weak hypothesis.
You may "put it to" however you want, but you are wrong. Evolution is both
a fact, and a theory.
> Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
No, it's not. There is a difference between a scientific theory, and a
religious belief.
DJT
Stephen Frost
> evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
> => 2H_2O
Funny thing is ... once upon a time Steady State *was* physics ... and its
not that long ago that Phlogiston Theory *was* chemistry (if you don't
believe me, here's a reference for the latter:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html)
Exactly what guarantees will science offer us today to assure us that it
won't change its mind tomorrow, discard evolution, and embrace something
else?
Short answer: none. Real science holds its theories tentatively. Maybe, in
about 50,000 or 100,000 years, based on empirical testing, repeated
experiments, and recorded histry, someone may be able to show that evolution
really happened in a measurable way. But until then ...
wal...@easystreet.com
its strength. And science has been pretty good at getting the big
things right, like evolution. Future scientific research will yield
more finely tuned theories about the processes and mechanisms of
evolution, but the fact that evolution occurs has not yet been
challenged successfully. You're welcome to try, however, and should
start submitting your research papers for peer review.
MLW
SRNissen
Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
> > evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
> > => 2H_2O
>
> Funny thing is ... once upon a time Steady State *was* physics ... and its
> not that long ago that Phlogiston Theory *was* chemistry (if you don't
> believe me, here's a reference for the latter:
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html)
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of phologiston theory. Phlogiston
theory was not just some mad idea that all scientists agreed on. It was
an excellent theory that perfectly explained all available data. When
new data was discovered later, phlogiston theory was abandoned, but it
is still easy to see why people thought it was true.
> Exactly what guarantees will science offer us today to assure us that it
> won't change its mind tomorrow, discard evolution, and embrace something
> else?
>
> Short answer: none. Real science holds its theories tentatively. Maybe, in
> about 50,000 or 100,000 years, based on empirical testing, repeated
> experiments, and recorded histry, someone may be able to show that evolution
> really happened in a measurable way. But until then ...
And exactly like phlogiston theory, the ToE perfectly explains all
available data. Maybe later data will show that we misunderstood
something, but there is nothing, currently, that disproves the ToE, and
if something really does come along to do it, the ToE will still be
very very close to the truth, just like phlogiston theory was.
Richard Forrest
Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
> > evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
> > => 2H_2O
>
> Funny thing is ... once upon a time Steady State *was* physics ... and its
> not that long ago that Phlogiston Theory *was* chemistry (if you don't
> believe me, here's a reference for the latter:
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html)
>
> Exactly what guarantees will science offer us today to assure us that it
> won't change its mind tomorrow, discard evolution, and embrace something
> else?
There are no such guarantees. Science is not in the business of
offering reasuring certainties.
If you want certainties, turn to religion. You can then have the
certainty that when you die you will be taken up to heaven by angels.
Or that, depending on your behaviour in this world, go to hell. Or that
you will be reborn as an ant. Or that you will feast forever in the
company of warriors, waited on by buxom nordic wenches. Or that the
ferryman will take you across the river Styx to the underworld. Or that
you'll drink nectar in the company of multitudes of virgins.
Of course, they can't all be right.
But how do you tell which one is the truth?
>
> Short answer: none. Real science holds its theories tentatively. Maybe, in
> about 50,000 or 100,000 years, based on empirical testing, repeated
> experiments, and recorded histry, someone may be able to show that evolution
> really happened in a measurable way.
Evolution has been verified through empirical testing, experiment and
historical records. We don't need tens of thousands of years.
> But until then ...
....you'll continue to gain comfort from the certainties you wish to
believe.
So how do you tell which one is true?
RF
Alexander
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
> > > evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
> > > => 2H_2O
> >
> > Funny thing is ... once upon a time Steady State *was* physics ... and its
> > not that long ago that Phlogiston Theory *was* chemistry (if you don't
> > believe me, here's a reference for the latter:
> > http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html)
> >
> > Exactly what guarantees will science offer us today to assure us that it
> > won't change its mind tomorrow, discard evolution, and embrace something
> > else?
>
> There are no such guarantees. Science is not in the business of
> offering reasuring certainties.
>
>
> If you want certainties, turn to religion. You can then have the
> certainty that when you die you will be taken up to heaven by angels.
> Or that, depending on your behaviour in this world, go to hell. Or that
> you will be reborn as an ant. Or that you will feast forever in the
> company of warriors, waited on by buxom nordic wenches. Or that the
> ferryman will take you across the river Styx to the underworld. Or that
> you'll drink nectar in the company of multitudes of virgins.
>
> Of course, they can't all be right.
> But how do you tell which one is the truth?
Nordic wenches! Nordic wenches! Well ok that's not so much a belief as
an aspiration.
TomS
<11401448...@proxy.uecomm.net.au>, Stephen Frost stated..."
Phlogiston was a theoretical construct intended to explain
such facts as combustion.
While the theory was abandoned, no one has denied the reality
of combustion.
Your example doesn't cast doubt on the status of evolution.
Instead, it suggests that, while the theories may come and go,
the underlying reality is quite secure. It suggests only that
our present theories about evolution are subject to change.
While evolution is like combustion: Evolution is a change which
we observe happening in the world of life, and combustion is a
change which we observe happening in the world of chemicals.
I suggest that you have chosen a poor example.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
SRNissen
MMmmm. Valhalla.
Unfortunately, my own christian dedication will prevent me from
feasting with the valkyrier.
AndreVan
know it. When you get your rational mind back, please supply the
observable, testable and repeatable scientific evidence for the
evolution of all life from a primordial cell.
If you can't comprehend what I'm asking for, here's a science
experiment for you: make both hands a fist, extend 2 fingers on your
left hand, now extend 2 fingers on your right hand, now place these
extended fingers on the table in front of you. How many extended
fingers in total are on the table? You should get 4. Do the experiment
over and over, you will always get the same result.
