Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

Religions > Atheism > Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	20 Sep 2006 07:12:58 PM
Object:	Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

5>
Creationism and Evolution BOTH WRONG
The debates about the issue of creationism vs.
evolution keep popping up, often in local public school
board meetings. Some Christians want to force public
schools to teach creationism, even though their children
can already learn it in Sunday school, church, and
parochial schools, as well as in their homes. I wonder
how they would like being forced to teach EVOLUTION in
their Sunday school, church, and parochial schools.
Creationism and evolution are actually both partly
right, BUT BOTH MOSTLY WRONG ! There is a 3RD
ALTERNATIVE that is being systematically ignored and
suppressed: SEEDING BY SPACE ALIENS ! The TRUE ORIGIN
for humans is the six-planet solar system that we call
Vega, which is now the main headquarters for the REAL
Galactic Federation that will soon be formally greeting
us with a First Contact mass UFO landing. (See the web
site http://www.paoweb.com/updates.htm .)
Another most important fact of life that is being
systematically ignored and suppressed by both the
Christian churches and the public schools is that people
PHYSICALLY REINCARNATE as many times as they need to.
Several kinds of supporting evidence for it can be found
in books at public libraries and book stores. It was
the Nicene Council of the early Catholic Church that
REMOVED REincarnation from the Christian teachings. The
churches want us all to believe that we have only one
chance to make it, so that they can have more control
over their members and extract more money out of them.
Robert E. McElwaine
PAO Member
Eckankar Initiate
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."

User: "David Schwartz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	20 Sep 2006 10:20:34 PM

wrote:

Creationism and evolution are actually both partly
right, BUT BOTH MOSTLY WRONG ! There is a 3RD
ALTERNATIVE that is being systematically ignored and
suppressed: SEEDING BY SPACE ALIENS ! The TRUE ORIGIN
for humans is the six-planet solar system that we call
Vega, which is now the main headquarters for the REAL
Galactic Federation that will soon be formally greeting
us with a First Contact mass UFO landing. (See the web
site http://www.paoweb.com/updates.htm .)

This is not a theory of origins as it does not explain how the space
aliens came to be. As such, whether it is true or false, we would still
have no idea how intelligent life originated.
In fact, creationism is not a theory of origins either, since it simply
asserts that intelligent living things were created by some other
intelligent living thing. This still leaves unexplained how the first
intelligent thing came to be.
DS
.

User: "James"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	23 Oct 2006 10:15:04 AM

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

rem460@aol.com wrote:

This is not a theory of origins as it does not explain how the space
aliens came to be. As such, whether it is true or false, we would still
have no idea how intelligent life originated.

In fact, creationism is not a theory of origins either, since it simply
asserts that intelligent living things were created by some other
intelligent living thing. This still leaves unexplained how the first
intelligent thing came to be.

DS

DS,
The Bible doesn't say that all intelligence in existence had to have
been created. Rather it shows that all biological intelligence (and
the lower life), was created by a supreme intelligence; God. (Ge 1:1)
Since the Bible tells us that God always existed, then He does not fit
into the 'It takes intelligence to create intelligence' statement. Ps
90:2,
"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	23 Oct 2006 10:27:05 AM

"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:7kmpj2pahl2mam1lcbo62jt0gpbub1242h@4ax.com...

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

rem460@aol.com wrote:

This is not a theory of origins as it does not explain how the space
aliens came to be. As such, whether it is true or false, we would still
have no idea how intelligent life originated.

In fact, creationism is not a theory of origins either, since it simply
asserts that intelligent living things were created by some other
intelligent living thing. This still leaves unexplained how the first
intelligent thing came to be.

DS

DS,

The Bible doesn't say that all intelligence in existence had to have
been created. Rather it shows that all biological intelligence (and
the lower life), was created by a supreme intelligence; God. (Ge 1:1)

Since the Bible tells us that God always existed, then He does not fit
into the 'It takes intelligence to create intelligence' statement. Ps
90:2,

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)

Sincerely, James

The bible spouts nothing but an unsupportable fairy tale!
.

User: "Lucifer"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	23 Oct 2006 10:21:10 AM

James wrote:

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

rem460@aol.com wrote:

This is not a theory of origins as it does not explain how the space
aliens came to be. As such, whether it is true or false, we would still
have no idea how intelligent life originated.

In fact, creationism is not a theory of origins either, since it simply
asserts that intelligent living things were created by some other
intelligent living thing. This still leaves unexplained how the first
intelligent thing came to be.

