Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: columbusdude82 on November 07, 2007, 03:39:54 PM
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/)
NOVA will be airing a new dramatization of the Dover, PA case on November 13 at 8:00 pm.
When the religious non-science of Intelligent Design was forced on the children of Dover, PA, reason and science, as well as the Constitution, teachers, and parents, fought back. ID and its proponents were utterly rebuffed and defeated.
Make sure to watch the documentary. Also check the page above for a preview as well as lots of good info.
-
Fossil evidence: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html)
-
Don't miss it tomorrow night, folks!
Ahem ahem, Beach Bum, that book you're reading is by the same kind of pious liars who were exposed at the Dover trial for the frauds that they are. Be sure to watch it :)
-
Actually, the book I'm reading isn't about intelligent design, but about the gaping holes in the theory of evolution. Very interesting read so far.
-
It was written by a "fellow" of the Discovery Institute, leading Creationism/ID propaganda vehicle.
If I remember correctly, he isn't even qualified to write about it. He was a doctor wasn't he?
-
Yes he's a doctor. Great read. I see you cannot touch the specific items he discusses in the book, but are simply being a drone. You should buy it. You might learn something.
-
Yeah sure, right after I get done reading those two books on Flat Earth Geology and Pre-Galileo Astrology...
-
Good for you. ::)
-
I'm picky like that, Beach Bum. I only read science books by people who are qualified to write them :)
-
I'm a little different columbusdude. I like to read about things so I can have an informed opinion. I'm an information junkie. I'm not afraid to read about things that challenge me and/or things I've been taught were fact, but really are not. That's why, for example, even though I'm not a liberal, I read liberal websites and materials all the time. That's why, even though I'm a Christian, I've read books about many different types of religion. It's enlightening. But that's one difference between you and me. :)
-
What you say is perfectly fine for matters of OPINION, like religion, politics, etc.
But for FACT, i.e. science, I only read people who know what they're talking about. :) That's the difference between you and me!
-
From the book I'm currently reading, regarding the tenants of science: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Many things fail the preceding tenants, including macroevolution. So call macroevolution fact all you want, but you're just being disingenuous.
Don't be afraid man. Relax a little, get off the anti-Jesus crusade for a bit, and challenge yourself.
-
Conservative Christians tend to see things in terms of just black and white. I'm starting to see the similar tendencies in some athiests.
-
From the book I'm currently reading, regarding the tenants of science: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Many things fail the preceding tenants, including macroevolution. So call macroevolution fact all you want, but you're just being disingenuous.
Don't be afraid man. Relax a little, get off the anti-Jesus crusade for a bit, and challenge yourself.
You know, the term "macroevolution" is only used by creationists. The fact that they need to make an artificial distinction between macro and microevolution shows they don't know what they're talking about. Once you admit the possibility of microevolution, you are in effect an evolutionist. "Macroevolution" is just the sum of lots and lots of microevolutions.
As for my opposition to the non-science of ID, it's not an anti-Jesus crusade. It's an anti-stupidity crusade.
No one ever took me up on my challenge in another thread to name one (just one) real university that does research in ID or teaches ID. I will take it seriously when serious biologists do.
Ozmo, yes, the distinction I make between science and superstition is black and white. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The ID movement is really just the old creationism returning to sabotage the education of American school children. It is not a scientific movement. It is a political one.
-
Conservative Christians tend to see things in terms of just black and white. I'm starting to see the similar tendencies in some athiests.
Absolutely. What I've noticed with most of the atheists I've observed is they spend an inordinate amount of time ridiculing those believe in God and that actually seems to form the foundation of their belief in nothing.
-
Absolutely. What I've noticed with most of the atheists I've observed is they spend an inordinate amount of time ridiculing those believe in God and that actually seems to form the foundation of their belief in nothing.
I am ridiculing bad science. Do you admit that your interest in ID is motivated by your religious beliefs?
-
I am ridiculing bad science. Do you admit that your interest in ID is motivated by your religious beliefs?
Nope. Next question. :)
-
I rest my case. ID is not a scientific movement, it is a religious movement. Thank you, Beach Bum.
Watch the documentary if you can :)
-
I rest my case. ID is not a scientific movement, it is a religious movement. Thank you, Beach Bum.
Watch the documentary if you can :)
lol. So you ask if my motivation regarding "ID" is religious based, I say "nope," and based on that you have proved "ID is not a scientific movement"?
Don't quit your day job. :)
-
I just watched it and Creationism errrrr Intelligent Design was absolutely decimated and so was the motivation behind those pushing it on the public school system.
It was particularly interesting that some of those God fearing people pushing Creationism ID decided it would be a good idea to send death threats to the Judge, who was a Republican and was appointed by Bush.
That blowhard Robertson's statement was another beauty, apparently since Dover doesn't want to teach ID in it's public school God won't help them if they are struck by disaster.
-
ieffinhatecardio, glad you liked it. Yes the creationists did get destroyed, by a judge appointed by president Bush (no less) and recommended by far-right fundamentalist former senator Rick Santorum. If any judge would be sympathetic to the creationists, it would be such an appointee.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected Him from your city." Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. The folks in Dover are still waiting.
:)
-
The Judge speaks (excerpts from his decision):
intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
The goal of the intelligent-design movement is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.
our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
-
The Judge speaks (excerpts from his decision):
intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
Tell us something we don't know.
The goal of the intelligent-design movement is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.
One could just as easily say that the goal of evolution was not to encourage critical thought, but to forment a revolution supplanting Creation with a godless paradigm (evolution). Besides, critical thinking isn't the issue. It's the assumption by some folks that use of such will automatically lead to a rejection of Creation, and ultimately of their Christian faith. That's hardly the case, though.
They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
Ground rules set by whom? Would that be naturalists/materalists and atheists, who from the start have admitted that their whole purpose for proposing evolution was to deliberately develop a godless explanation for life? They came up with that dogma and hold to it, because if they don't, they must admit to a supernatural source of life. But don't take my word for it:
“The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.
But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954
(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s;
Creation science is anything but doomed. Otherwise, evolutionists wouldn't be running to lawyers and judges, trying to suppress something that they claim "science" so easily does. Complexity is at the very heart of the matter. As part of the scientific process is observation, you would think that evolutionists would be able to show such regarding "simple" organisms evolving into complex ones. Unfortunately, that ain't the case.
(3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
Point 3 is also incorrect, to a degree. Since evolutionists don't want research countering their godless mantra in their journals, creationists developed scientific, peer-reviewed journals of their own. One such is called "Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal", or simply "TJ". As for it not being the subject of testing and research, that is also incorrect. Among such testing and research is a program, known as RATE (Radiocarbon dating and the Age of the Earth), which challenges how rocks are dated and shows evidence for a young earth.
Although this court case was in Pennsylvania, the irony is that for all this talk about the alleged threats to constitutionality that teaching Creation causes, evolutionists are getting bent out of shape and sending self-appointed constitutional watchdogs (i.e. DefCon) to wail about one AiG Creation Museum in Kentucky, the construction for which was paid by private citizens with private money.
-
Oh my, how the pious ramble when their superstitions are exposed 8)
McWay, as long as people in these United States want their children to learn real science in school and not be made stupid, creationism will never make it into the class room.
-
Oh my, how the pious ramble when their superstitions are exposed 8)
McWay, as long as people in these United States want their children to learn real science in school and not be made stupid, creationism will never make it into the class room.
Way to avoid the issue, columbusdude82! I was looking forward to your response to McWay's questions and to the points he brings up in his post. But this is all you've got?
Have you visited the Creation Museum? It's not far from you, and admission is very low cost. It brings thousands of visitors every day, from all over the world. In only six months, it has attracted 250,000 visitors, more than they had expected in a whole year.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
Creation Museum surpasses expectations
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-02-creationmuseum_N.htm
-
loco, did you watch the documentary? If so, what did you make of it? (If you don't get PBS where you're at, you can watch it online at the link provided above.)
McWay was just venting his anger at the judge's ruling, like the creationists in the documentary did, calling the judge all sorts of names.
In summary, the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism cannot be taught in science class because it is religion, not science.
The creationists invented ID to try and sneak creationism into the classroom under a different name.
They lied through their teeth and said ID was a legitimate science, not creationism.
The judge ruled against them, and ruled that ID is just creationism. Hence, it is unconstitutional to teach ID in science class.
Need I break it down further? :)
-
Oh my, how the pious ramble when their superstitions are exposed 8)
McWay, as long as people in these United States want their children to learn real science in school and not be made stupid, creationism will never make it into the class room.
Unfortunately, too many of America's kids have been "made stupid". And, it has virtually nothing to do with the issue of Creation vs. evolution. You have kids these days who can barely spell either word. I went to Christian schools from grades 1 through 12 (with a few brief exceptions) and did well in all my science classes (phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc.). When I went to a non-Christian college, I took similar courses at that level. For some strange reason, my belief in Creation didn't hinder my grades. I wonder why.
One of those exceptions was 10th grade, where due to financial problems, my mother had to send me to public school to finish that year. I took biology at the public school, just as I did at the private school. The only major difference between the book were issues involving the age and origin of the planet and life on it. Same frog-dissecting, same insect-collecting, etc, etc. Guess who finished #1 in that class (and to whom many of my classmates wanted to sit at test time).
"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.
In fact, I mentioned one indirectly, when stating the quotes of evolutionists, Louis Pasteur, this would be the guy who came up with the process (named after him) that makes your milk (and, subsequently your protein powder) safe to consume. But, he believed in Creation; so he didn't learn any "real science". Oh, and vaccines for some of the deadliest diseases? Pasteur with his lack of "real science" developed those, too.
After he took apart the idea of spontaneous generation, evolutionists themselves admitted that they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that life came from nothing and that the only reason they still claim it did is to avoid the admission of Creation. That's not scientific; that's dogmatic, philosophical and, dare I say "religious". The only difference would be the "religion" would be humanism (man worshipping himself).
As for your claims of my "venting anger", it would be more disappointment, moreso, because ID is too passive. If you suggest that life was designed, the next step is inquiry as to who designed it. If anger is what you're craving, perhaps you should take a gander at some evolutionists, when they discover that (according to certain polls), despite their best efforts, only a relative handful of people buy their godless explanation for life on this planets. Of course, this often results in their calling such people all sorts of names.
Or, look at some of the reactions that some evolutionists have had, toward the initial success of that Creation Museum.
-
Unfortunately, too many of America's kids have been "made stupid". And, it has virtually nothing to do with the issue of Creation vs. evolution. You have kids these days who can barely spell either word. I went to Christian schools from grades 1 through 12 (with a few brief exceptions) and did well in all my science classes (phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc.). When I went to a non-Christian college, I took similar courses at that level. For some strange reason, my belief in Creation didn't hinder my grades. I wonder why.
One of those exceptions was 10th grade, where due to financial problems, my mother had to send me to public school to finish that year. I took biology at the public school, just as I did at the private school. The only major difference between the book were issues involving the age and origin of the planet and life on it. Same frog-dissecting, same insect-collecting, etc, etc. Guess who finished #1 in that class (and to whom many of my classmates wanted to sit at test time).
"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.
In fact, I mentioned one indirectly, when stating the quotes of evolutionists, Louis Pasteur, this would be the guy who came up with the process (named after him) that makes your milk (and, subsequently your protein powder) safe to consume. But, he believed in Creation; so he didn't learn any "real science". Oh, and vaccines for some of the deadliest diseases? Pasteur with his lack of "real science" developed those, too.
After he took apart the idea of spontaneous generation, evolutionists themselves admitted that they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that life came from nothing and that the only reason they still claim it did is to avoid the admission of Creation. That's not scientific; that's dogmatic, philosophical and, dare I say "religious". The only difference would be the "religion" would be humanism (man worshipping himself).
As for your claims of my "venting anger", it would be more disappointment, moreso, because ID is too passive. If you suggest that life was designed, the next step is inquiry as to who designed it. If anger is what you're craving, perhaps you should take a gander at some evolutionists, when they discover that (according to certain polls), despite their best efforts, only a relative handful of people buy their godless explanation for life on this planets. Of course, this often results in their calling such people all sorts of names.