AndreVan
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
> > > evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
> > > => 2H_2O
> >
> > Funny thing is ... once upon a time Steady State *was* physics ... and its
> > not that long ago that Phlogiston Theory *was* chemistry (if you don't
> > believe me, here's a reference for the latter:
> > http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html)
> >
> > Exactly what guarantees will science offer us today to assure us that it
> > won't change its mind tomorrow, discard evolution, and embrace something
> > else?
>
> There are no such guarantees. Science is not in the business of
> offering reasuring certainties.
>
>
> If you want certainties, turn to religion. You can then have the
> certainty that when you die you will be taken up to heaven by angels.
> Or that, depending on your behaviour in this world, go to hell. Or that
> you will be reborn as an ant. Or that you will feast forever in the
> company of warriors, waited on by buxom nordic wenches. Or that the
> ferryman will take you across the river Styx to the underworld. Or that
> you'll drink nectar in the company of multitudes of virgins.
>
> Of course, they can't all be right.
> But how do you tell which one is the truth?
to the Father but by me."
>
> >
> > Short answer: none. Real science holds its theories tentatively. Maybe, in
> > about 50,000 or 100,000 years, based on empirical testing, repeated
> > experiments, and recorded histry, someone may be able to show that evolution
> > really happened in a measurable way.
>
> Evolution has been verified through empirical testing, experiment and
> historical records. We don't need tens of thousands of years.
You're either lying, or you're ill-informed. Can you offer this
empirical testing, experiment and historical record?
>
> > But until then ...
>
> ....you'll continue to gain comfort from the certainties you wish to
> believe.
>
> So how do you tell which one is true?
You'll know when you arrive on the other side of death. Unfortunatley
by then it will be too late to change your mind.
AndreVan
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
> >
> > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
>
> Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
> rationalization.
The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
becomes.
AndreVan
> On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lee Jay wrote:
> >> AndreVan wrote:
> >> > thissteve wrote:
> >> > > AndreVan wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> >> > > > 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> >> > > > and tertiary institutions.
> >> > >
> >> > > Does General Relativity belong in "philosophical studies"? Isn't it
> >> > > just interpretation of evidence?
> >> > Does the evidence support it or not?
> >>
> >> Yes it does - just like the evidence for the theory of evolution. And
> >> they're both called "theories", imagine that!
> >Two questions for you and any others on this forum to answer:
> >
> >1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
> >showing it to be a fact?
>
> evolution is seen in the fossil record and in the lab. 'molecules to
> man' evolution is irrelevant since evolution is established fact
Exactly what evolution is seen in the lab that shows the mechanism for
all life evolving from a primordial cell?
>
> >2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
> >evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
>
> we can't cure the common cold but that doesn't mean viruses dont
> exist. you're pushing god of the gaps here.
LOL! Why don't you just say nothing. A very poor attempt at
side-stepping the simple question put to you. Are you suggesting
viruses are the mechanism for the evolution of life from a common cell?
If so, do you have scientific evidence for this?
>
> >
> >I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
> >theory, just a weak hypothesis.
> >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>
> except that the world's scientific community disagrees with your
> unsubstantiated assertion.
I couldn't care less what the secular scientific community thinks, they
of all people should know better.
neverbetter
AndreVan kirjoitti:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
> > >
> > > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
> The only lie is that evolution is science. Evolution is a philosophy.
> Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
> completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
Please define the word "lie". You seem to be using it in a completely
idiosyncratic manner. BTW, your statement would constitute a lie in
most traditional interpretations of the word.
> >
> > Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
> > rationalization.
> The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
> rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
> along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
> becomes.
Do you think Jesus would like you to base your faith on lies?
AndreVan
excuse that the evidence takes up too much space is a popular one. Are
we supposed to just take your word for it?
It appears that evolutionists are never able to actually produce any
scientific evidence for their case, as if they're too afraid to share
it.
I wait patiently with anticipation.
>
>
> > 2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
> > evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
>
> Yes, you can.
Oh how lovely! Are we just supposed to just take your word for it? Who
made you the ruler over knowledge?
As you've said we can observe it, please provide the empirical
scientific evidence.
>
> >
> > I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
> > theory, just a weak hypothesis.
>
> You may "put it to" however you want, but you are wrong. Evolution is both
> a fact, and a theory.
Your argument is false, as you yourself are unable to provide the
required empirical evidence for it.
>
> > Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>
> No, it's not. There is a difference between a scientific theory, and a
> religious belief.
Evolution is not even a theory, and its not science. It is a belief in
the origins of life, a belief in where you came from.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>What complete rubbish! Evolution has nothing to do with science and you
>know it.
and fish haven nothing to do with swimming
this kind of laughable unsupported assertion by christianists makes
one wonder why they think tossing such garbage into cyberspace is an
argument.
When you get your rational mind back, please supply the
>observable, testable and repeatable scientific evidence for the
>evolution of all life from a primordial cell.
well, there's the fossil record for starters...
oh. you dont do facts...
AndreVan
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
> >showing it to be a fact?
>
> I, personally, was once just a bunch of molecules. Today I am an
> adult human male. Ergo, molecules to man. (Yes, I am still just a
> bunch of molecules as well, but that does not invalidate the
> conclusion.)
What empirical evidence do you have that all present life evolved from
a common cell.
>
> >2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
> >evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
>
> I can observe, test, and repeat the process of biological evolution,
> yes.
Then provide the scientific evidence.
>
> Your turn. Can you observe, test, and repeat the process of divine
> creation?
Am I God? Your question is willfull ignorance. I'm in no position to
claim Divine creation as a fact. However, evolutionists claim evolution
to be a scientific fact, therefore it follows that they should have no
problem supplying the empirical scientific evidence for all life
evolving from a cell, and non-living matter becoming a living cell.