DS

DS,

The Bible doesn't say that all intelligence in existence had to have
been created. Rather it shows that all biological intelligence (and
the lower life), was created by a supreme intelligence; God. (Ge 1:1)

Since the Bible tells us that God always existed, then He does not fit
into the 'It takes intelligence to create intelligence' statement. Ps
90:2,

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)

Sincerely, James

So the bible says the bible isn't flawed. Most loonies say they are
sane. Who gives a? The bible is flawed. Logic and science show this.
End of debate.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	23 Oct 2006 10:32:55 AM

James wrote:

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

rem460@aol.com wrote:

This is not a theory of origins as it does not explain how the space
aliens came to be. As such, whether it is true or false, we would still
have no idea how intelligent life originated.

In fact, creationism is not a theory of origins either, since it simply
asserts that intelligent living things were created by some other
intelligent living thing. This still leaves unexplained how the first
intelligent thing came to be.

DS

Okay. Demonstrate that god exists as at all, and then prove that god
has always existed.

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)

Sincerely, James

***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

User: "Eppurevolution"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	25 Oct 2006 04:25:38 AM

Neil Kelsey wrote:

James wrote:

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG

rem460@aol.com wrote:

This is not a theory of origins as it does not explain how the space
aliens came to be. As such, whether it is true or false, we would still
have no idea how intelligent life originated.

In fact, creationism is not a theory of origins either, since it simply
asserts that intelligent living things were created by some other
intelligent living thing. This still leaves unexplained how the first
intelligent thing came to be.

DS

Okay. Demonstrate that god exists as at all, and then prove that god
has always existed.

I don't see why the theory of seeding life by space aliens is
incompatible with Evolution, the same way I don't see why God is
incompatible with it. What's clear is that the Bible account of
creation, taken literally, is false.
http://www.eppurevolution.blogspot.com
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	25 Oct 2006 11:51:27 AM

On 25 Oct 2006 02:25:38 -0700, "Eppurevolution"
<eppurevolution@gmail.com> wrote:

Why? If you grant that there's a god who can perform miracles, every
claim in the Bible is possible. Isn't that how science fiction is
SUPPOSED TO work?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Eppurevolution"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	25 Oct 2006 01:04:36 PM

Al Klein wrote:

On 25 Oct 2006 02:25:38 -0700, "Eppurevolution"
<eppurevolution@gmail.com> wrote:

Why? If you grant that there's a god who can perform miracles, every
claim in the Bible is possible. Isn't that how science fiction is
SUPPOSED TO work?
--

If God is capable of doing miracles, they certainly don't concern the
theory of evolution. Science has already established how it works, and
there are not too many gaps where God could squeeze.
Concerning abiogenesis, scientific theories are highly speculative.
While they present a very plausible scenario, and have demonstrated
some of the required steps for abiogenesis, we cannot argue that they
have the answer yet, because very important steps are not solved at the
present time.
So, religious people still have the possibility of believing in a God
that gave rise to life in the form of a first common ancestor. Or they
can think that life on Earth may have come from another planet, if they
want. Nothing that science has discovered disproves it. None of these
ideas are a theory of origins, though.
.

User: "Eppurevolution"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	25 Oct 2006 01:05:09 PM

Al Klein wrote:

On 25 Oct 2006 02:25:38 -0700, "Eppurevolution"
<eppurevolution@gmail.com> wrote:

Why? If you grant that there's a god who can perform miracles, every
claim in the Bible is possible. Isn't that how science fiction is
SUPPOSED TO work?
--

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	23 Oct 2006 10:11:44 PM

James wrote:

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG
In fact, creationism is not a theory of origins either, since it simply
asserts that intelligent living things were created by some other
intelligent living thing. This still leaves unexplained how the first
intelligent thing came to be.

The Bible doesn't say that all intelligence in existence had to have
been created. Rather it shows that all biological intelligence (and
the lower life), was created by a supreme intelligence; God. (Ge 1:1)

Since the Bible tells us that God always existed, then He does not fit
into the 'It takes intelligence to create intelligence' statement. Ps
90:2,

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)

That god always existed is not part of creationism. It may be part of
some religions, but it is not part of creationism itself. Creationism
cannot explain the origin of intelligent life as it simply says that
intelligent life was created by other intelligent life.
DS
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	24 Oct 2006 02:17:56 PM

On 23 Oct 2006 20:11:44 -0700, "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

Creationism claims that the original intelligent life, the Creator,
always existed.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	24 Oct 2006 07:08:13 PM

Al Klein wrote:

On 23 Oct 2006 20:11:44 -0700, "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

Creationism claims that the original intelligent life, the Creator,
always existed.