Or, look at some of the reactions that some evolutionists have had, toward the initial success of that Creation Museum.
Very well said. Nice post.
-
Unfortunately, too many of America's kids have been "made stupid". And, it has virtually nothing to do with the issue of Creation vs. evolution. You have kids these days who can barely spell either word. I went to Christian schools from grades 1 through 12 (with a few brief exceptions) and did well in all my science classes (phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc.). When I went to a non-Christian college, I took similar courses at that level. For some strange reason, my belief in Creation didn't hinder my grades. I wonder why.
One of those exceptions was 10th grade, where due to financial problems, my mother had to send me to public school to finish that year. I took biology at the public school, just as I did at the private school. The only major difference between the book were issues involving the age and origin of the planet and life on it. Same frog-dissecting, same insect-collecting, etc, etc. Guess who finished #1 in that class (and to whom many of my classmates wanted to sit at test time).
"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.
In fact, I mentioned one indirectly, when stating the quotes of evolutionists, Louis Pasteur, this would be the guy who came up with the process (named after him) that makes your milk (and, subsequently your protein powder) safe to consume. But, he believed in Creation; so he didn't learn any "real science". Oh, and vaccines for some of the deadliest diseases? Pasteur with his lack of "real science" developed those, too.
After he took apart the idea of spontaneous generation, evolutionists themselves admitted that they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that life came from nothing and that the only reason they still claim it did is to avoid the admission of Creation. That's not scientific; that's dogmatic, philosophical and, dare I say "religious". The only difference would be the "religion" would be humanism (man worshipping himself).
As for your claims of my "venting anger", it would be more disappointment, moreso, because ID is too passive. If you suggest that life was designed, the next step is inquiry as to who designed it. If anger is what you're craving, perhaps you should take a gander at some evolutionists, when they discover that (according to certain polls), despite their best efforts, only a relative handful of people buy their godless explanation for life on this planets. Of course, this often results in their calling such people all sorts of names.
Or, look at some of the reactions that some evolutionists have had, toward the initial success of that Creation Museum.
* Standing Ovation *
Great post, McWay!
-
Very well said. Nice post.
* Standing Ovation *
Great post, McWay!
Agreed. ;D
-
Way to avoid the issue, columbusdude82! I was looking forward to your response to McWay's questions and to the points he brings up in his post. But this is all you've got?
Have you visited the Creation Museum? It's not far from you, and admission is very low cost. It brings thousands of visitors every day, from all over the world. In only six months, it has attracted 250,000 visitors, more than they had expected in a whole year.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
Creation Museum surpasses expectations
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-02-creationmuseum_N.htm
What I find funny is this cat, Lawrence Krauss, head of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, who calls the attraction's popularity "embarrassing." Embarrasing for whom? Not for Christians!! Perhaps, for the so-called enlightened who, despite having a near-monopoly on the scientific community, had have the darndest time convincing people of the "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" explanation for life on earth (If that 2006 poll is accurate, only 15% of Americans queried buy the godless explanation for life on this planet).
People not buying that their ancestor is 5-billion-year-old "goo"? Imagine that!
;D
-
"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.
that's becuase the amount of knowledge we have now about physical world makes being a creationists almost laughable, but back then it was still easy to be one becuase we didn't know much yet.
-
that's becuase the amount of knowledge we have now about physical world makes being a creationists almost laughable, but back then it was still easy to be one becuase we didn't know much yet.
Really? Care to list some of those things we know now that we did not know then that make Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, Jonathan Wells, John Polkinghorne, Lee M. Spetner, and Francis Collins being a creationist almost laughable?
-
Ronald Fisher was a creationist??? Please present your proof!
Fisher is one of the most quoted, most revered geneticists in the evolutionary literature!
-
Ronald Fisher was a creationist??? Please present your proof!
Fisher is one of the most quoted, most revered geneticists in the evolutionary literature!
Was he not a devout Christian, very active in his church? Did he not write articles for Christian magazines? Did he not believe that God created everything?
BTW, even creationists and Intelligent Design proponents believe in evolution. They just don't accept everything in Darwin's theory.
-
So you just expanded the definition of "creationist" to include all religious people.. subtle :)
Fisher was not a Creationist, he didn't believe in a young earth, and he didn't believe that God created living organisms some time in the last ten thousand years in their present form. That makes him not a creationist :)
-
So you just expanded the definition of "creationist" to include all religious people.. subtle :)
Fisher was not a Creationist, he didn't believe in a young earth, and he didn't believe that God created living organisms some time in the last ten thousand years in their present form. That makes him not a creationist :)
Oh, okay. So if you are a Christian who believes that God created everything, that God is the Intelligent Designer, you are still not a creationist as long as you believe that the earth is millions of years old and that God used evolution to create all species?
-
Creationism means the nutcases in that museum you wanted to send me to :)
-
Creationism means the nutcases in that museum you wanted to send me to :)
No really, give me a good definition of what a creationist is, not an example.
-
creationist: one who believes in the literal truth of the creation story of Genesis.
-
creationist: one who believes in the literal truth of the creation story of Genesis.
Where in Genesis does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old? What about most, if not all, of the people from the Discovery Institue? They believe that the earth is millions of years old? Have you and Dawkins not called them creationists?
-
If you had watched the documentary, you'd have seen how the ID movement is nothing but the old creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. Their "ID" textbook was just the old "creationism" textbook, with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponent."
As for all the variations among creationists (old earth, young earth, 6000 years, etc), I refer you to AnswersInGenesis...
-
If you had watched the documentary, you'd have seen how the ID movement is nothing but the old creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. Their "ID" textbook was just the old "creationism" textbook, with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponent."
As for all the variations among creationists (old earth, young earth, 6000 years, etc), I refer you to AnswersInGenesis...
So Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher was a variation among creationists? What's the difference between him and a guy from the Discovery Institute who believes that the earth is millions of years old?
-
Difference, you ask?
The first difference is that Fisher was a great scientist, and his contributions to science, especially genetics, evolution, and statistics are immense, whereas the Discovery Institute is a propaganda front whose aim is to subvert science and sabotage the education of American children.
The second difference lies in Fisher's science itself. I challenge you to find examples of references to a supernatural creator or designer in Fisher's scientific writings.
-
Why is our entertainment complex lodged in the middle of a sewer system. No half a brain engineer would do that, ever. Yet we are to believe that the omnipotent creator of the universe did just that? I often wonder what creationists think when they are sitting on the can, engaged in the painful process of excreting near liquid feces, red in tone, dripping out of their arses. Do they think that is the work of the devil? ::)
-
What I find funny is this cat, Lawrence Krauss, head of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, who calls the attraction's popularity "embarrassing." Embarrasing for whom? Not for Christians!! Perhaps, for the so-called enlightened who, despite having a near-monopoly on the scientific community, had have the darndest time convincing people of the "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" explanation for life on earth (If that 2006 poll is accurate, only 15% of Americans queried buy the godless explanation for life on this planet).
People not buying that their ancestor is 5-billion-year-old "goo"? Imagine that!
;D
Yup, a lot of Americans are proud and stupid...
-
Difference, you ask?
The first difference is that Fisher was a great scientist, and his contributions to science, especially genetics, evolution, and statistics are immense, whereas the Discovery Institute is a propaganda front whose aim is to subvert science and sabotage the education of American children.
The second difference lies in Fisher's science itself. I challenge you to find examples of references to a supernatural creator or designer in Fisher's scientific writings.
So if you are a scientist and a devout Christian, write articles for Christian magazines, believe that the earth is millions of years old, believe in a supernatural creator and designer, but do not mention that creator and designer in your scientific writings, then you are not a creationist?
-
Well, you'll have to ask them what they prefer to call themselves, loco. But as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with them believing anything they like in their personal lives as long as they keep faith, unfounded opinion, and superstition out of science.
-
Well, you'll have to ask them what they prefer to call themselves, loco. But as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with them believing anything they like in their personal lives as long as they keep faith, unfounded opinion, and superstition out of science.
Fair enough, columbusdude82!
OzmO,
I'm still waiting for your answer to my question below. That is, if you want to answer it.
that's becuase the amount of knowledge we have now about physical world makes being a creationists almost laughable, but back then it was still easy to be one becuase we didn't know much yet.
Really? Care to list some of those things we know now that we did not know then that make Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, Jonathan Wells, John Polkinghorne, Lee M. Spetner, and Francis Collins being a creationist almost laughable?
-
Fair enough, columbusdude82!
OzmO,
I'm still waiting for your answer to my question below. That is, if you want to answer it.
What about my question?!
Why is our entertainment complex lodged in the middle of a sewer system. No half a brain engineer would do that, ever. Yet we are to believe that the omnipotent creator of the universe did just that? I often wonder what creationists think when they are sitting on the can, engaged in the painful process of excreting near liquid feces, red in tone, dripping out of their arses. Do they think that is the work of the devil?
-
What about my question?!
Why is our entertainment complex lodged in the middle of a sewer system. No half a brain engineer would do that, ever. Yet we are to believe that the omnipotent creator of the universe did just that? I often wonder what creationists think when they are sitting on the can, engaged in the painful process of excreting near liquid feces, red in tone, dripping out of their arses. Do they think that is the work of the devil?
Trapezkerl, your question has already been answered. If you don't like the answer, that's another story.
Trapezkerl,
I think that this is the third time that I see you complain about our plumbing, peeing and pooping. Why is that?
I don't have any problems with my plumbing. Peeing and pooping, in other words, relieving yourself is one of life's little pleasures, and it is free. ;D
You don't think so? Then I recommend adding more fiber to your diet, and more water too. Add some cranberry juice too. I've heard that it helps clear out urinary track infections, if that's the problem. :)
Oh, and low-carb diets can make you hate your plumbing too. Carbs are loaded with water and some even with fiber. Protein and fat have neither water nor fiber. People don't realize how much they lower their water and fiber intake when they go low carb.
What's so screwy about our plumbing anyway? Waste is processed and ejected. So what? If you are sick it throws everything into a bit of chaos....same would happen with the best designed machine if it needed maintenance.
I wonder what the manufacturing defect rate would be for a machine like that vs the defect rate for people at age 18?
And could those machines reproduce themselves?
-
Please take your discussion of sewage to another thread. Keep this thread about the documentary.
loco, did you watch it?
-
Please take your discussion of sewage to another thread. Keep this thread about the documentary.
loco, did you watch it?
No, but I have read about the Dover trial before. Maybe I can catch it later on YouTube and then I'll tell you what I think.
-
It's available online on the PBS website in the first post. They've split it up into 7-10 minute clips for your viewing pleasure :)
-
It's available online on the PBS website in the first post. They've split it up into 7-10 minute clips for your viewing pleasure :)
Thank you!
-
I'm just glad that Jonas Salk didn't look at the polio virus and throw his hands up b/c, gosh darn it, it was an irreducible complexity...in his eyes.
ID may be true. It's just not provable.
ID is a conclusion based on supernatural premise(s) and is not subject to the rigors of the scientific method or analysis.
Evolution does not suffer from the same frailties as ID.
-
ID may be true. It's just not provable.
???
-
I'm just glad that Jonas Salk didn't look at the polio virus and throw his hands up b/c, gosh darn it, it was an irreducible complexity...in his eyes.
ID may be true. It's just not provable.
ID is a conclusion based on supernatural premise(s) and is not subject to the rigors of the scientific method or analysis.
Evolution does not suffer from the same frailties as ID.
Yes it does. Scientific method or analysis cannot prove the origins of life or macroevolution.
-
Yes it does. Scientific method or analysis cannot prove the origins of life or macroevolution.
No it doesn't. Scientists are using provisional theories of mathematical models of the creation of everything from nothing. http://members.fortunecity.com/templarseries/big-bang.html
Evolutionary theory is a workable scientific paradigm.
Tell me, what scientific field has ID ever helped or contributed to?