>
> >I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
> >theory, just a weak hypothesis.
>
> And you are wrong.
>
> >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>
> Creationists sure hate religion a lot. I wish they would not. The
> hatred, hubris, gullibility, and stupidity which they bring to their
> religion is not necessarily true of all religion.
What a bizarre statement.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>> >
>> > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
>The only lie is that evolution is science.
yeah you're right. and a million scientists are wrong.
why didn't you say so in the first place?
Evolution is a philosophy.
>Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
>completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
well, except for the laboratory evidence and the fossil record you're
completely right
>
>>
>> Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
>> rationalization.
>The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
>rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
>along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
>becomes.
no, the stronger your christianist hatred of civilization becomes. you
and the islamists...working together for the same goal, for the same
reason:
religious fanaticism
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>wf...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> evolution is seen in the fossil record and in the lab. 'molecules to
>> man' evolution is irrelevant since evolution is established fact
>Oh dear. Evolution is interpreted in the fossil record, not seen.
?? whatever this means. evolution is DEFINED as changes in populations
with time. and that's EXACTLY what is seen in the record.
it's like saying planets move in the heavens. it's what's SEEN
>Exactly what evolution is seen in the lab that shows the mechanism for
>all life evolving from a primordial cell?
gee...there's mutations
there's natural selection.
both seen in the lab...
>
>>
>> >2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
>> >evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
>>
>> we can't cure the common cold but that doesn't mean viruses dont
>> exist. you're pushing god of the gaps here.
>LOL! Why don't you just say nothing. A very poor attempt at
>side-stepping the simple question put to you. Are you suggesting
>viruses are the mechanism for the evolution of life from a common cell?
>If so, do you have scientific evidence for this?
you can't even follow your OWN argument??? you are saying that, if
scientists can't do it in the lab, it doesnt exist.
scientists cant do molecules to man in the lab?
so what? we can't cure the common cold either. but viruses still
exist.
>
>>
>> >
>> >I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
>> >theory, just a weak hypothesis.
>> >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>>
>> except that the world's scientific community disagrees with your
>> unsubstantiated assertion.
>I couldn't care less what the secular scientific community thinks, they
>of all people should know better.
wow. how could we have ever doubted you.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Yes, I can, but it would take up too much space in a simple usenet posting.
>> Here's just a sampling of the lines of evidence:
>> Genetic evidence
>> Anatomical evidence
>> Fossil evidence
>> Biochemical evidence
>> Molecular evidence
>> Biogeographical evidence
>> Biostratographcial evidence
>How pathetic is this! A sudden concern for usenet space. The lame
>excuse that the evidence takes up too much space is a popular one. Are
>we supposed to just take your word for it?
>It appears that evolutionists are never able to actually produce any
>scientific evidence for their case, as if they're too afraid to share
>it.
tell you what
1. go to a scientific library
2. grab a textbook on evolutionary biology
3. read it.
QED.
AndreVan
> Intelligent Design and Creationism are not based on interpretations of
> any evidence. Creationism is based on a word-for-word take on genesis
> (with no interpreting the words: they are taken at face value) whereas
> ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, as that would
> call for actual modifications of the theory). evolution is based on
> comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology,
> zoology, geneology, and many other scientific branches, and putting it
> all together into one coherent theory. Not to mention proven examples
> of speciation in bacteria and fruit flies.
Biological evolution is based on the process of a cell diverging into
all known life today.
For this I'm still waiting for the empirical scientific evidence that
supports this hypothesis.
Creationism is based on the interpretation of evidence. The fossil
record shows layers of dead things buried in sedimentry layers by
powerful hydrological processes, I interpret it as being due to global
catastrophic flooding as recorded in Genesis. Natural selection shows
organisms reproducing after themselves, exactly what God ordered life
to do. DNA reveals a complex genetic code that dictates what the
organism will be, human intelligence is required to decode this genetic
code, therefore intelligence was required to encode it in the first
place, just what I'd expect from our omnipotent God. This is what I
believe by faith.
Everyone has the same evidence to interpret. How you interpret it
depends on what your belief in origins of life is.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>What complete rubbish! Evolution has nothing to do with science and you
>know it.
Which are you, a liar or an idiot? Or both?
You morons are like in-yourface flat Earth loonies telling everybody
including astronomers, NASA satellite engineers,
airline staff and everybody else with a grasp on reality that what
they do every day can't happem.
AndreVan
through with your arguments when the going gets tough.
AndreVan
neverbetter wrote:
> AndreVan kirjoitti:
>
> > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
> > > >
> > > > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
> > The only lie is that evolution is science. Evolution is a philosophy.
> > Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
> > completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
>
> Please define the word "lie". You seem to be using it in a completely
> idiosyncratic manner. BTW, your statement would constitute a lie in
> most traditional interpretations of the word.
>
> > >
> > > Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
> > > rationalization.
> > The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
> > rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
> > along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
> > becomes.
>
> Do you think Jesus would like you to base your faith on lies?
What do you think?
I base my faith on His Word, not on the ideas of secular scientists who
can't control their imaginations.
neverbetter
AndreVan wrote:
I see. The going gets tough when the opposition flatly and groundlessly
denies the multitudes of available evidence, claims that evidence is
kept hidden because of fear, and when pointed out that there are
numerous books in which that supposedly hidden evidence has been listed
and referenced in detail they tell you to go away.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>APOCALYPSE wrote:
>> Intelligent Design and Creationism are not based on interpretations of
>> any evidence. Creationism is based on a word-for-word take on genesis
>> (with no interpreting the words: they are taken at face value) whereas
>> ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, as that would
>> call for actual modifications of the theory). evolution is based on
>> comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology,
>> zoology, geneology, and many other scientific branches, and putting it
>> all together into one coherent theory. Not to mention proven examples
>> of speciation in bacteria and fruit flies.