I guess the term "creationism" means different things to different
people. If creationism is the belief that intelligent life always
existed, the it has no explanation for the origin of intellient life
other than to deny that there was such an origin.
In any event, that version of creationism is not an alternative to
evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Anything that requires
supernatural intervention cannot be a scientific theory.
DS
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	25 Oct 2006 02:32:30 AM

On 24 Oct 2006 17:08:13 -0700, "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

On 23 Oct 2006 20:11:44 -0700, "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

Creationism claims that the original intelligent life, the Creator,
always existed.

Which is exactly what it does. Creationism is a Christian belief -
and the Christian god has always existed. It's the prime cause.

In any event, that version of creationism is not an alternative to
evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Evolution is the name we give to an observation, so it's fact - not
scientific, just fact. There are theories about it, called theories
of evolution, with Darwin's theory of natural selection being the most
well known. But evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life -
it deals with breeding populations, which presupposes life.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	26 Oct 2006 03:31:46 AM

Al Klein wrote:

On 24 Oct 2006 17:08:13 -0700, "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

Which is exactly what it does. Creationism is a Christian belief -
and the Christian god has always existed. It's the prime cause.

It does not follow that because crationism is a christian belief, it
includes all of christian belief. If creationism includes specific
christian religious beliefs such as god's eternal nature, it is most
definitely not a scientific theory of any kind.

In any event, that version of creationism is not an alternative to
evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Evolution is the name we give to an observation, so it's fact - not
scientific, just fact.

No, that is not true. Evolution is an explanation, not an observation.
Explanations cannot be directly observed, they must be inferred from
observations. Evolution contends that a differential survival coupled
with random mutation accounts for the apparent design in living things.

There are theories about it, called theories
of evolution, with Darwin's theory of natural selection being the most
well known. But evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life -
it deals with breeding populations, which presupposes life.

I didn't say it did (I hope. If I did, that was error.) It explains the
apparent design in and complexity of living things. It explains
intelligent life, but not the origin of life.
I think it's possible that evolution explains the origin of life. I
don't think evolution requires life. But that's an argument for another
day. IMO, it's quite possible that things I would not be willing to
call living can still experience differential survival and random
mutations that can be passed on to subsequent 'generations'. For
example, a fold in a protein can be 'contagious' to other proteins.
DS
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	02 Nov 2006 09:24:10 PM

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 26 Oct 2006 01:31:46 -0700
MsgID:<1161851504.933635.119250@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

In any event, that version of creationism is not an alternative to
evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Evolution is the name we give to an observation, so it's fact - not
scientific, just fact.

No, that is not true. Evolution is an explanation, not an observation.
Explanations cannot be directly observed, they must be inferred from
observations.

Wrong. Evolution is a logical explantion of objective observation...
Anywhere you dig for fossils in the world, you will always find that the deeper
you go, the simpler the fossils become. What does this tell us? It tells us that
as time has gone on, animals have become more complex with time. The Creationism
storytale tells us that all kinds of animals, simple and complex, came into
being all at once.
In keeping with the simple-to-complex rule, the genes of the more complex
animals in one layer of sediment reflect most of the genetics of the more
simpler animals in the layer below it. What does this tell us? The same exact
story that the fossils tell us: that animals have changed in time from simple to
more complex by "borrowing" genetic code from a common ancestor. The Creationism
storytale tells us that a God created everything brand new, from scratch,
perfect in every way. Creationism tells us that nothing was useless or
hodge-podge or kludged together. Again, one of these accounts obviously doesn't
fit the facts.
The layers of fossil evidence also point out something else: that the change
from simple to complex comes in very small steps over a very long time. Nothing
ever happened in one day. So the odds of watching a fish change into a dog in
one day are zero. Kent Hovind unfairly and unreasonably as possible tries to
overwhelm any honest respondant by hinting that he would expect you to trivially
cover all the billions of years and millions of changes between the time fish
first appeared to the time that dogs first appeared, as if they were directly
related instead of being distantly related.
Fossils are rock solid evidence that evolution has occured because they are a
snapshot of ancient life, captured in sequence at random moments in time over a
period of billions of years. Fossils are indirect evidence of evolution and
fossils don't lie. There is no rock solid evidence available for Intelligent
Design, it is based purely on argument alone. Who are the designer or designers
and why is there no evidence that they exist anymore?