I'll save you some time, it has contributed nothing to any field of science.
You have zero empirical evidence for ID.
ID is a fraud masquerading as science.
God may have created an evolving reality but ID has no way to show that.
ID is lazy unscientific thinking.
Hmmm, we have a gap in our theory so God must have done it. That's not science.
God must have done it!
You must see that that is just irrational and not subject to the scientific method in any empirical or mathematical way.
-
No it doesn't. Scientists are using provisional theories of mathematical models of the creation of everything from nothing. http://members.fortunecity.com/templarseries/big-bang.html
Evolutionary theory is a workable scientific paradigm.
Tell me, what scientific field has ID ever helped or contributed to?
I'll save you some time, it has contributed nothing to any field of science.
You have zero empirical evidence for ID.
ID is a fraud masquerading as science.
God may have created an evolving reality but ID has no way to show that.
ID is lazy unscientific thinking.
Hmmm, we have a gap in our theory so God must have done it. That's not science.
God must have done it!
You must see that that is just irrational and not subject to the scientific method in any empirical or mathematical way.
I perused the article. It's an opinion piece.
Here is what scientists (including Darwinists) believe you need to prove a theory: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Those who believe the earth and life on earth just materialized and that we all evolved from the same single-celled organism have not followed the preceding tenants. So, from that standpoint, the theory of evolution suffers from "frailties."
-
I perused the article. It's an opinion piece.
Here is what scientists (including Darwinists) believe you need to prove a theory: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Those who believe the earth and life on earth just materialized and that we all evolved from the same single-celled organism have not followed the preceding tenants. So, from that standpoint, the theory of evolution suffers from "frailties."
Scientific speculation about the origins of reality is happening. Does that disprove Evolution as a useful scientific theory?
No.
Why? B/c we can analyze our origins in mathematical concepts without resorting to a catch-all--God did it.
Evolution is handy for medicine, biology, epidemiology, molecular biology and I'm sure more.
What is ID handy for again?
Your repeated questioning of evolution does nothing to show me that ID is not a fraud.
I'll ask you again, what does ID contribute to any field of science?
-
Scientific speculation about the origins of reality is happening. Does that disprove Evolution as a useful scientific theory?
No.
Why? B/c we can analyze our origins in mathematical concepts without resorting to a catch-all--God did it.
Evolution is handy for medicine, biology, epidemiology, molecular biology and I'm sure more.
What is ID handy for again?
Your repeated questioning of evolution does nothing to show me that ID is not a fraud.
I'll ask you again, what does ID contribute to any field of science?
There is nothing but pure speculation when it comes to both the origins of life (under any theory) and macroevolution. Science has not proved how we got here. Science has not proved that we evolved from the same organism. "(1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." Where is the science showing the origin of life (i.e., the very beginning) and macroevolution (i.e., changes from one species to another) using the preceding tenants?
I question certain parts of evolution because many parts of it do not make any sense (see my thread on Billions of Missing Links). I don't question parts of the theory of evolution to try and prove ID. I don't believe I've ever made any argument regarding ID and science.
I have no idea what ID has contributed to any field of science. Never looked at it.
What has the untested, unproved big bang et al. theory and the untested, unproved theory of macroevolution ever contributed any field of science?
-
There is nothing but pure speculation when it comes to both the origins of life (under any theory) and macroevolution. Science has not proved how we got here. Science has not proved that we evolved from the same organism. "(1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." Where is the science showing the origin of life (i.e., the very beginning) and macroevolution (i.e., changes from one species to another) using the preceding tenants?
I question certain parts of evolution because many parts of it do not make any sense (see my thread on Billions of Missing Links). I don't question parts of the theory of evolution to try and prove ID. I don't believe I've ever made any argument regarding ID and science.
I have no idea what ID has contributed to any field of science. Never looked at it.
What has the untested, unproved big bang et al. theory and the untested, unproved theory of macroevolution ever contributed any field of science?
Yes it is speculation. It is speculation grounded in science. Do you think that Einstein went to mercury to observe and explain the Daisy petal effect of precession? No. He developed mathematical theories for it.
Inferences are part of science as well. Remember that.
You cling to the same fundamental misgivings time and again:
*The scientific method has not proven everything re origins therefore it is on par with ID
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true
Now that I've shown you how science works re our origins, show me how ID explains it.
"Billions of missing links"
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
-
Yes it is speculation. It is speculation grounded in science. Do you think that Einstein went to mercury to observe and explain the Daisy petal effect of precession? No. He developed mathematical theories for it.
Inferences are part of science as well. Remember that.
You cling to the same fundamental misgivings time and again:
*The scientific method has not proven everything re origins therefore it is on par with ID
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true
Now that I've shown you how science works re our origins, show me how ID explains it.
"Billions of missing links"
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Yes inferences are part of science. Inferences are all we have about the origins of life and macroevolution. You didn't show how science works regarding the origins of life. The first part of the information you posted says "The origin of life remains very much a mystery . . . ." It later uses words like "could have" and "hint." In other words, this is pure, untested speculation. There isn't even a uniform theory about how it all started, because it hasn't been tested and proved.
And the excerpt you cut and pasted regarding transitional fossils establishes what exactly? Did you read the thread? Some very compelling questions/issues IMO.
-
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." - Antony Flew, former prominent atheist
Antony Flew Considers God, letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, October 10, 2004.
-
Yes inferences are part of science. Inferences are all we have about the origins of life and macroevolution. You didn't show how science works regarding the origins of life. The first part of the information you posted says "The origin of life remains very much a mystery . . . ." It later uses words like "could have" and "hint." In other words, this is pure, untested speculation. There isn't even a uniform theory about how it all started, because it hasn't been tested and proved.
And the excerpt you cut and pasted regarding transitional fossils establishes what exactly? Did you read the thread? Some very compelling questions/issues IMO.
Yes, the origins of life are a mystery. They will forever remain a mystery if ID is our model for analysis. ID is not science b/c, although it relies on inferences, it uses irrational unscientific premises in its analysis.
Supernatural causation is not part of scientific analysis. We might as well be discussing gnomes.
God as an absolute causative factor cannot be a scientific premise b/c self referental groups in logic are irrational: The group denotes god. This results in a second group of god and the god group. This destruction of reason goes on into infinity. Hence we cannot conceptualize in any meaningful way an absolute creative force. Therefore it is not subject to scientific inquiry. Therefore it is not science. It is irrational.
On that basis alone, there can be no intelligent design with a foundation in science.
-
Yes, the origins of life are a mystery. They will forever remain a mystery if ID is our model for analysis. ID is not science b/c, although it relies on inferences, it uses irrational unscientific premises in its analysis.
Supernatural causation is not part of scientific analysis. We might as well be discussing gnomes.
God as an absolute causative factor cannot be a scientific premise b/c self referental groups in logic are irrational: The group denotes god. This results in a second group of god and the god group. This destruction of reason goes on into infinity. Hence we cannot conceptualize in any meaningful way an absolute creative force. Therefore it is not subject to scientific inquiry. Therefore it is not science. It is irrational.
On that basis alone, there can be no intelligent design with a foundation in science.
I was talking about evolution. Your criticism of ID, which wasn't my point, doesn't change the fact there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution that "science" has not filled.
I was addressing these comments:
ID is a conclusion based on supernatural premise(s) and is not subject to the rigors of the scientific method or analysis.
Evolution does not suffer from the same frailties as ID.
That's simply not factual. Might be your opinion, which is fine, but the "rigors of the scientific method or analysis" has not established how it all started or macroevolution.
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/)
NOVA will be airing a new dramatization of the Dover, PA case on November 13 at 8:00 pm.
When the religious non-science of Intelligent Design was forced on the children of Dover, PA, reason and science, as well as the Constitution, teachers, and parents, fought back. ID and its proponents were utterly rebuffed and defeated.
Make sure to watch the documentary. Also check the page above for a preview as well as lots of good info.
i actually saw parts of that when i was going to bed one night. i was half asleep and the fell asleep so i missed most of it...sounded interesting though
-
I was talking about evolution. Your criticism of ID, which wasn't my point, doesn't change the fact there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution that "science" has not filled.
I was addressing these comments:
That's simply not factual. Might be your opinion, which is fine, but the "rigors of the scientific method or analysis" has not established how it all started or macroevolution.
Evolution on a macro scale relies on inferences (all science relies on indirect evidence) from basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection to form a viable hypothesis.
Where does ID derive its inferences from?
Irreducible complexity?
That's pure fiction. Otherwise show me one irreducible complexity.
So we should fill the gaps in Evolutionary Theory with God and ID?
That's the God of Gaps argument that has been discredited. It's not science. Evolution is science b/c it is falsifiable--we haven't found any creatures created by spontaneous generation yet.
-
Tell me, what scientific field has ID ever helped or contributed to?
I don't know, but right off the top of my head, I can think of one great contribution that the Intelligent Design movement has made to science, particularly Biology. I.D. triggered the process of many publishers to clean up modern Biology text books of garbage like the fake Hackel drawings and the peppered moth. Otherwise, these, which have been part of biology text books for many many years, uncritically and unquestioned, would have continued to be included in biology text books for many more years to come.
"Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication. This was stated in a reply to the Texas State Board Of Education's public hearing on textbooks during which Mr. Frank Mayo commented: "As a result some of these icons have been removed from the current offering of biology textbooks; but, unfortunately, other icons still remain. These contain serious factual errors."
References:
1. Response to Oral Testimony Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.
2. Texas State Board Of Education - Public Hearing on Textbooks, July 9, 2003.
About the Peppered Moth and modern Biology texts:
Many biology and life science textbooks use industrial melanism as an example of natural selection, displaying an illustration of the peppered moth undergoing evolution. Unfortunately, many of the textbook photographs of the moths consist of preserved specimens stuck to tree bark (If your textbook contains these photos, note that the wings of the moths may be in unnatural mounted positions.). This “faking” of moth distribution was used to test the likelihood of predation based on visibility of prey.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IVthe_times.shtml
The Peppered Myth
http://www.discovery.org/a/1263
More on Hackel's drawings in modern biology textbooks:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=169896.msg2394423#msg2394423
-
I don't know, but right off the top of my head, I can think of one great contribution that the Intelligent Design movement has made to science, particularly Biology. I.D. triggered the process of many publishers to clean up modern Biology text books of garbage like the fake Hackel drawings and the peppered moth. Otherwise, these, which have been part of biology text books for many many years, uncritically and unquestioned, would have continued to be included in biology text books for many more years to come.
"Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication. This was stated in a reply to the Texas State Board Of Education's public hearing on textbooks during which Mr. Frank Mayo commented: "As a result some of these icons have been removed from the current offering of biology textbooks; but, unfortunately, other icons still remain. These contain serious factual errors."
References:
1. Response to Oral Testimony Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.
2. Texas State Board Of Education - Public Hearing on Textbooks, July 9, 2003.
About the Peppered Moth and modern Biology texts:
Many biology and life science textbooks use industrial melanism as an example of natural selection, displaying an illustration of the peppered moth undergoing evolution. Unfortunately, many of the textbook photographs of the moths consist of preserved specimens stuck to tree bark (If your textbook contains these photos, note that the wings of the moths may be in unnatural mounted positions.). This “faking” of moth distribution was used to test the likelihood of predation based on visibility of prey.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IVthe_times.shtml
The Peppered Myth
http://www.discovery.org/a/1263
More on Hackel's drawings in modern biology textbooks:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=169896.msg2394423#msg2394423
Science, as an endeavor, is always in a constant state of re-examination. Text books should be up to date. That lends no credence to ID though.
I thought you might like to see this recent article on the peppered moth debunking its critics and showing it as a valid example of natural selection:
Moth study backs classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2893896.ece
-
Science, as an endeavor, is always in a constant state of re-examination. Text books should be up to date. That lends no credence to ID though.
Yes, but the text books were not re-examined when it came to these. The text books were not up to date when it came to these. Regarding Hackel's fake drawings, text books were outdated for 100 years even though Scientists back then knew these were fake.