>Biological evolution is based on the process of a cell diverging into
>all known life today.
>For this I'm still waiting for the empirical scientific evidence that
>supports this hypothesis.
>
>Creationism is based on the interpretation of evidence.
uh, no
it's based on the islamist/christianist view that civilization must be
destroyed and replaced with religious law
why do you think you and the islamists believe EXACTLY the same thing
about science?
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>neverbetter wrote:
>> AndreVan kirjoitti:
>>
>> Do you think Jesus would like you to base your faith on lies?
>What do you think?
>I base my faith on His Word, not on the ideas of secular scientists who
>can't control their imaginations.
says the man who uses a computer invented by secular science to
complain about secular science.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
>> >showing it to be a fact?
>>
>> I, personally, was once just a bunch of molecules. Today I am an
>> adult human male. Ergo, molecules to man. (Yes, I am still just a
>> bunch of molecules as well, but that does not invalidate the
>> conclusion.)
>You're a human because your parents are human, simple biology.
>What empirical evidence do you have that all present life evolved from
>a common cell.
one can always start with the fossils...
oh. you dont do facts. religion is all there is.
>
>>
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
gee. there's an argument. a christianist telling someone else that he
has an argument beyond 'god did it'
VoiceOfReason
AndreVan wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
> > >
> > > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
>
> The only lie is that evolution is science. Evolution is a philosophy.
> Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
> completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
That's a good example of a creationist feeling the need to lie about
evolution.
> >
> > Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
> > rationalization.
>
> The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
> rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
> along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
> becomes.
It's quite obvious from your posts that you don't study evolution. For
example, why mention your Christian faith? Evolution has nothing to do
with your religion. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution,
except for the anti-science cult.
Wakboth
AndreVan kirjoitti:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
> > >showing it to be a fact?
> >
> > I, personally, was once just a bunch of molecules. Today I am an
> > adult human male. Ergo, molecules to man. (Yes, I am still just a
> > bunch of molecules as well, but that does not invalidate the
> > conclusion.)
> You're a human because your parents are human, simple biology.
> What empirical evidence do you have that all present life evolved from
> a common cell.
On the off chance you might have a mind open to new possibilities:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >
> > >2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
> > >evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
> >
> > I can observe, test, and repeat the process of biological evolution,
> > yes.
> Then provide the scientific evidence.
Have you never read any good popular-science book on evolution, let
alone the peer-reviewed biology papers?
> >
> > Your turn. Can you observe, test, and repeat the process of divine
> > creation?
> Am I God? Your question is willfull ignorance. I'm in no position to
> claim Divine creation as a fact. However, evolutionists claim evolution
> to be a scientific fact, therefore it follows that they should have no
> problem supplying the empirical scientific evidence for all life
> evolving from a cell, and non-living matter becoming a living cell.
For the first, here's a link again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
For the second, you're talking about abiogenesis, which is not a part
of nor a requirement for evolution. It is irrelevant for science
whether the original self-replicators formed on their own, or through
direct or indirect guidance/control/creative process of some entity.
> > Creationists sure hate religion a lot. I wish they would not. The
> > hatred, hubris, gullibility, and stupidity which they bring to their
> > religion is not necessarily true of all religion.
>
> What a bizarre statement.
The creationists routinely call the science they oppose a religion (as
you are doing with evolution), and are constantly trying to masquerade
their religion with trappings of science (witness the countless
ham-handed attempts to make some scientific sense of the Flood).
-- Wakboth
neverbetter
AndreVan kirjoitti:
> neverbetter wrote:
> > AndreVan kirjoitti:
> >
> > > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > > > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
> > > The only lie is that evolution is science. Evolution is a philosophy.
> > > Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
> > > completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
> >
> > Please define the word "lie". You seem to be using it in a completely
> > idiosyncratic manner. BTW, your statement would constitute a lie in
> > most traditional interpretations of the word.
> Define it yourself.
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement
that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
Example: "Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and
its past, completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence."
> >
> > > >
> > > > Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
> > > > rationalization.
> > > The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
> > > rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
> > > along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
> > > becomes.
> >
> > Do you think Jesus would like you to base your faith on lies?
> What do you think?
> I base my faith on His Word, not on the ideas of secular scientists who
> can't control their imaginations.
His Word tells you to seek the truth and not to bear false witness.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> Yes, I can, but it would take up too much space in a simple usenet
>> posting.
>> Here's just a sampling of the lines of evidence:
>> Genetic evidence
>> Anatomical evidence
>> Fossil evidence
>> Biochemical evidence
>> Molecular evidence
>> Biogeographical evidence
>> Biostratographcial evidence
> How pathetic is this!
Not nearly as pathetic as denying the lines of evidence above.
> A sudden concern for usenet space.
It's more like concern for my time.
> The lame
> excuse that the evidence takes up too much space is a popular one. Are
> we supposed to just take your word for it?
Not at all. Check out the lines of evidence above. I'll wait.
> It appears that evolutionists are never able to actually produce any
> scientific evidence for their case,
Nope, see above.
> as if they're too afraid to share
> it.
I'd be happy to show you the evidence, which I did, above. Now it's your
turn to go look at the evidence.
> I wait patiently with anticipation.
Instead of waiting for someone to give you mountains of information, why not
use the tools available to you, and find out for yourself?
>
>>
>>
>> > 2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
>> > evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
>>
>> Yes, you can.
> Oh how lovely!
Isn't it though.
>Are we just supposed to just take your word for it?
Not at all, check it out for yourself.
> Who
> made you the ruler over knowledge?
I don't recall ever claiming to be that.
> As you've said we can observe it, please provide the empirical
> scientific evidence.
I gave you the lines of evidence above. Now is your turn to do some
research.
>
>>
>> >
>> > I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
>> > theory, just a weak hypothesis.