Evolution contends that a differential survival coupled
with random mutation accounts for the apparent design in living things.

Wrong again. Evolution is never random, it is always a very specific adaptation
to imposed environmental demands.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	03 Nov 2006 06:11:25 AM

The_Sage wrote:

No, that is not true. Evolution is an explanation, not an observation.
Explanations cannot be directly observed, they must be inferred from
observations.

Wrong. Evolution is a logical explantion of objective observation...

I don't get it. Replying to "evolution is an explanation", you say,
"Wrong. Evolution is [an] explanation of [stuff]...". How is it wrong
to say that evolution is an explanation if evolution is a logical
explanation of certain observations?
Were you thinking that perhaps someone was claiming that evolution was
an explanation of nothing at all? Or perhaps an explanation of
something other than observations? (What else is there to explain?)

Evolution contends that a differential survival coupled
with random mutation accounts for the apparent design in living things.

Wrong again. Evolution is never random, it is always a very specific adaptation
to imposed environmental demands.

Again, I don't get it. You say "Wrong again. Evolution is never
random." But the statement was not that evolution itself was random, it
was that evolution makes contentions about random mutation.
If that's wrong, which part is wrong? Do you think mutations are not
random? Or do you think that evolution says nothing at all about
mutations?
Are you just looking to argue with obviously true things just for the
sake of arguing? At least your paragraphs about the observations that
support an evolutionary explanation were interesting and well
organized.
You have a strange tendency to respond to a claim with "Wrong" followed
by a restatement of the claim. Just leave out the "wrong" and you'll
get along famously.
DS
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	03 Nov 2006 08:15:45 PM

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 3 Nov 2006 04:11:25 -0800
MsgID:<1162555885.214221.97760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

No, that is not true. Evolution is an explanation, not an observation.
Explanations cannot be directly observed, they must be inferred from
observations.

Wrong. Evolution is a logical explantion of objective observation...

What you said was, "Evolution is an explanation, not an observation", when it is
BOTH and explanation and an observation. Your assertion implies that evolution
is an explanation of things that have never been observed, whereas the truth is
that evolution is an explanation of things that have been observed.

Evolution contends that a differential survival coupled
with random mutation accounts for the apparent design in living things.

Wrong again. Evolution is never random, it is always a very specific adaptation
to imposed environmental demands.

Again, what you said was, "Evolution contends that...random mutation accounts
for the apparent design in living things". Absolutely no evolutionary mutation
has ever been attributated a random mutation. That is by definition of evolution
since all evolutionary mutations are very specific in nature, ie -- they are
mutations that occured in response to imposed environmental demands, in an
appropriate, non-random manner.

Are you just looking to argue with obviously true things just for the
sake of arguing? At least your paragraphs about the observations that
support an evolutionary explanation were interesting and well
organized.

I'm sorry I lost you there. I just need to redefine my responses a little
better.

You have a strange tendency to respond to a claim with "Wrong" followed
by a restatement of the claim. Just leave out the "wrong" and you'll
get along famously.

Wrong.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	04 Nov 2006 07:11:43 PM

The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 3 Nov 2006 04:11:25 -0800
MsgID:<1162555885.214221.97760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

No, that is not true. Evolution is an explanation, not an observation.
Explanations cannot be directly observed, they must be inferred from
observations.

Wrong. Evolution is a logical explantion of objective observation...

I don't believe it. You again claim you are disagreeing with me and
then say the same thing I said. You and I both agree that evolution is
an explanation of something. You say what that something is, I don't.
How is that a disagreement?
If evolution is an explanation of things observed, it's still an
explanation, not an observation.

Evolution contends that a differential survival coupled
with random mutation accounts for the apparent design in living things.

Wrong again. Evolution is never random, it is always a very specific adaptation
to imposed environmental demands.

What? Mutations don't occur in response to environmental demands. If
that's what you're saying, then I completely disagree with you.

I'm sorry I lost you there. I just need to redefine my responses a little
better.

You have a strange tendency to respond to a claim with "Wrong" followed
by a restatement of the claim. Just leave out the "wrong" and you'll
get along famously.

Wrong.

Are you seriously arguing that mutations are a response to the
environment? If so, I don't agree with you at all. Mutations are
random.
DS
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	04 Nov 2006 08:57:45 PM

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 4 Nov 2006 17:11:43 -0800
MsgID:<1162689103.333454.158800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>

No, that is not true. Evolution is an explanation, not an observation.
Explanations cannot be directly observed, they must be inferred from
observations.