I thought you might like to see this recent article on the peppered moth debunking its critics and showing it as a valid example of natural selection:
Moth study backs classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2893896.ece
This article is debunking critics who use these as an excuse to say that Darwin's whole theory is wrong, but that is not what I'm saying. A clean up of Biology text books was long overdue. I was giving you one contribution I.D. made to science.
-
Yes, but the text books were not re-examined when it came to these. The text books were not up to date when it came to these. Regarding Hackel's fake drawings, text books were outdated for 100 years even though Scientists back then knew these were fake.
This article is debunking critics who use these as an excuse to say that Darwin's whole theory is wrong, but that is not what I'm saying. A clean up of Biology text books was long overdue. I was giving you one contribution I.D. made to science.
I know what you are saying but that's not a scientific contribution that goes to the heart of whether ID is a valid scientific model for biology.
-
I know what you are saying but that's not a scientific contribution that goes to the heart of whether ID is a valid scientific model for biology.
ID is just Creationism is disguise. It it not a theory at all. It cannot be tested, corroborated, confirmed or anything else for that matter. It basically says, that's too tough for us to understand, hence is was designed. That very much goes against the inquisitive and pioneering nature of true science.
Creationism/ID is really just about ego. People who cannot psychologically come to terms with the fact that we are animals and primates, with no special role or destiny and just one more species in the realm of biology/history, likely to go extinct as 99% of all species have, hang on ID/creationism for the psychological benefits it provides, not for valid scientific reasons.
-
ID is just Creationism is disguise. It it not a theory at all. It cannot be tested, corroborated, confirmed or anything else for that matter. It basically says, that's too tough for us to understand, hence is was designed. That very much goes against the inquisitive and pioneering nature of true science.
Creationism/ID is really just about ego. People who cannot psychologically come to terms with the fact that we are animals and primates, with no special role or destiny and just one more species in the realm of biology/history, likely to go extinct as 99% of all species have, hang on ID/creationism for the psychological benefits it provides, not for valid scientific reasons.
The not being able to “psychologically come to terms with….” tag falls on the evolutionists and atheists, as they don’t want to accept that there is God, and He is sovereign over heaven and earth. Nor, do they want to be accountable to Him. So, they devised a method to claim that life came from nothing, with no guidance and no design. Or as the Bible puts it, man simply worships the created, instead of the Creator.
And, as I mentioned a few days ago, evolutionists themselves have admitted as much. To recap:
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.
But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. (Now who can't psychologically come to terms with what, again?) It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954
-
Scientific speculation about the origins of reality is happening. Does that disprove Evolution as a useful scientific theory?
No.
Why? B/c we can analyze our origins in mathematical concepts without resorting to a catch-all--God did it.
Evolution is handy for medicine, biology, epidemiology, molecular biology and I'm sure more.
What is ID handy for again?
Your repeated questioning of evolution does nothing to show me that ID is not a fraud.
I'll ask you again, what does ID contribute to any field of science?
Apparently, you missed my post earlier. Again, I make reference to one Louis Pasteur. His studies in BIOLOGY helped develop vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases on the planet and his works help make dairy products safe to consume. And, for some strange reason, he didn't need evolution to get that done. Go figure.
To top it all off, his scientific work basically flattened the very premise of evolution itself, spontaneous generation.
Pasteur believed in Creation, not evolution. And, his studies confirmed what common sense would tell us all along: Life only comes from life.
If you've seen the aforemtioned quotes from evolutionists, admitting that they believe in evolution DESPITE OF (not because of) scientific evidence (because the only other option would be to admit that Creation occured and, thus, there is a God), you can thank Pasteur for their laments. Think about that the next time you down some moo juice of have a swig of whey (and/or casein) protein shake ;D .
-
Apparently, you missed my post earlier. Again, I make reference to one Louis Pasteur. His studies in BIOLOGY helped develop vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases on the planet and his works help make dairy products safe to consume. And, for some strange reason, he didn't need evolution to get that done. Go figure.
To top it all off, his scientific work basically flattened the very premise of evolution itself, spontaneous generation.
Pasteur believed in Creation, not evolution. And, his studies confirmed what common sense would tell us all along: Life only comes from life.
If you've seen the aforemtioned quotes from evolutionists, admitting that they believe in evolution DESPITE OF (not because of) scientific evidence (because the only other option would be to admit that Creation occured and, thus, there is a God), you can thank Pasteur for their laments. Think about that the next time you down some moo juice of have a swig of whey (and/or casein) protein shake ;D .
So you believe the vast majority (almost all) respectable science departments at universities are simply engaged in massive self-deception? What have they got wrong? Do you honestly believe that careful, objective analysis and observation of scientific data should lead a scientist to believe that the basic doctrines of Christianity are true and that the bible is the inerrant word of god?
-
So you believe the vast majority (almost all) respectable science departments at universities are simply engaged in massive self-deception? What have they got wrong?
Spontaneous generation, for starters.
Do you honestly believe that careful, objective analysis and observation of scientific data should lead a scientist to believe that the basic doctrines of Christianity are true and that the bible is the inerrant word of god?
It leds scientists to that conclusion before (and it still does so today, given the number of scientists who believe in Creation that, at one time, believed in evolution).
-
Spontaneous generation, for starters.
It leds scientists to that conclusion before (and it still does so today, given the number of scientists who believe in Creation that, at one time, believed in evolution).
Right. Scientists are led to believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god and the there is a 'holy trinity' consisting of a father, a son and a spirit and the son ha magic powers and died and came to life again, all based on careful observation of scientific data...well what happens when they see that the bible claims that insects have four feet? Not so inerrant after all...
-
Apparently, you missed my post earlier. Again, I make reference to one Louis Pasteur. His studies in BIOLOGY helped develop vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases on the planet and his works help make dairy products safe to consume. And, for some strange reason, he didn't need evolution to get that done. Go figure.
To top it all off, his scientific work basically flattened the very premise of evolution itself, spontaneous generation.
Pasteur believed in Creation, not evolution. And, his studies confirmed what common sense would tell us all along: Life only comes from life.
If you've seen the aforemtioned quotes from evolutionists, admitting that they believe in evolution DESPITE OF (not because of) scientific evidence (because the only other option would be to admit that Creation occured and, thus, there is a God), you can thank Pasteur for their laments. Think about that the next time you down some moo juice of have a swig of whey (and/or casein) protein shake ;D .
Just b/c Louis believed in god and did not use an evolutionary model for the development of pasteurization speaks nothing about the validity of evolution and, in this case, the applicability of ID.
His studies do not confirm life comes from life. His studies confirm that boiling liquids kills harmful viruses and such. Boiling liquids does not seem to require any info from the theory of evolution, does it?
Again, I will ask, "name one scientific application of ID that advances our knowledge!"
You can't do it.
Here's why. ID is the old "god of gaps" argument repackaged. What! you say, there are gaps in the evolutionary theory, then god must have done it and evolution is nonsense.
No.
ID is nothing more than a false conclusion drawn from an unprovable set of premises, one of which is god. That's wholly irrational. It may be true ultimately, but it is not scientifically verifiable.
-
Just b/c Louis believed in god and did not use an evolutionary model for the development of pasteurization speaks nothing about the validity of evolution and, in this case, the applicability of ID.
His studies do not confirm life comes from life. His studies confirm that boiling liquids kills harmful viruses and such. Boiling liquids does not seem to require any info from the theory of evolution, does it?
Again, I will ask, "name one scientific application of ID that advances our knowledge!"
You can't do it.
Here's why. ID is the old "god of gaps" argument repackaged. What! you say, there are gaps in the evolutionary theory, then god must have done it and evolution is nonsense.
No.
ID is nothing more than a false conclusion drawn from an unprovable set of premises, one of which is god. That's wholly irrational. It may be true ultimately, but it is not scientifically verifiable.
Ma guy.... ;)
-
Just b/c Louis believed in god and did not use an evolutionary model for the development of pasteurization speaks nothing about the validity of evolution and, in this case, the applicability of ID.
You claimed that evolution was "handy" (read necessary) for advances in biology. Pasteur's work is simply one of many examples that show such to be false. Scientific advancement (from the operational standpoint) requires no belief in evolution to make such possible.
His studies do not confirm life comes from life. His studies confirm that boiling liquids kills harmful viruses and such. Boiling liquids does not seem to require any info from the theory of evolution, does it?
That's funny!! The evolutionists mentioned earlier would disagree with you. They blamed/credited Pasteur's work with dismantling the tenet of spontaneous generation, which based on scientific research, was shown to be impossible. Those are their words, not mine. Plus, it wasn't just the pasteurization process. I also mentioned his works with vaccines. Again, you cited belief in evolution as a biological necessity. That has been shown to be false.
Either life can spontaneously generate or it can't, pure and simple. Pasteur's work showed scientifically that it can't and, to this day, no one has refuted his work or shown that such can occur.
Again, I will ask, "name one scientific application of ID that advances our knowledge!"
You can't do it.
Here's why. ID is the old "god of gaps" argument repackaged. What! you say, there are gaps in the evolutionary theory, then god must have done it and evolution is nonsense.
I've mentioned nothing about "gaps". Try addressing the arguments I've made, not the ones I haven't made. The scientific method requires, as Beach Bum stated, observation and repeatability. There has been no observation or repeatability when it comes to the claims of certain creatures "evolving" into different ones, completely unlike themselves (i.e. you have never seen or replicated a reptile evolving into a bird, as the theory of evolution claims happened).
Creation states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, which would tie into genetics. I expect dogs to reproduce and begats dogs, not cats, birds, or sheep. Those dogs, due to numerous factors, may differ in size, shape, color, and reproductive capability; but, they'll still be dogs.
What advances our knowledge is the study of nature (which, in its simplest form, is all science really is). You can do such with one of two paradigms: One, stating that there's a supernatural source for life on Earth; and the other that states that there is not. That's why and how you can have biologists with Ph.Ds who are creationists and those who are evolutionists.
No.
ID is nothing more than a false conclusion drawn from an unprovable set of premises, one of which is god. That's wholly irrational. It may be true ultimately, but it is not scientifically verifiable.
That would apply to evolution. Again, if birds evolved from reptiles, has anyone replicated the circumstances that supposedly made that possible or observed such in a lab or natural setting? NO!!! Evolution derived from that a priori assumption (or perhaps, desire) to develop a godless explanation for life on this planet, as has been demonstrated by evolutionists, past and present.
-
You claimed that evolution was "handy" (read necessary) for advances in biology. Pasteur's work is simply one of many examples that show such to be false. Scientific advancement (from the operational standpoint) requires no belief in evolution to make such possible.
That's funny!! The evolutionists mentioned earlier would disagree with you. They blamed/credited Pasteur's work with dismantling the tenet of spontaneous generation, which based on scientific research, was shown to be impossible. Those are their words, not mine. Plus, it wasn't just the pasteurization process. I also mentioned his works with vaccines. Again, you cited belief in evolution as a biological necessity. That has been shown to be false.
Either life can spontaneously generate or it can't, pure and simple. Pasteur's work showed scientifically that it can't and, to this day, no one has refuted his work or shown that such can occur.
I've mentioned nothing about "gaps". Try addressing the arguments I've made, not the ones I haven't made. The scientific method requires, as Beach Bum stated, observation and repeatability. There has been no observation or repeatability when it comes to the claims of certain creatures "evolving" into different ones, completely unlike themselves (i.e. you have never seen or replicated a reptile evolving into a bird, as the theory of evolution claims happened).
Creation states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, which would tie into genetics. I expect dogs to reproduce and begats dogs, not cats, birds, or sheep. Those dogs, due to numerous factors, may differ in size, shape, color, and reproductive capability; but, they'll still be dogs.
What advances our knowledge is the study of nature (which, in its simplest form, is all science really is). You can do such with one of two paradigms: One, stating that there's a supernatural source for life on Earth; and the other that states that there is not. That's why and how you can have biologists with Ph.Ds who are creationists and those who are evolutionists.