>>
>> You may "put it to" however you want, but you are wrong. Evolution is
>> both
>> a fact, and a theory.
> Your argument is false,
Actually, what I said was correct.
> as you yourself are unable to provide the
> required empirical evidence for it.
I provided you with the lines of evidence. It's your job to do the research
for yourself.
>
>>
>> > Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>>
>> No, it's not. There is a difference between a scientific theory, and a
>> religious belief.
> Evolution is not even a theory,
It is as far as science is concerned.
> and its not science.
Scientists say it is.
> It is a belief in
> the origins of life, a belief in where you came from.
It's an explanation for the evidence, not a "belief".
DJT
Zachriel
"Stephen Frost" <stephen.fros...@frostbyte.com.au> wrote in message
news:11401448...@proxy.uecomm.net.au...
>> Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
>> evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
>> => 2H_2O
>
> Funny thing is ... once upon a time Steady State *was* physics ... and its
> not that long ago that Phlogiston Theory *was* chemistry (if you don't
> believe me, here's a reference for the latter:
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html)
People used to think that the Earth moved around the Sun while spinning on
its axis. Why did Galileo make this assertion when he obviously couldn't see
the Earth moving? Poppycock, I say. See. I waved my hands.
>
> Exactly what guarantees will science offer us today to assure us that it
> won't change its mind tomorrow, discard evolution, and embrace something
> else?
Um, none. All scientific theories are considered tentative.
>
> Short answer: none. Real science holds its theories tentatively. Maybe,
> in about 50,000 or 100,000 years, based on empirical testing, repeated
> experiments, and recorded histry, someone may be able to show that
> evolution really happened in a measurable way. But until then ...
Actually, evolution has been demonstrated by multiple observations in such
diverse fields of study as molecular genetics, geology and biology.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Zachriel
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>> >
>> > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
> The only lie is that evolution is science. Evolution is a philosophy.
> Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
> completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
That is false. Evolution can be directly observed. The Theory of Evolution
has been confirmed by many validated scientific preditions.
Scientific Method
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Theory of Evolution
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
>>
TomS
<1140603854.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, AndreVan stated..."
>
>SRNissen wrote:
>> AndreVan wrote:
>> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> > > On 2006-01-30, AndreVan <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>> > >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >
>>Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
>>> > >> > 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
>> > > >> > and tertiary institutions.
>> > > >> > them are proven scientific 'fact'.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Physics and chemistry too, right?
>> > > >>
>>> > >> I mean, just because HCl + NaOH gave me NaCl and H2O this time, doesn't
>> > > >> mean I can count on the same thing happening next time.
>> > > > What are you on? What does physics and chemistry have to do with the
>> > > > belief that everything came from a primordial cell?
>> > >
>> > > Have you ever seen an electron? A chemical bond forming or breaking?
>> > > Chemists would have you believe that you can take H2 and O2 and make
>> > > water, and H20 and break it back into H2 and O2. One of these reactions
>> > > is obviously in violation of the 2nd law of thermaldynamics.
>> > >
>> > > If chemistry were of any use to anyone, it would be in the Bible.
>> >
>> > I was referring to the issue of origins, ie: evolution, creation and
>> > intelligent design; NOT physics and chemistry. Read the posts more
>> > carefully.
>> > Origin stories should be in religious studies or philosophy classes,
>> > not in the science classes, this includes the story of evolution.
>>
>> Since you apparantly do not understand evolution, let me spell it out
>> to you:
>>
>> Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
>> evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 + O_2
>> => 2H_2O
>observable, testable and repeatable scientific evidence for the
>evolution of all life from a primordial cell.
>experiment for you: make both hands a fist, extend 2 fingers on your
>left hand, now extend 2 fingers on your right hand, now place these
>extended fingers on the table in front of you. How many extended
>fingers in total are on the table? You should get 4. Do the experiment
>over and over, you will always get the same result.
>
From your choice of an example, I assume that you have no
particular objection to other features of the world of life which
are accounted for by evolutionary biology.
Let me make a personal generous offer of compromise. I will
go better than half-way, I will go 90% of the way. That is, I
will not insist upon 3 billion years of common ancestry, and
will just confine evolution to the last 300 million years.
This means that I will not object to "something other than
evolution" to account for all of the standard examples of
"specified complexity" or "irreducible complexity" or "intelligent
design" - the bacterial flagellum, the Cambrian Explosion, the
pattern of the vertebrate eye.
This is quite generous of me - I realize that scientists
won't like it, but this is just between you and me.
OK?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
> rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
> along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
> becomes.
I have my doubts that you have ever studied evolutionary science.
--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø - http://haxor.dk
http://liberterran.org
http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> What do you think?
> I base my faith on His Word, not on the ideas of secular scientists who
> can't control their imaginations.
Since when has Genesis 1 been the word of JC?
Ye Old One
>VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>> >
>> > Why do creationists feel the need to lie about evolution?
>The only lie is that evolution is science.
No, evolution IS a science - ask any scientist.
>Evolution is a philosophy.
>Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
>completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
Oh dear - you really ARE trying to play the blind game.
>
>>
>> Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
>> rationalization.
>The only insecure ones are the evolutionists,
Why? Eveloution has all the evidence on its side - creations has sweet
diddly-squat.
>completely lacking in
>rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
>along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
>becomes.
Well studying the evidence against evolution should take you all of
zero seconds as there is none.
It would be better if you were to try studying evolution and the vast
amount of evidence FOR it - then maybe you see you creationist beliefs
for what they are - childish belief in fairy stories.
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
AndreVan <andre...@yahoo.com> writes
>> Yes, I can, but it would take up too much space in a simple usenet posting.