Wrong. Evolution is a logical explantion of objective observation...

You said evolution was not an observation and you were absolutely wrong -- I
even showed you the proof that you were wrong. Which word didn't you understand
this time? Don't say that evolution "is not an observation" when clearly it is.
And then you turn around and make the ludicrous claim that by disagreeing with
you, I am really agreeing with you...that is just total stupidity. I don't think
you are capable of understanding simple concepts like this.
Clearly simple logic is not one of your strong points. You made a claim like
this:
Evolution is...
1) An explanation
*AND*
2) Is not an observation
The truth table for AND goes like this:
1 2 OUT
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
Your statement was thusly:
1 2 OUT
T F F
Therefore your statement was false. I corrected your statement by point out that
if you changed "is not an observation" to "is most definitely an observation",
your statement would become true instead of false:
1 2 OUT
T T T
Case closed.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	07 Nov 2006 01:34:26 AM

The_Sage wrote:

Wrong. Evolution is a logical explanation of objective observation...

Okay, here you just said evolution *is* an explanation. Those are your
words.

Case closed.

Except that evolution is not an observation nor is it any set of
observations. Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but
is not those observations.
Just a seeing a ball fall is not gravity, gravity is the force that
makes the ball fall (or, if you prefer, the word we use to label the
way we explain why balls fall). The effects of gravity can be observed
but gravity cannot be. (Even if we could see the particles that are
exchanged when gravity acts, assuming that was the case, we still would
not be seeing gravity itself.)
You are committing a category error. You can stand by it and insist on
it all you want, but it's a category error.
There can be observations of evolution on Earth or among carbon based
life forms that support the hypothesis that evolution took place there.
But those observations are not evolution or part of evolution any more
than a stone falling is or is part of gravity. (No example of gravity
or evidence to support the theory of gravity is part of gravity.)
I have a collection of over a dozen definitions of evolution and not
one supports your claims. (Note that many of these are very bad
definitions. That's not the point.) For example:
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a
population spread over many generations." A process cannot be
observations. Category difference.
"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive
generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic
variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new
species." A change is not an observation. Again, category difference.
"A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their
origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable
differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also :
the process described by this theory." Neither processes nor a theories
are observations. Again, a category difference.
Now, if you had just taken the position that evolution included
observations of evolution, I wouldn't have disagreed with you.
Definitions of "evolution" are varied, and I don't find it inherently
unreasonable to create one that includes observations if someone wanted
to do that.
However, you took the that I was *wrong* to say that observations are
not part of evolution. So you have the burden. A marginal possible way
that you can squeeze the observations in won't do, you have to show
that I am wrong to exclude them. Pretty tough when no common definition
of "evolution" supports you.
DS
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	07 Nov 2006 06:53:42 PM

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 6 Nov 2006 23:34:26 -0800
MsgID:<1162884866.098768.269660@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Wrong. Evolution is a logical explanation of objective observation...

Okay, here you just said evolution *is* an explanation. Those are your
words.

Case closed.

Except that evolution is not an observation nor is it any set of
observations. Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but
is not those observations.

Except that you are blatently contradicting yourself. You clearly *DENIED* the
claim that, "Evolution is the name we give to an observation", with the
counterclaim that, "Evolution is an explanation, not an observation". Those were
your exact words, and now you are reneging on your claim, trying to pretend that
"what I really meant all along was the exact opposite". We know what you meant
and no amount of backtracking or picking apart the meaning of words to suit your
agenda will allow you to escape the reality of this fact.
I never said anything different from the claim that "Evolution is the name we
give to an observation", ie -- "Evolution is a logical explanation *OF*
objective observation...". Twisting my words around or picking apart one or two
words, instead of trying to grasp the whole picture that was presented, isn't
going to help you accomplish anything noble here.
So you need to start turning this around: Stop trying to desperately find fault
with others where there is no fault to begin with and start trying to find fault
with yourself because, believe me, you have many faults and those faults are
standing large in your way in the pursuit of truth. Start by telling us the
obvious: that you were completely wrong for implying that evolution is not the
name we give to an observation. Then we can see you for your honesty and
integrity instead of your dishonesty and logical fallacies.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	08 Nov 2006 04:30:49 PM

The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Except that evolution is not an observation nor is it any set of
observations. Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but
is not those observations.