That would apply to evolution. Again, if birds evolved from reptiles, has anyone replicated the circumstances that supposedly made that possible or observed such in a lab or natural setting? NO!!! Evolution derived from that a priori assumption (or perhaps, desire) to develop a godless explanation for life on this planet, as has been demonstrated by evolutionists, past and present.
Evolutionist: Chimps share 99% of the same DNA as human being because both species evolved from a common ancestor; Orangutans 97%, Gorillas 98%.
Creationist: Chimps share 99% of the same DNA as human being because god just made them that way (who can understand the will of god?)
Using Occam's Razor, which is the clearer, simpler and more rational explanation....?
-
You claimed that evolution was "handy" (read necessary) for advances in biology. Pasteur's work is simply one of many examples that show such to be false. Scientific advancement (from the operational standpoint) requires no belief in evolution to make such possible.
You are right, scientific advancement requires no belief in evolution to make it possible. It depends on whether you are studying Pasteurization or biology. Evolution is handy (read NOT necessary, read HANDY) for advancing the historical sciences like astronomy, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology. In that respect, evolution is a fact.
That's funny!! The evolutionists mentioned earlier would disagree with you. They blamed/credited Pasteur's work with dismantling the tenet of spontaneous generation, which based on scientific research, was shown to be impossible. Those are their words, not mine. Plus, it wasn't just the pasteurization process. I also mentioned his works with vaccines. Again, you cited belief in evolution as a biological necessity. That has been shown to be false.
Either life can spontaneously generate or it can't, pure and simple. Pasteur's work showed scientifically that it can't and, to this day, no one has refuted his work or shown that such can occur.
Again, I am not sure what you are saying. If spontaneous generation was proven, that would falsify evolution, game over. So, I guess Pasteur’s work did support evolutionary theory.
Just b/c the origin of life is still unknown to us does nothing to falsify evolution. Even if life was found to be created in the beginning, that would not change the fact that evolution has been confirmed in many micro and macro-evolutionary studies.
Where does ID and ‘irreducible complexity’ fit into all this? That's right....Right alongside astrology.
I've mentioned nothing about "gaps". Try addressing the arguments I've made, not the ones I haven't made. The scientific method requires, as Beach Bum stated, observation and repeatability. There has been no observation or repeatability when it comes to the claims of certain creatures "evolving" into different ones, completely unlike themselves (i.e. you have never seen or replicated a reptile evolving into a bird, as the theory of evolution claims happened).
Creation states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, which would tie into genetics. I expect dogs to reproduce and begats dogs, not cats, birds, or sheep. Those dogs, due to numerous factors, may differ in size, shape, color, and reproductive capability; but, they'll still be dogs.
What advances our knowledge is the study of nature (which, in its simplest form, is all science really is). You can do such with one of two paradigms: One, stating that there's a supernatural source for life on Earth; and the other that states that there is not. That's why and how you can have biologists with Ph.Ds who are creationists and those who are evolutionists.
I like the nomenclature you use. You sound like Kent Hovind. I’ve attended his lectures and have met the man. He’s a very nice guy—in prison for tax evasion, but a nice guy nonetheless. He’s also certifiable.
“No observation where creatures evolve into other creatures” Wrong. Recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
I’m sure there are creationists who fancy themselves scientists. That’s fine. God may have created everything. But we can’t show that under the scientific method. God is not quantifiable and ‘irreducible complexity’ is on par with astrology therefore Creationism is not science.
That would apply to evolution. Again, if birds evolved from reptiles, has anyone replicated the circumstances that supposedly made that possible or observed such in a lab or natural setting? NO!!! Evolution derived from that a priori assumption (or perhaps, desire) to develop a godless explanation for life on this planet, as has been demonstrated by evolutionists, past and present.
You actually expect a scientist to reproduce millions of years of evolution in the laboratory? That’s not how science, in this case, works. Observation, inference, and math play their roles in scientific analysis. Do you think that Physicists use some giant magnifying glass to observe subatomic particles? No, math and inference are at work here.
Would you explain, in a nutshell, what Intelligent Design is and why I should consider it a scientific theory that is at least the rival of the theory of evolution?
-
Spontaneous generation, for starters.
It leds scientists to that conclusion before (and it still does so today, given the number of scientists who believe in Creation that, at one time, believed in evolution).
so does ID have a conclusion already? i beleive it does, that god did it. and it looks for supporting evidence. that alone makes it pseudoscience. science has no conclusions and goes where the evidence leads.
i will agree that the belief that sentience can only create sentience resonates with me, but its not a fact, only a geuss or philosophy. its not even a theory as it has really no testable tenets, as we dont have billions of years to sit around and watch. just because abiogenesis is a work in progress doesnt mean god did it. dont you think thats a premature scientific conclusion?
i mean, look at life. does anything that we have explained require god? does rain require god? well it doesnt now but before there was a multitude of gods for many natural processes. is god needed for childbirth? not now, but it was before we understood it. apply this logic to all of our knowledge, the knowledge we have gained, and observe how god is being pushed back. as a rational person wouldnt you agree that its more likely that god will continue to receed after millions of experiments and truths found? or that he will be there in the end? one seems much more logical and statistically probable.
matter is neither created nor destroyed, remember that one?
-
i mean, look at life. does anything that we have explained require god? does rain require god? well it doesnt now but before there was a multitude of gods for many natural processes. is god needed for childbirth? not now, but it was before we understood it. apply this logic to all of our knowledge, the knowledge we have gained, and observe how god is being pushed back. as a rational person wouldnt you agree that its more likely that god will continue to receed after millions of experiments and truths found? or that he will be there in the end? one seems much more logical and statistically probable.
I just want to mention that in the Old Testament, God tells people not to be afraid of these natural processes and not to worship the multitude of gods created to explain those natural processes. That was thousands of years ago.
For thousands of years, the Biblical God has not been pushed back by believers as we have gained knowledge. Look at all the scientists who believed and all the scientists who still believe in the Biblical God. No, I don't believe that God will "continue to recede" as He has not receded at all. I believe people will continue to believe in and worship the Biblical God thousands of years from now.
-
I just want to mention that in the Old Testament, God tells people not to be afraid of these natural processes and not to worship the multitude of gods created to explain those natural processes. That was thousands of years ago.
For thousands of years, the Biblical God has not been pushed back by believers as we have gained knowledge. Look at all the scientists who believed and all the scientists who still believe in the Biblical God. No, I don't believe that God will "continue to recede" as He has not receded at all. I believe people will continue to believe in and worship the Biblical God thousands of years from now.
sorry YOUR god. just every other god. and the god of intelligent design. it states that god fills in the "gaps" of evolution. that god created each species, not evolution, that he was involved in creation of life billions of years after the birth of the universe. once these gaps are filled, as they always are god will be pushed back.
tell me, where is your god then. what role did he have in creation?
so your saying your god has nothing to do with life as we know it, no involvement, which is quite obvious according to science. but he created everything then left it? is this your beleif?
-
sorry YOUR god. just every other god. and the god of intelligent design. it states that god fills in the "gaps" of evolution. that god created each species, not evolution, that he was involved in creation of life billions of years after the birth of the universe. once these gaps are filled, as they always are god will be pushed back.
tell me, where is your god then. what role did he have in creation?
so your saying your god has nothing to do with life as we know it, no involvement, which is quite obvious according to science. but he created everything then left it? is this your beleif?
I think you know my answer to your questions. I am a "Bible thumping fundy" after all. ;D
-
so does ID have a conclusion already? i beleive it does, that god did it. and it looks for supporting evidence. that alone makes it pseudoscience. science has no conclusions and goes where the evidence leads.
i will agree that the belief that sentience can only create sentience resonates with me, but its not a fact, only a geuss or philosophy. its not even a theory as it has really no testable tenets, as we dont have billions of years to sit around and watch. just because abiogenesis is a work in progress doesnt mean god did it. dont you think thats a premature scientific conclusion?
i mean, look at life. does anything that we have explained require god? does rain require god? well it doesnt now but before there was a multitude of gods for many natural processes. is god needed for childbirth? not now, but it was before we understood it. apply this logic to all of our knowledge, the knowledge we have gained, and observe how god is being pushed back. as a rational person wouldnt you agree that its more likely that god will continue to receed after millions of experiments and truths found? or that he will be there in the end? one seems much more logical and statistically probable.
matter is neither created nor destroyed, remember that one?
Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter.
As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! ;D ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary.
If already having a conclusion invalidates Creation, then it would invalidate evolution as well, for its conclusion is “There is no God!” Why do you think evolution hold such appeal to atheists? It’s a way for them to explain (or attempt to explain) life on Earth, without those pesky words, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth .
No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded.
BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?
-
You are right, scientific advancement requires no belief in evolution to make it possible. It depends on whether you are studying Pasteurization or biology. Evolution is handy (read NOT necessary, read HANDY) for advancing the historical sciences like astronomy, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology. In that respect, evolution is a fact.Again, I am not sure what you are saying. If spontaneous generation was proven, that would falsify evolution, game over. So, I guess Pasteur’s work did support evolutionary theory.
I’m sorry! Last time I checked, Pasteur was a biologist. So, why is it that this biologist (among others), for some wacky reason, was able to make tremendous advances in scientific research, make vaccines to cure deadly diseases, and make dairy products safe to consume, while still believing in Creation?
His experiments dismantled the tenet of spontaneous generation, as a number of scientists (over the next century) have admitted. Again, as they have stated, their reason for adhering to evolution, despite their agreeing with Pasteur that spontaneous generation is not possible is because, if they do not, then they must admit to supernatural creation as being the source of life. That is something they DO NOT wish to do, as it grates their materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.
Just b/c the origin of life is still unknown to us does nothing to falsify evolution. Even if life was found to be created in the beginning, that would not change the fact that evolution has been confirmed in many micro and macro-evolutionary studies.
Who says the origin of life is unknown? Those would be folks who don't want to acknowledge God as Creator of heaven and earth.
Where does ID and ‘irreducible complexity’ fit into all this? That's right....Right alongside astrology.
I like the nomenclature you use. You sound like Kent Hovind. I’ve attended his lectures and have met the man. He’s a very nice guy—in prison for tax evasion, but a nice guy nonetheless. He’s also certifiable.
“No observation where creatures evolve into other creatures” Wrong. Recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
Flies producing flies? Imagine that!! That would be creatures reproducing after their own kind, or as is termed in scientific jargon, speciation. My claim wasn’t that speciation has never been observed. The claim is (and remains) that the observation of a creature evolving into another creature completely unlike itself has not occurred. Fruit flies producing other forms of fruit flies is a far cry from fruit flies evolving into lizards, or birds.
35 generations or 350 generations, they are STILL flies.
I’m sure there are creationists who fancy themselves scientists. That’s fine. God may have created everything. But we can’t show that under the scientific method. God is not quantifiable and ‘irreducible complexity’ is on par with astrology therefore Creationism is not science.
You actually expect a scientist to reproduce millions of years of evolution in the laboratory? That’s not how science, in this case, works. Observation, inference, and math play their roles in scientific analysis. Do you think that Physicists use some giant magnifying glass to observe subatomic particles? No, math and inference are at work here.
That's the standard out, when evolutionists can't back their claims. One minute you state that evolution has been observed. Yet, when asked to produce an example of such observation (i.e. reptiles evolving into birds), all of a sudden, it can't be done, because the process allegedly take "millions of years". One wouldn't even have to show observation of a so-called full transition. Per evolution, some chemical, environmental, or genetic scenario caused this reptiles to start sprouting feathers or other bird-like qualities. By rule, such should be able to be replicated in a lab for observation. That's what I meant, when it comes to showing observation of evolution, not fruit flies producing.......MORE FRUIT FLIES!!!
Would you explain, in a nutshell, what Intelligent Design is and why I should consider it a scientific theory that is at least the rival of the theory of evolution?
As I've stated before, I'm not into ID, simply because it is simply passive and, at best, a compromising stance. I'm a believer in Biblical Creation, that God created this world and life on it in 6 days.