>> Here's just a sampling of the lines of evidence:
>> Genetic evidence
>> Anatomical evidence
>> Fossil evidence
>> Biochemical evidence
>> Molecular evidence
>> Biogeographical evidence
>> Biostratographcial evidence
>How pathetic is this! A sudden concern for usenet space. The lame
>excuse that the evidence takes up too much space is a popular one. Are
>we supposed to just take your word for it? It appears that
>evolutionists are never able to actually produce any scientific
>evidence for their case, as if they're too afraid to share
>it.
>I wait patiently with anticipation.
There are a number of species of Spartina found around the world. The
species Spartina maritima is native to Western Europe (etc?) and the
species Spartina alterniflora to the east coast of North America. The
latter was introduced to England and France where it hybridised with
Spartina maritima to produce the sterile, vegetatively reproduced,
hybrids Spartina x townsendii and Spartina x neyrautii. (I would tend to
the view that Spartina x townsendii and Spartina x neyrautii represent
the same entity, but species boundaries in asexual taxa are problematic.
Later, in England, chromosome doubling led to the formation of Spartina
anglica from Spartina x townsendii. Spartina anglica is a good species,
the formation of which was observed.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 17/02/2006
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
His word - you mean the fairy stories written about a man who may not
even have existed, at least a hundred years after his death, by people
who saw a chance to make money.
You have a screw that needs tightening.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>wf...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Lee Jay wrote:
>> >> AndreVan wrote:
>> >> > thissteve wrote:
>> >> > > AndreVan wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
>> >> > > > 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
>> >> > > > and tertiary institutions.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Does General Relativity belong in "philosophical studies"? Isn't it
>> >> > > just interpretation of evidence?
>> >> > Does the evidence support it or not?
>> >>
>> >> Yes it does - just like the evidence for the theory of evolution. And
>> >> they're both called "theories", imagine that!
>> >Two questions for you and any others on this forum to answer:
>> >
>> >1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
>> >showing it to be a fact?
>>
>> evolution is seen in the fossil record and in the lab. 'molecules to
>> man' evolution is irrelevant since evolution is established fact
>Oh dear. Evolution is interpreted in the fossil record, not seen.
It is indeed seen in the fossil record. But it is also seen in the lab
and in the field.
>Exactly what evolution is seen in the lab that shows the mechanism for
>all life evolving from a primordial cell?
Here in the UK we are currently working to predict the mutation of
avian influenza A (H5N1) into a human infectious virus. We do this
using the science of evolution which we have observed in action so
many times before.
>
>>
>> >2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
>> >evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
>>
>> we can't cure the common cold but that doesn't mean viruses dont
>> exist. you're pushing god of the gaps here.
>LOL! Why don't you just say nothing. A very poor attempt at
>side-stepping the simple question put to you. Are you suggesting
>viruses are the mechanism for the evolution of life from a common cell?
>If so, do you have scientific evidence for this?
Do you doubt that virus evolve?
>
>>
>> >
>> >I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
>> >theory, just a weak hypothesis.
>> >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>>
>> except that the world's scientific community disagrees with your
>> unsubstantiated assertion.
>I couldn't care less what the secular scientific community thinks, they
>of all people should know better.
Well at least they know better than you.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >1. Can you list the scientific evidence for molecules to man evolution,
>> >showing it to be a fact?
>>
>> I, personally, was once just a bunch of molecules. Today I am an
>> adult human male. Ergo, molecules to man. (Yes, I am still just a
>> bunch of molecules as well, but that does not invalidate the
>> conclusion.)
>You're a human because your parents are human, simple biology.
>What empirical evidence do you have that all present life evolved from
>a common cell.
Genetics and the fossil record.
>
>>
>> >2. Can you observe, test and repeat the processes of biological
>> >evolution, ie: a primordial cell diverging into all present life?
>>
>> I can observe, test, and repeat the process of biological evolution,
>> yes.
>Then provide the scientific evidence.
See my comment regarding avian influenza A (H5N1),
>
>>
>> Your turn. Can you observe, test, and repeat the process of divine
>> creation?
>Am I God? Your question is willfull ignorance. I'm in no position to
>claim Divine creation as a fact.
Oh good, because you don't have any evidence to back it up.
> However, evolutionists claim evolution
>to be a scientific fact,
And have the evidence to back up that claim.
> therefore it follows that they should have no
>problem supplying the empirical scientific evidence for all life
>evolving from a cell,
Yes, you just need to look at the fossil record and at comparative
genetics.
>and non-living matter becoming a living cell.
That is not evolution.
>
>>
>> >I put it to you that the story of evolution is no "fact" and not a
>> >theory, just a weak hypothesis.
>>
>> And you are wrong.
>>
>> >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>>
>> Creationists sure hate religion a lot. I wish they would not. The
>> hatred, hubris, gullibility, and stupidity which they bring to their
>> religion is not necessarily true of all religion.
>What a bizarre statement.
But a true one.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>APOCALYPSE wrote:
>> Intelligent Design and Creationism are not based on interpretations of
>> any evidence. Creationism is based on a word-for-word take on genesis
>> (with no interpreting the words: they are taken at face value) whereas
>> ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, as that would
>> call for actual modifications of the theory). evolution is based on
>> comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology,
>> zoology, geneology, and many other scientific branches, and putting it
>> all together into one coherent theory. Not to mention proven examples
>> of speciation in bacteria and fruit flies.
>Biological evolution is based on the process of a cell diverging into
>all known life today.
Well, a population of cells.
>For this I'm still waiting for the empirical scientific evidence that
>supports this hypothesis.
You have been given many pointers - have yoo followed any?
>
>Creationism is based on the interpretation of evidence.
What evidence - there isn't any.
> The fossil
>record shows layers of dead things buried in sedimentry layers by
>powerful hydrological processes, I interpret it as being due to global
>catastrophic flooding as recorded in Genesis.
And yet there is no evidence for a world-wide flood, none at all. In
fact the evidence is against there ever having been a world-wide flood
because there simply isn't enough water to allow it to happen.
> Natural selection shows
>organisms reproducing after themselves,
And gradually evolving.
