"Ralph Page" <ralph@PANTSralphpage.net> wrote in message
news:hB80g.59836$F_3.58776@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qNidnQIYGKu1idzZRVn-sg@inspired.net.au...

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:P370g.7176$tT.5986@news01.roc.ny...

Sean wrote:

(snip)

straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin ....
people blindly accept his theory and within his theory he uses the
term "laws impressed on matter by the Creator"

<snip remainder>

How can you determine that people blindly accept his theory?
What proportion of, say, biologists are merely accepting this
theory blindly?
Do you think that physicists blindly accept any particular
theories?

--
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email

would it help if i said that the term *people* does not include
biologists and physicists?

how about if I say I determine it on my observations of others,
comments by others, and that i have the evidence but as I'm getting
old, all I have time for is this simple abstract statement above?

Not scientific enough for you?

Well I base my scientific claim entirely on Darwin's M.O. and
therefore beg your indulgence that I have done my best to avoid any
errors of fact. ;-))

Reference: http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.intro.html
My work is now (1859) nearly finished; but as it will take me many
more years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I
have been urged to publish this abstract. I have more especially
been induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the
natural history of the Malay Archipelago, has arrived at almost
exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of
species.

This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect.
cannot here give references and authorities for my several
statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence
in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I
have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I
can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived,
with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases
will suffice.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:52:45 -0500, Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:41:27 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:P370g.7176$tT.5986@news01.roc.ny...

Sean wrote:

(snip)

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the
view
that each species has been independently created. To my mind it
accords
better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the
Creator,
that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants
of
the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those
determining the birth and death of the individual.

And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent
creation
of species?

straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin

Darwin was in seminary.

Conveniently forgetting that?

The difference between Darwin and the antievolutionists is that Darwin was
an *honest* Christian.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:32:47 GMT, John Baker wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:41:27 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:P370g.7176$tT.5986@news01.roc.ny...

Sean wrote:

(snip)

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those
determining the birth and death of the individual.

And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent creation
of species?

straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist ....

Asking for evidence to support a claim is not a straw man.

ask Darwin .... people
blindly accept his theory

No, we don't. Blind acceptance is more a theist thing.

and within his theory he uses the term "laws
impressed on matter by the Creator"

and

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin

And your point would be?

Like most Brits of his day, Darwin was a "good Christian" in his
youth, but in his later years, and at the time of his death, he was no
longer a believer.

I'm not sure you can say that, although he certainly wasn't the Pat
Robertson/ Jerry Falwell/ James Dobson kind of Christian.

Did he ever, in writing or recorded conversation, explicitly disavow theism
completely?

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:iNb0g.5888$kg.4028@news02.roc.ny...

Sean wrote:

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

Sean wrote:

(snip)
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the
view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it
accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the
Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present
inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like
those determining the birth and death of the individual.

And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent
creation of species?

straw man,...

A straw man is arguing something other than what the other person is
saying. Saying "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied
with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind
it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the
Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present
inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like
those determining the birth and death of the individual." is your
argument, so my asking for evidence of independent creation or citations
to same is not arguing a straw man since that *is* what you're claiming.

No silly, that is a HARD QUOTE from darwin ..... I am discussing Darwin's
"perceived" scientific credentials, and valid scientific MO used within OOS
..... You are making this into something else entirely, which IS as I said a
STRAW MAN.
You are the omne making something totally different out of what I am
suggesting, rather, ASKING about Darwin's MO. on a scientific basis.

I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin .... people blindly
accept his theory...

No. People do *not* blindly accept Darwin's theory. It is massively backed
by evidence. Accepting the reality of the evidence is not blind acceptance
;-)

Well I beg to differ.

I have mentioned things that Darwin includes inj his
OOS and blind believers deny he said them ..... when I quote them, as below,
people tend to discount them and suggest he meant something different than
he actually says in his "scientific theory" documentation.
"people" seem to have this tendency to selectively choose the words they
want from Darwin, that happen to fit their current belief system ..... IOW
they don;t actualkly KNOW what Darwin said, they have this almost Biblical
blind belief in what he said.
Of course, that may not apply to you, but hey I have seen it with my own
eyes no less than darwin saw different species of finches. ;-))

and within his theory he uses the term "laws impressed on matter by the
Creator"

Which was a perfectly normal and acceptable reference for papers and
people writing in the early 19th century. Nowadays it depends critically
on what one means by the term "creator".

Well how about we just restrict ourselves to what DARWIN meant by it, and
then go froim there?

Because it is DARWIN I am talking about, and what other people say/believe
Darwin said and meant when the documentation does not actually back up what
they say TODAY. See?

and
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law
of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and
most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Don;t you just love this line from ORIGIN OF SPECIES ?????
***... originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
****

In our last episode, <BtmdnQD_aZih8t3ZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@inspired.net.au>,
the
lovely and talented Sean broadcast on alt.atheism:

Why has no one been looking for evidence to support DARWIN's BELIEF that
way back in the beginning, before millions of years of evolution, that a
Creator was responsible for the beginnings of Life?

If you think there is such evidence, why don't *you* look for it?

the evidence points in the other direction: that there is no bright-line
distinction between living matter and non-living matter, that there are no
fundament differences among matter that can clearly be recognized as
living,
matter that can clearly be recognized as dead, and matter that is neither
clearly living nor clearly dead, and that there is no evidence to suggest
that anything supernatural ever happened to matter to make some of it
recognizably living and distinct from nonliving matter.

There is nothing to
stop you from looking for such evidence, if you think it worthwhile, but I
would suggest that the principal reason no one has produced any such is
evidence is that none exists.

Why do scientists claim that any such a study is unscientific, but
Dawinism
is the poster child of all things scientific and valid?

I have never heard a scientist advocate "Darwinism." The usual poster
child
for all things scientific is Newton, and we now know even Newton did not
get
it quite right. It's the 21st century. The personalities of 17th, 18th,
and 19th century scientists are subjects of history, not of science.