-
I’m sorry! Last time I checked, Pasteur was a biologist. So, why is it that this biologist (among others), for some wacky reason, was able to make tremendous advances in scientific research, make vaccines to cure deadly diseases, and make dairy products safe to consume, while still believing in Creation?
His experiments dismantled the tenet of spontaneous generation, as a number of scientists (over the next century) have admitted. Again, as they have stated, their reason for adhering to evolution, despite their agreeing with Pasteur that spontaneous generation is not possible is because, if they do not, then they must admit to supernatural creation as being the source of life. That is something they DO NOT wish to do, as it grates their materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.
Who says the origin of life is unknown? Those would be folks who don't want to acknowledge God as Creator of heaven and earth.
Flies producing flies? Imagine that!! That would be creatures reproducing after their own kind, or as is termed in scientific jargon, speciation. My claim wasn’t that speciation has never been observed. The claim is (and remains) that the observation of a creature evolving into another creature completely unlike itself has not occurred. Fruit flies producing other forms of fruit flies is a far cry from fruit flies evolving into lizards, or birds.
35 generations or 350 generations, they are STILL flies.
That's the standard out, when evolutionists can't back their claims. One minute you state that evolution has been observed. Yet, when asked to produce an example of such observation (i.e. reptiles evolving into birds), all of a sudden, it can't be done, because the process allegedly take "millions of years". One wouldn't even have to show observation of a so-called full transition. Per evolution, some chemical, environmental, or genetic scenario caused this reptiles to start sprouting feathers or other bird-like qualities. By rule, such should be able to be replicated in a lab for observation. That's what I meant, when it comes to showing observation of evolution, not fruit flies producing.......MORE FRUIT FLIES!!!
As I've stated before, I'm not into ID, simply because it is simply passive and, at best, a compromising stance. I'm a believer in Biblical Creation, that God created this world and life on it in 6 days.
I think you are the quintessential fundy on this site, in fact you win the prize. Congratulations! :o
-
Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter.
As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! ;D ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary.
If already having a conclusion invalidates Creation, then it would invalidate evolution as well, for its conclusion is “There is no God!” Why do you think evolution hold such appeal to atheists? It’s a way for them to explain (or attempt to explain) life on Earth, without those pesky words, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth .
No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded.
BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?
"Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter."
observe this everyone, its called the argument from ignorance. for one you are making this up, you have no evidence this is the case, are changing science to fit your views and frankly are acting extremely ignorant. i dont mean that in a malicious manner, its just that your making an argument that cannot be falsified, has no evidence, yet has every bit of evidence against it. this is rhetoric, and unintelligent rhetoric at that.
"As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! ;D ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary."
for one, complexity does not require anything supernatural. many complicated things require no design. snowflakes, fractals, the growth of a human. you mistaking complexity for design is just your way of justifying god. natural processes are highly complex, and work without a god. but i see your argument. your saying that god created them, and we cannot actually prove this, or even provide one piece of evidence, great argument. why dont we just put magical people or GODS as the sustainers of natural processes, oh ya we did, thor anyone?
"No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded. "
i can see science is not your specialty. no one in science, or at least anyone reputable starts with the conclusion, god is responsible or not responsible. no one is trying to answer that question, they are just looking for truth, and verifiable evidence. if in the end any good scientist found evidence for god they would have that conclusion. no one in science is trying to disprove god, that has nothign to do with science, and no one disregards evidence to the contrary becuase that is anti-science.
"BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?"
another ridiculous statement. matter can neither be created nor destroyed, do to bootstrapping it avoids entropy. you tell me what is an easier concept to digest. first, that matter is eternal, neither created nor destroyed which goes along with science, and has a simple explanation. OR, that there is a infinitely complex being who magically creates matter(but no one knows how) and knows everything, is everywhere, and is loving(all without explanation). the second scenario is way more complex, and complicates the question far more then need be. your adding complexity, yet using it to explain a less complex thing. this doesnt make any sense whatsoever. see occams razor for why this is a ridiculous argument.
so its highly plausible, even obvious due to thermodynamics that matter always existed, yet you choose to beleive that a highly complex BEING insted created everything, and you beleive this despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. faith is not rational, trying to ratinalize it is ignorant in my opinion.
-
I think you are the quintessential fundy on this site, in fact you win the prize. Congratulations! :o
he appeals to ignorance as proof of god.
"the origin of life is unknown"
mcway
"wrong god did it, i dont know how, he is magical i dont need to know how. my book says he did it"
"but how did he do it, what mechanism"
mcway
"you expect to know how god created earth, no one knows, only god. so just accept that he did it, with no evidence why or how."
person
"matter can neither be created nor destroyed"
mcway
"correction, man can neither create nor destroy matter. i dont have anyproff for what im saying, i just beleive in this, and accept it as fact in the face of ignorance. laws in science are meaningless, my ignorance is immune to all reason. god can do as he pleases, there is your answer"
-
McWay sure would make Augustine proud. He's immersed himself in all the BS arguments for god: the argument from ignorance, the argument from feigned (or real?) stupidity, the argument from stringing words together to lose the reader, the argument from "It is written," the argument from "complexity,"...
-
Do any of you guys find it interesting that the worlds governments are really trying to suppress information about psychedelics? Considering they are such a part of our history...And that the double helix structure was discovered by Francis Crick who admitted to using LSD some 50 years ago when he saw the structure before his eyes...I know that DMT is getting a lot of online press from spiritual seekers and scientist alike...
-
Do any of you guys find it interesting that the worlds governments are really trying to suppress information about psychedelics? Considering they are such a part of our history...And that the double helix structure was discovered by Francis Crick who admitted to using LSD some 50 years ago when he saw the structure before his eyes...I know that DMT is getting a lot of online press from spiritual seekers and scientist alike...
dmt is powerful shit. i dont think psychodelics are showing us anything that isnt there, they just lower our fliters or remove them per se. people who arent told to look for specific things often dont even know they exist and they can be right in front of you. i love the use of psychodelics, the hallucinations, or even truths observed could be do to a number of things. particularly neuronal growth, increased MAO inhibition, COMT inhibition, decreased reuptake all which would increase experience.
but if your thinking they are bannign it because they dont want people knowing the truth then i think thats way off base. a simpler explanation is that people being wacked on lsd all the time would cause havoc, increase in crime, lower production in the work place. i cant think of really one good reason why they should be legal.
-
dmt is powerful shit. i dont think psychodelics are showing us anything that isnt there, they just lower our fliters or remove them per se. people who arent told to look for specific things often dont even know they exist and they can be right in front of you. i love the use of psychodelics, the hallucinations, or even truths observed could be do to a number of things. particularly neuronal growth, increased MAO inhibition, COMT inhibition, decreased reuptake all which would increase experience.
but if your thinking they are bannign it because they dont want people knowing the truth then i think thats way off base. a simpler explanation is that people being wacked on lsd all the time would cause havoc, increase in crime, lower production in the work place. i cant think of really one good reason why they should be legal.
You seem like a bright guy. Hallucinogens = teh good shit.
-
dmt is powerful shit. i dont think psychodelics are showing us anything that isnt there, they just lower our fliters or remove them per se. people who arent told to look for specific things often dont even know they exist and they can be right in front of you. i love the use of psychodelics, the hallucinations, or even truths observed could be do to a number of things. particularly neuronal growth, increased MAO inhibition, COMT inhibition, decreased reuptake all which would increase experience.
but if your thinking they are bannign it because they dont want people knowing the truth then i think thats way off base. a simpler explanation is that people being wacked on lsd all the time would cause havoc, increase in crime, lower production in the work place. i cant think of really one good reason why they should be legal.
I'm certainly not saying they should be legal but they certainly aren't addicting or is something that tons of people are actually doing...In fact most people who aren't ready for such things usually scare themselves shitless doing them...And leave them alone...
I haven't tried DMT yet and haven't done any other types in over a decade...DMT is something that looks very interesting and something that someday when i'm ready, will give it a shot...
-
I'm certainly not saying they should be legal but they certainly aren't addicting or is something that tons of people are actually doing...In fact most people who aren't ready for such things usually scare themselves shitless doing them...And leave them alone...
I haven't tried DMT yet and haven't done any other types in over a decade...DMT is something that looks very interesting and something that someday when i'm ready, will give it a shot...
i would be careful with it, the people who i know who have tried it have nothing good to say about it. in the amazon the shamens have a drink called ayuascha which is dmt and harmaline(a maoi). the drink is only done under supervision as you can get pretty far out, and from people i know, they have all said it was the most ridiculous, and worst experience they have went though. but people that do the ritual often have positive experiences because of the guidance. id just make sure you have few people around who know there shit.
you need to take a MAOI with it or MAO will just break it down in teh gut.
-
"Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter."
observe this everyone, its called the argument from ignorance. for one you are making this up, you have no evidence this is the case, are changing science to fit your views and frankly are acting extremely ignorant. i dont mean that in a malicious manner, its just that your making an argument that cannot be falsified, has no evidence, yet has every bit of evidence against it. this is rhetoric, and unintelligent rhetoric at that.
Can man create or destroy matter? Either he can or he can't. If you have an example that he can and has, please share it with us.
"As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! ;D ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary."
for one, complexity does not require anything supernatural. many complicated things require no design. snowflakes, fractals, the growth of a human. you mistaking complexity for design is just your way of justifying god. natural processes are highly complex, and work without a god. but i see your argument. your saying that god created them, and we cannot actually prove this, or even provide one piece of evidence, great argument. why dont we just put magical people or GODS as the sustainers of natural processes, oh ya we did, thor anyone?
These natrual processes must have a source or a start. Where is your evidence that such a start was NOT supernatural. If such a start were merely natural, then man should be able to provide a source for it. Of course, he can't. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, the question is asked. "When and how did this begin?". This is, again, why certain non-believers are frantically searching for a naturalistic explanation. Without one, they must concede (as evolutionists like Wald and Sullivan have stated) a supernatural source of Creation, which they (and others today) don't want to do.
"No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded. "
i can see science is not your specialty. no one in science, or at least anyone reputable starts with the conclusion, god is responsible or not responsible. no one is trying to answer that question, they are just looking for truth, and verifiable evidence. if in the end any good scientist found evidence for god they would have that conclusion. no one in science is trying to disprove god, that has nothign to do with science, and no one disregards evidence to the contrary becuase that is anti-science.
Darwin started with the conclusion that there is no God. And other evolutionists have followed in his footsteps. That is a documented FACT, as stated by other evolutionists and by Darwin himself.
"BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?"
another ridiculous statement. matter can neither be created nor destroyed, do to bootstrapping it avoids entropy. you tell me what is an easier concept to digest. first, that matter is eternal, neither created nor destroyed which goes along with science, and has a simple explanation. OR, that there is a infinitely complex being who magically creates matter(but no one knows how) and knows everything, is everywhere, and is loving(all without explanation). the second scenario is way more complex, and complicates the question far more then need be. your adding complexity, yet using it to explain a less complex thing. this doesnt make any sense whatsoever. see occams razor for why this is a ridiculous argument.
so its highly plausible, even obvious due to thermodynamics that matter always existed, yet you choose to beleive that a highly complex BEING insted created everything, and you beleive this despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. faith is not rational, trying to ratinalize it is ignorant in my opinion.
The bottom line is you do, in fact, believe that something has always existed. You don't know how it got there or how it supposedly developed into this, that, or the other. Therefore, that makes you no different than a Christian who believes that God has always existed and who is responsible for the physical laws of nature (including thermodynamics) being put into place. Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As such, this observation is limited by man's senses. At best, he can amplify those senses to a certain degree. Regardless, that does not negate the physical laws of nature having a supernatural source. And as we say in the church, "the God of the supernatural is the God of the natural".
It all goes back to philosophical and/or religious belief. Again, either you belief that life has a supernatural source or you don't.