> exactly what God ordered life
>to do.
God is an invention of primitive man, he has no place in science.
> DNA reveals a complex genetic code that dictates what the
>organism will be, human intelligence is required to decode this genetic
>code, therefore intelligence was required to encode it in the first
>place,
Rubbish - nature does it all by itself.
> just what I'd expect from our omnipotent God. This is what I
>believe by faith.
A faith based on childish fairy stories.
>Everyone has the same evidence to interpret. How you interpret it
>depends on what your belief in origins of life is.
No, all the evidence is on the side of evolution, there isn't any for
your daft creationism.
--
Bob.
Richard Forrest
AndreVan wrote:
> APOCALYPSE wrote:
> > Intelligent Design and Creationism are not based on interpretations of
> > any evidence. Creationism is based on a word-for-word take on genesis
> > (with no interpreting the words: they are taken at face value) whereas
> > ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, as that would
> > call for actual modifications of the theory). evolution is based on
> > comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology,
> > zoology, geneology, and many other scientific branches, and putting it
> > all together into one coherent theory. Not to mention proven examples
> > of speciation in bacteria and fruit flies.
> Biological evolution is based on the process of a cell diverging into
> all known life today.
Nope. It's based on populations of imperfect replicators. Such
replicators do not have tobe cells.
> For this I'm still waiting for the empirical scientific evidence that
> supports this hypothesis.
>
The evidence is out there, accepted as such by vitually all the
scientists who work in the field, and rejected only by the very small
number who are motivated by religious conviction.
> Creationism is based on the interpretation of evidence.
This is simply false. Creationism is based on the a priori assumption
of the literal truth of the Bibilical acount of creation. It ignores
the evidence.
> The fossil
> record shows layers of dead things buried in sedimentry layers by
> powerful hydrological processes,
Most sedimentary structures are not laid down by "powerful hydological
processes", but by gradual accumulation of sediments.
> I interpret it as being due to global
> catastrophic flooding as recorded in Genesis.
Your "interpretation" is based on a priori conviction, not an analysis
of the evidence. Floods lay down characteristic sedimentary structures,
and most of the geological column is not composed of such structures.
> Natural selection shows
> organisms reproducing after themselves,
Natural selection is a mechanism for evolution. It "shows" nothing.
> exactly what God ordered life
> to do.
And God told you this, did he?
> DNA reveals a complex genetic code that dictates what the
> organism will be, human intelligence is required to decode this genetic
> code, therefore intelligence was required to encode it in the first
> place,
Why?
> just what I'd expect from our omnipotent God. This is what I
> believe by faith.
So why talk about evidence at all then? If you are going to argue on
the basis of the evidence, you need to learn about the evidence. If you
are going to assert from faith, what on earth is point of raising the
red herring of evidence?
> Everyone has the same evidence to interpret.
Creationists ignore most of it.
> How you interpret it
> depends on what your belief in origins of life is.
No it doesn't. The interpretation has to be consistent with the
evidence regardless of your beliefs.
RF
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Of course, they can't all be right.
>> But how do you tell which one is the truth?
>
>Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, The Truth and the Life, no
>one comes to the Father but by me."
More accurately, that statement was attributed to Jesus. Personally,
I do not believe Jesus was that stupid.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Robert Weldon
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > > Evolution *is* physics. Evolution *is* chemistry. And we can prove
>> > > evolution just as effectively as we can prove the fact that 2H_2 +
>> > > O_2
>> > > => 2H_2O
>> >
>> > its
>> > not that long ago that Phlogiston Theory *was* chemistry (if you don't
>> > believe me, here's a reference for the latter:
>> > http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html)
>> >
>> > it
>> > won't change its mind tomorrow, discard evolution, and embrace
>> > something
>> > else?
>>
>> offering reasuring certainties.
>>
>>
>> If you want certainties, turn to religion. You can then have the
>> certainty that when you die you will be taken up to heaven by angels.
>> Or that, depending on your behaviour in this world, go to hell. Or that
>> you will be reborn as an ant. Or that you will feast forever in the
>> company of warriors, waited on by buxom nordic wenches. Or that the
>> ferryman will take you across the river Styx to the underworld. Or that
>> you'll drink nectar in the company of multitudes of virgins.
>>
>> Of course, they can't all be right.
>> But how do you tell which one is the truth?
> Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, The Truth and the Life, no one comes
> to the Father but by me."
>
>>
>> >
>> > Maybe, in
>> > about 50,000 or 100,000 years, based on empirical testing, repeated
>> > experiments, and recorded histry, someone may be able to show that
>> > evolution
>> > really happened in a measurable way.
>>
>> historical records. We don't need tens of thousands of years.
> You're either lying, or you're ill-informed. Can you offer this
> empirical testing, experiment and historical record?
It has been presented, many times, you refuse to see it.
>
>>
>> > But until then ...
>>
>> ....you'll continue to gain comfort from the certainties you wish to
>> believe.
>>
>> So how do you tell which one is true?
> You'll know when you arrive on the other side of death. Unfortunatley
> by then it will be too late to change your mind.
>
Robert Weldon
> APOCALYPSE wrote:
>> Intelligent Design and Creationism are not based on interpretations of
>> any evidence. Creationism is based on a word-for-word take on genesis
>> (with no interpreting the words: they are taken at face value) whereas
>> ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, as that would
>> call for actual modifications of the theory). evolution is based on
>> comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology,
>> zoology, geneology, and many other scientific branches, and putting it
>> all together into one coherent theory. Not to mention proven examples
>> of speciation in bacteria and fruit flies.
> Biological evolution is based on the process of a cell diverging into
> all known life today.
> supports this hypothesis.