Right, that was and still is my claim.

Those were
your exact words, and now you are reneging on your claim, trying to pretend that
"what I really meant all along was the exact opposite". We know what you meant
and no amount of backtracking or picking apart the meaning of words to suit your
agenda will allow you to escape the reality of this fact.

Huh? I stand by my original statement. Evolution is an explanation, it
is not an observation nor is it any set of observations. Some
observations may suggest an evolutionary explanation or my suggest that
evolution occurs, but they are not evolution nor part of it.

I never said anything different from the claim that "Evolution is the name we
give to an observation", ie -- "Evolution is a logical explanation *OF*
objective observation...". Twisting my words around or picking apart one or two
words, instead of trying to grasp the whole picture that was presented, isn't
going to help you accomplish anything noble here.

Huh? I agree that you said evolution is the name we give to an
observation, and I disagree. "Gravity" is not the name for all
observations of things falling, "gravity" is the name for the force
that *explains* those observations.

So you need to start turning this around: Stop trying to desperately find fault
with others where there is no fault to begin with and start trying to find fault
with yourself because, believe me, you have many faults and those faults are
standing large in your way in the pursuit of truth. Start by telling us the
obvious: that you were completely wrong for implying that evolution is not the
name we give to an observation. Then we can see you for your honesty and
integrity instead of your dishonesty and logical fallacies.

I stand by my point. Evolution is not the name for any set of
observations any more than gravity is. Gravity is the explanation for
observations of things falling.
Gravity is a force, it is not any particular example of that force in
action. Similarly, evolution is an explanation and a process, and is
not any particular example of that process.
I notice you snipped and didn't reply to my example of several common
definitions of "evolution", all of which define "evolution" as being in
a totally different category from observations, that is, as a theory,
process, or explanation.
Analogously, gravity is a force. Forces are also in a different
category from observations.
DS
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	08 Nov 2006 09:05:56 PM

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 8 Nov 2006 14:30:49 -0800
MsgID:<1163025049.808266.273710@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Except that evolution is not an observation nor is it any set of
observations. Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but
is not those observations.

Right, that was and still is my claim.

If you can't recognize/admit a blatent logical contradiction when you make one,
how is anyone ever going to have a logical/reasonable conversation with you?
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	09 Nov 2006 05:18:26 PM

The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 8 Nov 2006 14:30:49 -0800
MsgID:<1163025049.808266.273710@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Except that evolution is not an observation nor is it any set of
observations. Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but
is not those observations.

Right, that was and still is my claim.

If you can't recognize/admit a blatent logical contradiction when you make one,
how is anyone ever going to have a logical/reasonable conversation with you?

I said "evolution is not an observation nor is it any set of
observations". I denied "Evolution is the name we give to an
obsersation." I said "evolution is an explanation, not an observation".
Where is the contradiction?
If you have found this amazing logical contradiction, set it out
clearly. Show the conflicting claims. Explanations and processes are in
a different category from observations.
DS
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	10 Nov 2006 07:37:27 PM

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 9 Nov 2006 15:18:26 -0800
MsgID:<1163114306.373168.315310@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Except that evolution is not an observation nor is it any set of
observations. Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but
is not those observations.

Right, that was and still is my claim.

If you can't recognize/admit a blatent logical contradiction when you make one,
how is anyone ever going to have a logical/reasonable conversation with you?

You are such a poor liar. You disagreed with the statement that "Evolution is
the name we give to an observation" so don't try and weasel your way out of the
fact that you do not believe evolution is an observation. Why else would you
have disagreed with that statement?
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	10 Nov 2006 09:34:23 PM

The_Sage wrote:

If you can't recognize/admit a blatent logical contradiction when you make one,
how is anyone ever going to have a logical/reasonable conversation with you?

You are correct, I disagree with the statement that "evolution is the
name we give to an observation". I do not believe evolution is an
observation. You claim that that contradicts something else I said --
well, what does it contradict?
My whole point in this exchange has been to argue that evolution is a
process or explanation and that observations are in a different
category entirely.
The analogy to gravity is perfect. "Gravity" is not the name we give to
any set of observations. It's an explanation, process, or force, and
either way is in a totally different category from observations.
You have accused me of lying and maintaining an outright logical
contradiction. I asked you to show me the two things that conflict, and
all you've done is come up with a statement that precisely sums up my
entire point. "Evolution is the name we give to an observation" is
incorrect, just as gravity is not the name for any observations *of*
gravity.
DS
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	12 Nov 2006 09:16:59 PM