-
McWay, go argue with a Hindu....he's in your camp anyway... ::)
-
Can man create or destroy matter? Either he can or he can't. If you have an example that he can and has, please share it with us.
for one, complexity does not require anything supernatural. many complicated things require no design. snowflakes, fractals, the growth of a human. you mistaking complexity for design is just your way of justifying god. natural processes are highly complex, and work without a god. but i see your argument. your saying that god created them, and we cannot actually prove this, or even provide one piece of evidence, great argument. why dont we just put magical people or GODS as the sustainers of natural processes, oh ya we did, thor anyone?
These natrual processes must have a source or a start. Where is your evidence that such a start was NOT supernatural. If such a start were merely natural, then man should be able to provide a source for it. Of course, he can't. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, the question is asked. "When and how did this begin?". This is, again, why certain non-believers are frantically searching for a naturalistic explanation. Without one, they must concede (as evolutionists like Wald and Sullivan have stated) a supernatural source of Creation, which they (and others today) don't want to do.
Darwin started with the conclusion that there is no God. And other evolutionists have followed in his footsteps. That is a documented FACT, as stated by other evolutionists and by Darwin himself.
The bottom line is you do, in fact, believe that something has always existed. You don't know how it got there or how it supposedly developed into this, that, or the other. Therefore, that makes you no different than a Christian who believes that God has always existed and who is responsible for the physical laws of nature (including thermodynamics) being put into place. Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As such, this observation is limited by man's senses. At best, he can amplify those senses to a certain degree. Regardless, that does not negate the physical laws of nature having a supernatural source. And as we say in the church, "the God of the supernatural is the God of the natural".
It all goes back to philosophical and/or religious belief. Again, either you belief that life has a supernatural source or you don't.
man cannot create matter, no one can. thats why it is eternal. doesnt this make sense to you. or would you like to say that it can only be created by god :-X ::). tell me how god creates matter?
"These natrual processes must have a source or a start. Where is your evidence that such a start was NOT supernatural. If such a start were merely natural, then man should be able to provide a source for it. Of course, he can't. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, the question is asked. "When and how did this begin?". This is, again, why certain non-believers are frantically searching for a naturalistic explanation. Without one, they must concede (as evolutionists like Wald and Sullivan have stated) a supernatural source of Creation, which they (and others today) don't want to do."
first off we dont know how hiv works for instance, nor have we isolated it. because we dont know should we say god selectively infects people? sounds silly doesnt it. all your doing is using god of the gaps. our knowledge is far from complete, and because of this, you feel the need to insert god into gaps of knowledge. when in actually fact, it is merely a matter of time till we discover the answers to those questions, just like every single other process.for one, people are "franticallly" looking because its an interesting question, in which alot of knowledge could be gained. i see you see everything through the tainted glasses of fundies. no one, is searching for the answer to disprove or prove god, agian this is not how science works.
"Darwin started with the conclusion that there is no God. And other evolutionists have followed in his footsteps. That is a documented FACT, as stated by other evolutionists and by Darwin himself."
post some references, not supplied by fundies please, they obviously have an agenda.
"The bottom line is you do, in fact, believe that something has always existed. You don't know how it got there or how it supposedly developed into this, that, or the other. Therefore, that makes you no different than a Christian who believes that God has always existed and who is responsible for the physical laws of nature (including thermodynamics) being put into place. Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As such, this observation is limited by man's senses. At best, he can amplify those senses to a certain degree. Regardless, that does not negate the physical laws of nature having a supernatural source. And as we say in the church, "the God of the supernatural is the God of the natural". "
so you think a hyper complex being is an easier answer? honestly cant you see how ridiculous this sounds. i see nothing supernatural, or know of no supernatural events in the history of earth.
-
Please people read, this is the truth...
-
mcway, how old do you beleive the universe to be since you literally believe the bible?
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/)
NOVA will be airing a new dramatization of the Dover, PA case on November 13 at 8:00 pm.
When the religious non-science of Intelligent Design was forced on the children of Dover, PA, reason and science, as well as the Constitution, teachers, and parents, fought back. ID and its proponents were utterly rebuffed and defeated.
Make sure to watch the documentary. Also check the page above for a preview as well as lots of good info.
The World will end 4.5 billion years from now when the Sun becomes a giant red and swallows the Earth. Everything else is bullshit. It could also end if a meteor with a diameter of at least 0.7 mile hits the Earth, releasing energy in the teraton range, but the odds of this happening are so remote that it will probably end in the former way.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
The World will end 4.5 billion years from now when the Sun becomes a giant red and swallows the Earth. Everything else is bullshit. It could also end if a meteor with a diameter of at least 0.7 mile hits the Earth, releasing energy in the teraton range, but the odds of this happening are so remote that it will probably end in the former way.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Technology allows for weapons to become much smaller, cheaper and easier to make, and much more destructive than ever before. Humans could easily end the world at any time.
-
Technology allows for weapons to become much smaller, cheaper and easier to make, and much more destructive than ever before. Humans could easily end the world at any time.
Unlikely. The most dangerous period was was in the early 1960s, when the U.S and the Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war. The risk of atomic weapons being used has declined incredibly since then. There might be local nuclear wars in the future, like between India and Pakistan, but nothing that will result in global annihilation. I just don't see nuclear bombs ever being used on a global scale.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I’m sorry! Last time I checked, Pasteur was a biologist. So, why is it that this biologist (among others), for some wacky reason, was able to make tremendous advances in scientific research, make vaccines to cure deadly diseases, and make dairy products safe to consume, while still believing in Creation?
His experiments dismantled the tenet of spontaneous generation, as a number of scientists (over the next century) have admitted. Again, as they have stated, their reason for adhering to evolution, despite their agreeing with Pasteur that spontaneous generation is not possible is because, if they do not, then they must admit to supernatural creation as being the source of life. That is something they DO NOT wish to do, as it grates their materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.
As I said before, if spontaneous generation were proven, then evolution would be hurt pretty badly. It is ironic that you use that as a defense of ID creationism.
Who says the origin of life is unknown? Those would be folks who don't want to acknowledge God as Creator of heaven and earth.
And how exactly did God play a role in the creation of the universe or of earth or of man and please provide a scientifically verifiable (read falsifiable) explanation? Do take your time.
Flies producing flies? Imagine that!! That would be creatures reproducing after their own kind, or as is termed in scientific jargon, speciation. My claim wasn’t that speciation has never been observed. The claim is (and remains) that the observation of a creature evolving into another creature completely unlike itself has not occurred. Fruit flies producing other forms of fruit flies is a far cry from fruit flies evolving into lizards, or birds.
35 generations or 350 generations, they are STILL flies.
You asked for laboratory proof so I gave you laboratory proof.
So the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx showing the transition btn lizard and bird means nothing to you.
That's the standard out, when evolutionists can't back their claims. One minute you state that evolution has been observed. Yet, when asked to produce an example of such observation (i.e. reptiles evolving into birds), all of a sudden, it can't be done, because the process allegedly take "millions of years". One wouldn't even have to show observation of a so-called full transition. Per evolution, some chemical, environmental, or genetic scenario caused this reptiles to start sprouting feathers or other bird-like qualities. By rule, such should be able to be replicated in a lab for observation. That's what I meant, when it comes to showing observation of evolution, not fruit flies producing.......MORE FRUIT FLIES!!!
Oh contraire my friend, there are transitional fossils and the fruit fly study (just b/c you don’t like it does not mean it’s not valid). The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. That’s how it’s done…just like aspects of nuclear phsyics.
Please provide me with one single solitary bit of creationist science that is observable. Do take your time.
As I've stated before, I'm not into ID, simply because it is simply passive and, at best, a compromising stance. I'm a believer in Biblical Creation, that God created this world and life on it in 6 days.
That's fine that you believe that. You cannot prove that belief scientifically. God is an unquantifiable non-existent datum and man's ability to rationalize a self-referential infinite phenomenon is a logical impossiblity. You have no scientific metric for showing your belief.
Criticize evolution all you like. It is factual and compelling. I don't see any challengers from where I'm sitting.
-
As I said before, if spontaneous generation were proven, then evolution would be hurt pretty badly. It is ironic that you use that as a defense of ID creationism.
Hmmm....the evolutionists got the impression that spontaneous generation was necessary to explain the origin of life, without supernatural Creation. So, now you're claiming that proof of spontaneous generation would hurt evolution? Furthermore, I didn't use spontaneous generation as a defense of Creation. My point for mentioning it was to show that, despite evolutionists admitting that Pasteur showed such to be false, they still adhere to it and evolution, because the only other option is one that they don't like, that doesn't float their philosophical boat: Creation.
And how exactly did God play a role in the creation of the universe or of earth or of man and please provide a scientifically verifiable (read falsifiable) explanation? Do take your time.
As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life.
You asked for laboratory proof so I gave you laboratory proof.
So the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx showing the transition btn lizard and bird means nothing to you.
One, fruit flies producing more fruit flies is hardly proof of one creature evolving into another completely unlike itself. To the contrary, it sounds eerily similar to that phrase in Genesis about creatures reproducing after their own kind.
Two, Archaeopteryx is a full-fledged bird, not a bird-lizard hybrid. It was this alleged transition (or any one in which one creature "evolves" into another completely different creature) for which I asked an example of observation in the lab (i.e. a replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles to start sprouting feathers and start clucking, chirping, or quacking). That you have NOT shown.
Flies begat more flies? Tell me something I don't already know.
Oh contraire my friend, there are transitional fossils and the fruit fly study (just b/c you don’t like it does not mean it’s not valid). The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. That’s how it’s done…just like aspects of nuclear phsyics.
Au contraire, the request was for LAB replication, not fossils. If there were natural circumstances that caused reptiles to start changing into birds, such should be able to be replicated in a lab or similar setting. That would be OBSERVATION, someone watching such take place. Define what it takes to make a reptile start displaying bird characteristics (temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, etc.), produce that environment, put a lizard in there, and let's see if some feather start to grow.
Please provide me with one single solitary bit of creationist science that is observable. Do take your time.
You beat me to it, with the fruit flies, a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind: different colors, sizes, and reproductive capability, even, But, they're still flies, nonetheless.
That's fine that you believe that. You cannot prove that belief scientifically. God is an unquantifiable non-existent datum and man's ability to rationalize a self-referential infinite phenomenon is a logical impossiblity. You have no scientific metric for showing your belief.
Sure I do, or at least, so do creation scientists (i.e. fossils, rocks, chemicals, etc.).
Criticize evolution all you like. It is factual and compelling. I don't see any challengers from where I'm sitting.
I can and will. Compelling? Maybe? Factual? A whole different story, altogether!!
BTW, might I suggest standing? ;D
-
Holy shit, McWay stop owning yourself.
You think you're scoring points, but all you're doing is showing how utterly ignorant and misinformed you are.
If you spent half the time learning real biology that you waste reading creationist pamphlets, you wouldn't be rambling like this.
-
Hmmm....the evolutionists got the impression that spontaneous generation was necessary to explain the origin of life, without supernatural Creation. So, now you're claiming that proof of spontaneous generation would hurt evolution? Furthermore, I didn't use spontaneous generation as a defense of Creation. My point for mentioning it was to show that, despite evolutionists admitting that Pasteur showed such to be false, they still adhere to it and evolution, because the only other option is one that they don't like, that doesn't float their philosophical boat: Creation.
As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life.
One, fruit flies producing more fruit flies is hardly proof of one creature evolving into another completely unlike itself. To the contrary, it sounds eerily similar to that phrase in Genesis about creatures reproducing after their own kind.
Two, Archaeopteryx is a full-fledged bird, not a bird-lizard hybrid. It was this alleged transition (or any one in which one creature "evolves" into another completely different creature) for which I asked an example of observation in the lab (i.e. a replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles to start sprouting feathers and start clucking, chirping, or quacking). That you have NOT shown.
Flies begat more flies? Tell me something I don't already know.