>
> record shows layers of dead things buried in sedimentry layers by
> catastrophic flooding as recorded in Genesis. Natural selection shows
> organisms reproducing after themselves, exactly what God ordered life
> to do. DNA reveals a complex genetic code that dictates what the
> organism will be, human intelligence is required to decode this genetic
> code, therefore intelligence was required to encode it in the first
> believe by faith.
> Everyone has the same evidence to interpret. How you interpret it
> depends on what your belief in origins of life is.
>
geology, come back when you have done this, then try to defend this
ridiculous assertion. You might want to learn some basic logic while you
are at it.
Just to start, how do you explain the rocks which contain fossils of long
extinct creatures that do not resemble any animal now present on the planet?
Not exactly reproducing after themselves, is it? How do you explain the
observation that the older rocks get, the "less evolved" the fossils become,
back to where the earliest rocks only contain microscopic remains, and the
very earliest ones contain no traces of life?
AC
>> > On 16 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Evolution is just a religion masquerading as science.
>> >
> The only lie is that evolution is science. Evolution is a philosophy.
> Evolution is a belief system about the origins of life and its past,
> completely devoid of empirical scientific evidence.
Actually, evolution is simply the observation that the genetic makeup of
populations change over time. Common descent, an *observation* of all
extant organisms, comes with the rather strong inference that that points to
a common ancestor.
It looks to me like a) you don't understand science, b) you don't know the
definition of philosophy and c) you are pretty damn ignorant of the evidence
ofor science and common descent. These are curable ailments, but I have
little faith that you would ever actually wish to disabuse yourself of your
ignorance.
>
>>
>> Desperation brought about by insecurity, mixed with a little
>> rationalization.
> The only insecure ones are the evolutionists, completely lacking in
> rational thought when it comes to science. The more I study evolution
> along with the evidence against it, the stronger my Christian faith
> becomes.
I'm not insecure at all. In fact, I'm know damn well that Creationists are
the ones that are absolutely frightened, so much so that they largely react
instinctually against evolution, frequently without understanding the theory
at all.
And nice attempt at a false dichotomy. I know many Christians that accept
evolution.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Dick C
> APOCALYPSE wrote:
>> Intelligent Design and Creationism are not based on interpretations of
>> any evidence. Creationism is based on a word-for-word take on genesis
>> (with no interpreting the words: they are taken at face value) whereas
>> ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, as that would
>> call for actual modifications of the theory). evolution is based on
>> comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology,
>> zoology, geneology, and many other scientific branches, and putting it
>> all together into one coherent theory. Not to mention proven examples
>> of speciation in bacteria and fruit flies.
> Biological evolution is based on the process of a cell diverging into
> all known life today.
> For this I'm still waiting for the empirical scientific evidence that
> supports this hypothesis.
>
> Creationism is based on the interpretation of evidence.
No, it is not. It is based upon the literal reading of the first book of
the bible. All evidence is then forced to fit that belief.
The fossil
> record shows layers of dead things buried in sedimentry layers by
> powerful hydrological processes, I interpret it as being due to global
> catastrophic flooding as recorded in Genesis.
And that is just one example of how you force the evidence to fit your
belief system. The fossil record does not show any such thing.
Natural selection shows
> organisms reproducing after themselves, exactly what God ordered life
> to do. DNA reveals a complex genetic code that dictates what the
> organism will be, human intelligence is required to decode this genetic
> code, therefore intelligence was required to encode it in the first
> place, just what I'd expect from our omnipotent God. This is what I
> believe by faith.
> Everyone has the same evidence to interpret. How you interpret it
> depends on what your belief in origins of life is.
Actually, what you meant to say was that science looks at the evidence
and builds theories to explain it. But you lie about the evidence and
force it to fit your belief system.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Inez
AndreVan wrote:
> APOCALYPSE wrote:
> >
> > 5. Equivocating Evolution with Religion
> >
> > According to IDists, extrapolating from evidence is bad science
> > (religion), when it supports a theory that's supposedly contrasts with
> > religion. Where are the cries for teaching that star-formation and
> > planetary formation are just theories? Where's the cry for labelling a
> > theory the idea that gravity, and not Intelligent Falling, was
> > responsible for the formation of planets and other bodies? Where are
> > the cries against forensic science, which extrapolates based on
> > evidence with little or no actual concrete proof? It's only evolution,
> > which they see as an attack on them, which gets special scrutiny.
> Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design and Creation belong in the
> 'religious studies' or 'philosophical studies' departments in schools
> and tertiary institutions.
> them are proven scientific 'fact'.
Can you elicudate how ID and creation are interpretations of evidence
for us?
AndreVan
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2006 02:30:37 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >Richard Forrest wrote:
> >> Of course, they can't all be right.
> >> But how do you tell which one is the truth?
> >
> >Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, The Truth and the Life, no
> >one comes to the Father but by me."
>
> More accurately, that statement was attributed to Jesus. Personally,
> I do not believe Jesus was that stupid.
did and who He claimed to be.
Jesus Christ was present at the beginning of creation and through Him
all things were made. As He is the Truth, then the creation account
plainly given to us by Himelf (the Word) is the truth, and there can be
only one origins truth.
Therefore a man made story about origins told by secular scientists,
who can't control their imaginations, is a lie, a falsehood.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not
even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we
beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of
grace and of truth.
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, at the beginning founded the earth, and the
heavens are works of Your hands.
1Jo 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and what our hands touched, as
regards the Word of Life.
Mat 19:4 But answering, He said to them, Have you not read that He who
created them from the beginning created them male and female? Gen. 1:27
Mar 13:19 for there will be affliction in those days, such as has not
been the like from the beginning of creation which God created until
now, and never will be.
Jesus said:
Joh 8:43 Why don't you understand my language? It's because you can't
listen to my words.
Joh 8:44 You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry
out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning
and has never stood by the truth, since there is no truth in him.
Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, for he is a liar and
the father of lies.
Joh 8:45 But it is because I speak the truth that you do not believe
me.