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Date written: 10 Nov 2006 19:34:23 -0800
MsgID:<1163216063.795006.228110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

You like playing word games, don't you? Very well...
I didn't say it contradicts itself, I said you contradict yourself.
You said, "Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but is not
those observations", but using your "logic", we could also say, "Evolution is an
explanation for a set of observations, but it is not that explanation". You seem
to forget that "evolution" and "the Theory of Evolution" are two different
things. Aren't word games fun?
I claimed that, "Evolution is a logical explanation of objective observations".
Of course, you still don't understand what I meant so let me rephrase it so it
makes more sense to you: "The Theory of Evolution is a set of statements and
principles devised to scientifically explain a set of objective observations of
phenomenon and facts, in which the most logical explanation for those phenomenon
and facts is that life evolves".
I predict you will still attempt to argue about wording here, even though there
really is nothing worth arguing about that will change anything that was meant.
Why can't you argue about the meaning instead of the wording -- or can't you
tell the difference?
<Enough of Joels silly word games>
What you have been saying all through these threads now, is what all of us have
been saying -- that the Theory of Evolution would not have developed if there
had been no observations that indicated evolution occurs. Don't nitpick and say,
"You didn't cross you tees" or "You didn't dot your eyes" or try to capitalize
on the inherent ambiguity of the English language.
The original claim that started this whole thread was, "Evolution is the name we
give to an observation". What was approximately meant was "[The theory of]
Evolution is the name we give to [a set of objective] observations [of
phenomenon and facts, in which the most logical explanation for those phenomenon
and facts is that life evolves]". You know what was meant and I can tell by your
own re-interpretation of his statements and the fact you are now trying to
backtrack on your claim. All you are doing is taking almost the same words and
rearranging them and then trying to claim they have totally and completely
different meanings. It makes you look so childish. Why don't you grow up?
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	13 Nov 2006 10:57:03 PM

The_Sage wrote:

I didn't say it contradicts itself, I said you contradict yourself.

Last chance to put up or shut up. Either show the statements I made
that contradict or stop claiming I contradicted myself.
DS
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	14 Nov 2006 04:00:40 AM

The_Sage wrote:

You like playing word games, don't you? Very well...

I didn't say it contradicts itself, I said you contradict yourself.

Fine show me the contradiction.

You said, "Evolution is an explanation for a set of observations but is not
those observations", but using your "logic", we could also say, "Evolution is an
explanation for a set of observations, but it is not that explanation". You seem
to forget that "evolution" and "the Theory of Evolution" are two different
things. Aren't word games fun?

That is not a contradiction.

I claimed that, "Evolution is a logical explanation of objective observations".
Of course, you still don't understand what I meant so let me rephrase it so it
makes more sense to you: "The Theory of Evolution is a set of statements and
principles devised to scientifically explain a set of objective observations of
phenomenon and facts, in which the most logical explanation for those phenomenon
and facts is that life evolves".

That is not a contradiction.

I predict you will still attempt to argue about wording here, even though there
really is nothing worth arguing about that will change anything that was meant.
Why can't you argue about the meaning instead of the wording -- or can't you
tell the difference?

<Enough of Joels silly word games>

You claimed I contradicted myself. I asked you to show me the
contradiction. Where is it?
You claim I am the one playing word games, but you have claimed that
saying "evolution is an explanation" somehow means that "evolution is
not an explanation of observations". Otherwise, according to you, it
would be an observation itself. *That* is a word game, and it is you
who are playing it.
*You* read my claim "evolution is an explanation" to somehow mean that
it couldn't be an explanation *of* anything.

What you have been saying all through these threads now, is what all of us have
been saying -- that the Theory of Evolution would not have developed if there
had been no observations that indicated evolution occurs. Don't nitpick and say,
"You didn't cross you tees" or "You didn't dot your eyes" or try to capitalize
on the inherent ambiguity of the English language.

If I'm saying the same thing as you are, why did you say that I was
"Wrong" and that I "contradict myself"?

The original claim that started this whole thread was, "Evolution is the name we
give to an observation". What was approximately meant was "[The theory of]
Evolution is the name we give to [a set of objective] observations [of
phenomenon and facts, in which the most logical explanation for those phenomenon
and facts is that life evolves]". You know what was meant and I can tell by your
own re-interpretation of his statements and the fact you are now trying to
backtrack on your claim. All you are doing is taking almost the same words and
rearranging them and then trying to claim they have totally and completely
different meanings. It makes you look so childish. Why don't you grow up?