Au contraire, the request was for LAB replication, not fossils. If there were natural circumstances that caused reptiles to start changing into birds, such should be able to be replicated in a lab or similar setting. That would be OBSERVATION, someone watching such take place. Define what it takes to make a reptile start displaying bird characteristics (temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, etc.), produce that environment, put a lizard in there, and let's see if some feather start to grow.
You beat me to it, with the fruit flies, a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind: different colors, sizes, and reproductive capability, even, But, they're still flies, nonetheless.
Sure I do, or at least, so do creation scientists (i.e. fossils, rocks, chemicals, etc.).
I can and will. Compelling? Maybe? Factual? A whole different story, altogether!!
BTW, might I suggest standing? ;D
evolution takes billions of years, spontaneous creation is not needed at all(but we dont have the answers yet, just like we cant cure aids).
transitions would be "full-fledged", are you hoping to see some sort of hybrid half living creature with a birds head and lizards body? that is not how evolution happens and your ignorance is blinding.
-
evolution takes billions of years, spontaneous creation is not needed at all(but we dont have the answers yet, just like we cant cure aids).
The same old excuse, I see. It takes billions of years, so we can't observe it or replicate it (part of the scientific method, of course). But, it had to happen; otherwise, we're stuck with that pesky, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" routine. We don't have all the answers. But, but, but, we know it weren't God who did it. ::)
transitions would be "full-fledged", are you hoping to see some sort of hybrid half living creature with a birds head and lizards body? that is not how evolution happens and your ignorance is blinding.
Make up your minds here. One minute, the fruit-fly thing that Decker was touting was a prime example of observed evolution. But, when it comes to observation of what makes a lizard start chirping or sprouting feathers, all of a sudden, you need "billions of years".
Furthermore, all I asked was for an example of replication of the supposed environment that started the change of reptiles into birds (or one type of creature into another completely different creature).
Temperature, amount of radiation, chemicals, something along those lines. If it happened once, then it can happen again. So, let's see it: A lizard with just one feather, a quacking iguana, a chirping chameleon, etc. They existed at one point and time, allegedly. But, of course, we can't see them now, because "that's not how evolution works". ::)
-
Holy shit, McWay stop owning yourself.
You think you're scoring points, but all you're doing is showing how utterly ignorant and misinformed you are.
If you spent half the time learning real biology that you waste reading creationist pamphlets, you wouldn't be rambling like this.
Oh dear. Guess I'm gonna have to quote myself...
-
The same old excuse, I see. It takes billions of years, so we can't observe it or replicate it (part of the scientific method, of course). But, it had to happen; otherwise, we're stuck with that pesky, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" routine. We don't have all the answers. But, but, but, we know it weren't God who did it. ::)
Make up your minds here. One minute, the fruit-fly thing that Decker was touting was a prime example of observed evolution. But, when it comes to observation of what makes a lizard start chirping or sprouting feathers, all of a sudden, you need "billions of years".
Furthermore, all I asked was for an example of replication of the supposed environment that started the change of reptiles into birds (or one type of creature into another completely different creature).
Temperature, amount of radiation, chemicals, something along those lines. If it happened once, then it can happen again. So, let's see it: A lizard with just one feather, a quacking iguana, a chirping chameleon, etc. They existed at one point and time, allegedly. But, of course, we can't see them now, because "that's not how evolution works". ::)
if evolution is wrong that doesnt mean creeation is right, you guys seem to think that. if the big bang is wrong and string theory is right, that doesnt mean god did it. lack of evidence is not proof of god. what is your proof god did it and not some natural process? you sound like kent hovind, you want a lizard to pop out of a birds egg, again you dont have clue what your even arguing about. sorry the scietific method is a way to test hypothesis, but there are other ways. how do you suppose theorectical physics works? much of it is based on theory and mathematics with little in the way of observation, because of its nature. yet you use cell phones dont you? thank god for science.
the envoironment was one that required adaptive traits of a lizard to be more like a bird. you have no evidence for your claims, i would GLADLY beleive you, but you have no evidence and are using gaps in knowledge as positive arguments. their are much better arguments for gods existence or some sort of creation, but you continue to use the ignorant creation science which has no arguments. its not science.
we dont have to make up our minds, both are examples. you seem to lack any knowledge in the area, so ill let you figure it out. its hard to argue with someone who only employs confirmation bias . many micro=macro.
-
if evolution is wrong that doesnt mean creeation is right, you guys seem to think that. if the big bang is wrong and string theory is right, that doesnt mean god did it. lack of evidence is not proof of god. what is your proof god did it and not some natural process? you sound like kent hovind, you want a lizard to pop out of a birds egg, again you dont have clue what your even arguing about. sorry the scietific method is a way to test hypothesis, but there are other ways. how do you suppose theorectical physics works? much of it is based on theory and mathematics with little in the way of observation, because of its nature. yet you use cell phones dont you? thank god for science.
I do use cell phones. Wait a minute!!! Cell phones were deliberately made, weren’t they? Nobody just left a pile of parts there and waited “billions of years” for a phone to evolve. It took living sentient beings to deliberately DESIGN and assemble a cell phone.
And apparently, you didn't read what I stated properly. I never said that a lizard would lay an egg and a bird would pop out. I asked for observation and replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles sprouting bird features. What was this environment and where is its replication to show that, in fact, reptiles evolved into birds? Something had to have happened to result in clucking lizards or feathered iguanas. Again, was it temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, mutation?
the envoironment was one that required adaptive traits of a lizard to be more like a bird. you have no evidence for your claims, i would GLADLY beleive you, but you have no evidence and are using gaps in knowledge as positive arguments. their are much better arguments for gods existence or some sort of creation, but you continue to use the ignorant creation science which has no arguments. its not science.
Again, WHAT is this mystery environment that turns lizards into birds? Let's see it replicated, put some lizards in it and OBSERVE some bird characteristics form on these reptiles.
we dont have to make up our minds, both are examples. you seem to lack any knowledge in the area, so ill let you figure it out. its hard to argue with someone who only employs confirmation bias . many micro=macro.
But, all the "micro" keep producing the same kind of creature. Micro changes in the fruit flies keep producing..........FRUIT FLIES!!!! Micro changes in reptiles keep producing reptiles (which once again sounds oh-so-familiar to the concept of creatures reproducing after their own kind).
-
I do use cell phones. Wait a minute!!! Cell phones were deliberately made, weren’t they? Nobody just left a pile of parts there and waited “billions of years” for a phone to evolve. It took living sentient beings to deliberately DESIGN and assemble a cell phone.
And apparently, you didn't read what I stated properly. I never said that a lizard would lay an egg and a bird would pop out. I asked for observation and replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles sprouting bird features. What was this environment and where is its replication to show that, in fact, reptiles evolved into birds? Something had to have happened to result in clucking lizards or feathered iguanas. Again, was it temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, mutation?
Again, WHAT is this mystery environment that turns lizards into birds? Let's see it replicated, put some lizards in it and OBSERVE some bird characteristics form on these reptiles.
But, all the "micro" keep producing the same kind of creature. Micro changes in the fruit flies keep producing..........FRUIT FLIES!!!! Micro changes in reptiles keep producing reptiles (which once again sounds oh-so-familiar to the concept of creatures reproducing after their own kind).
seriously i cannot continue this debate, evolution take millions upon millions of years, and you keep asking for observable phenomenon, we would have to have thousands, wait millions of generations of people wait around to make this observation, your ridiculous.
micro evolutions over millions of years create different species. what is so hard to understand about that. try millions of generations of fruit flies. and life began about 4 billion years ago, so will you stop asking for observable phenomenon, we have no time machine.
stop with the arguments from ignorance, if evolution is wrong, geuss what it doesnt make god right. your turn to answer so questions.
how does god who is immaterial create matter? what is the process
how can something timeless act?
these are starter questions, id like to see if your theory holds more water. thanks
-
seriously i cannot continue this debate
That's the way to go. MCWAY is not interested in a debate, or in the truth, or in biology, or evolution.
He is afflicted with a mind virus that says "attack science. say anything you think of that goes against science, and don't bother trying to learn about science."
People like that are only looking for a platform to spread their mind virus, they aren't looking to discuss or learn anything about science.
-
That's the way to go. MCWAY is not interested in a debate, or in the truth, or in biology, or evolution.
He is afflicted with a mind virus that says "attack science. say anything you think of that goes against science, and don't bother trying to learn about science."
People like that are only looking for a platform to spread their mind virus, they aren't looking to discuss or learn anything about science.
MCWAY is an angrey biblethumper who ignores scientific fact, historical evidence and just about anything else to believe in his fable at all costs. He has admitted he was indoctrinated at an early age; sadly not many recover from such an ordeal.
-
Hmmm....the evolutionists got the impression that spontaneous generation was necessary to explain the origin of life, without supernatural Creation. So, now you're claiming that proof of spontaneous generation would hurt evolution? Furthermore, I didn't use spontaneous generation as a defense of Creation. My point for mentioning it was to show that, despite evolutionists admitting that Pasteur showed such to be false, they still adhere to it and evolution, because the only other option is one that they don't like, that doesn't float their philosophical boat: Creation.
If spontaneous generation were shown—a human or a duck appearing out of nowhere, then I would say that the evolutionary development of that man or duck would be shown not to happen. But you pull the same sophistry that all creationists pull, you address the origins of life itself—a mystery at the moment—as either a spontaneous creation or spontaneous generation from inanimate matter—you have no scientific argument based on mathematics, fossils, DNA or the like…you just spin your tales. Saying that, “God created life b/c it could come about no other way” is not science, it’s your demagogic opinion. “Biochemists have produced models to show how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life/DNA could have formed themselves and organized into self-replicating, self-sustaining units laying the foundation for biochemistry.” http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true
That analysis is called the scientific method. Your analysis is called speculative demagoguery.
I still have no idea what you are trying to say about Pasteur and ‘evolutionists’ or as I like to call them, ‘scientists’.
As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life.
You might be right. But by your own admission, you are not practicing science. Evolution is science. Your arguments are not. This is the creationist argument in a nutshell.
One, fruit flies producing more fruit flies is hardly proof of one creature evolving into another completely unlike itself. To the contrary, it sounds eerily similar to that phrase in Genesis about creatures reproducing after their own kind.
Two, Archaeopteryx is a full-fledged bird, not a bird-lizard hybrid. It was this alleged transition (or any one in which one creature "evolves" into another completely different creature) for which I asked an example of observation in the lab (i.e. a replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles to start sprouting feathers and start clucking, chirping, or quacking). That you have NOT shown.
Flies begat more flies? Tell me something I don't already know.
I’m sorry if you don’t like my proof. But that stuff is the scientific standard out there now. Do birds and lizards share a common ancestor? Yes, Archaeopteryx is proof of that. Did all life have a common ancestral gene pool? It certainly looks that way considering the genetic similarities between all life forms. Does the speciation of flies in a laboratory change that? No. It shows the steps in the chain. Look below for my bit on macro-evolutionary changes.
Au contraire, the request was for LAB replication, not fossils. If there were natural circumstances that caused reptiles to start changing into birds, such should be able to be replicated in a lab or similar setting. That would be OBSERVATION, someone watching such take place. Define what it takes to make a reptile start displaying bird characteristics (temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, etc.), produce that environment, put a lizard in there, and let's see if some feather start to grow.
Here are the natural circumstances for a lizard to turn into a bird: common genetic pool, inherited traits, reproduction, mutation, gene transfer, genetic drift, natural selection, adaptation…throw in a few hundred million years and there you are. If you can reproduce those things in a lab, I’ll give you Al Gore’s Nobel Prize.
You beat me to it, with the fruit flies, a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind: different colors, sizes, and reproductive capability, even, But, they're still flies, nonetheless.
Macro-evolutionary changes are determined from fossil records and DNA evidence and not direct observation for the reason I stated above.
Sure I do, or at least, so do creation scientists (i.e. fossils, rocks, chemicals, etc.).
Then by all means let’s see your scientific evidence for God’s creation of life. So far all I’ve seen is your criticism of evolution and unsupported statements of obvious creation.
-
autocatalytic theory.
-
BUMP