You claimed that not only did I contradict myself but that if I refused
to admit this "obvious logical contradiction" there was no point in
further discussions with me. All I ask is that you show me where I
contradict myself.
You have made, and stood by, the claim that I have contradicted myself
and that further progress is not possible until I admit my
contradiction. I can't do that until you tell me precisely where I
contradicted myself.
You started this entire discussion by insisting that I was wrong to
claim that evolution is a process or explanation and that observations
are in a completely different category. You can either defend the point
or abandon it.
If evolution is an explanation of observations, then evolution is an
explanation. A picture of a car is not a car. Evolution belongs to the
category of explanations, processes, or ideas, and not in the category
of observations or physical objects.
DS
.

User: "JoelKatz"
Title: Re: Creationism , Evolution BOTH WRONG	13 Nov 2006 04:59:53 AM

The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by: "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>
You are correct, I disagree with the statement that "evolution is the
name we give to an observation". I do not believe evolution is an
observation. You claim that that contradicts something else I said --
well, what does it contradict?

You like playing word games, don't you? Very well...

I didn't say it contradicts itself, I said you contradict yourself.

Show me the two things that contradict.

Huh? Explanations are in a different category for observations. I can
say something is an explanation and thus cannot be any kind of
observation at all. You seem to be arguing that an explanation is the
same as the thing it explains, on the contrary, they are in different
categories (assuming the thing explained is not itself an explanation).

I claimed that, "Evolution is a logical explanation of objective observations".

I do not disagree with that claim. It includes the lesser claim,
"evolution is an explanation". Obviously, an explanation must be some
kind of explanation of something. So we both agree on the claim,
"evolution is an explanation". If someone said that was "wrong", they
would be wrong in so saying.

Of course, you still don't understand what I meant so let me rephrase it so it
makes more sense to you: "The Theory of Evolution is a set of statements and
principles devised to scientifically explain a set of objective observations of
phenomenon and facts, in which the most logical explanation for those phenomenon
and facts is that life evolves".

I do not disagree with that either. That may be what you mean by that
claim above, but since that's not the one we disagree about, I don't
know why you are wasting your time.
You have claimed that *I* contradicted *myself*. I demanded you show
the contradiction. You replied by explaining *your* position. How is
that responsive?

Please show me where I have contradicted myself.

We aren't talking about how the theory of evolution developed but what
evolution *is*. Why are you making an accusation and then changing the
subject?

You are an obnoxious liar. Anyone who cares can look back at the thread
themselves.
You said:
"Evolution is the name we give to an observation, so it's fact - not
scientific, just fact."
I replied:
"No, that is not true. Evolution is an explanation, not an observation.
Explanations cannot be directly observed, they must be inferred
from..."
You responded:
"Wrong. Evolution is a logical explantion of objective observation..."
This whole thread is about your claim that I was "Wrong" to say
"Evolution is an explanation, not an observation".
You are still claiming that evolution (or at least part of evolution)
is a set of observations, and I still think you are wrong in that
claim. However, you have completely ignored my demonstrations of how
and why you were wrong (including definitions of "evolution" and how
they don't include any observations) by claiming I have made some kind
of great logical contradiction and you won't deign to speak to me until
I acknowledge this contradiction.
Well, where it the contradiction!?
You have said:
"I didn't say it contradicts itself, I said you contradict yourself."
and even
"If you can't recognize/admit a blatent logical contradiction when you
make one,
how is anyone ever going to have a logical/reasonable conversation with
you? "
Can you or can you not show *me* contradicting *myself*?
DS
.

Page 1 of 4

Post reply

Creationism, Evolution Are BOTH WRONG
Creationism & Evolution Are BOTH WRONG
CREATIONISM and EVOLUTION Are BOTH WRONG
Creation & Evolution BOTH WRONG
Op-Ed: Perdue tries both ways on 'evolution'
Creation & Evolution BOTH WRONG
Op-Ed: Bible, evolution at odds; can't have it both ways
Both hated

Re: Proof Absolute that JABRIOL is BOTH a JEHOVAH'S WITNESS and a LIAR
Proof Absolute that JABRIOL is BOTH a JEHOVAH'S WITNESS and a LIAR
Letter to the Editor: Teach both ideas in school biology class
Bush & Kerry are both rich
President Bush and flipper both....
OT: Senate race both parties must