| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 11:31:48 PM |
| Object: |
How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to
accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and
well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many
people are so wrong?
a.. Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and
museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and
that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the problems
with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to
study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
b.. Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this
word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this.
Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design".
Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type
of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of
resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the
creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing
trait.
2.. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created
people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is
possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the
flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no
further change can take place.
c.. Some other considerations include:
a.. Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does
not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.
b.. Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can
believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even
if it is not obviously seen in his own.
c.. Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution,
they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details
themselves.
d.. Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best"
theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
e.. Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as
outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only
with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there
is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and
scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate.
However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis
Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with
their religious and scientific ideas working together.
--
The Atheist Fools Network
http://www.atheistfools.com
"Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not
compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power....."
Plato
"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of
understanding....."
Plato
"No one ever dies an atheist....."
Plato
_____________________________
Access Research Network
http://www.arn.org/
American Scientific Affiliation
http://www.asa3.org/
Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Associates for Biblical Research
http://www.ChristianAnswers.net/abr/abrhome.html
Association of Christian Astronomers International
http://www.christian-astronomers.org/
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
http://www.ctns.org/
Christian Geology Ministry
http://www.kjvbible.org/
.
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
01 Jul 2004 09:11:42 PM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> puked in message
news:ujMEc.465$B%4.50073@news.uswest.net...
The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people
to
accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and
well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many
people are so wrong?
a.. Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and
museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and
that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the
problems
with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to
study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
snip ... drivel <
"Special Creation", such as the Flat Earth theory or the "The Earth is the
Center of the observable Universe" mantra, for which you freaks burned Bruno
on the stake a mere 450 years ago for suggesting otherwise ??? Get your
religious head out of your dumb ***** and smell the ... er, Evolution
Revolution.
The only good Christian is a dead Christian (Some Roman emperor, right after
you dippos started mouthing off).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 02:30:52 PM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
a.. Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does
not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is
made.
However, that small contingent of scientific activity that
depends on evolution would come to a screeching halt if it had to assume
some of the contingencies of intelligent design. I mean, when was the
last time you heard of a famous Islamic biologist?
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
Foras gradiamur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 02:38:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species. If you ask what a kind is, however, they're not sure. Now, if
some type of impervious boundary existed between kinds, you could define
what a kind was in terms of where the boundaries are. The fact that
even creationists don't know what, exactly a "kind" is means that not
even creationists can see any boundaries between kinds. Considering
that the Bible never, in any verse, declares that there is any type of
limit to how a kind can change, or any type of boundary to what a kind
is, one wonders exactly where this idea of limited kinds even comes
from...
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 10:07:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400 in episode
<manutter51-C15ED1.15383003072004@corp.newsfeeds.com> we saw our hero Mark
Nutter <manutter51@alethian.org>:
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the evolution
of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a species. If you
ask what a kind is, however, they're not sure. Now, if some type of
impervious boundary existed between kinds, you could define what a kind
was in terms of where the boundaries are. The fact that even creationists
don't know what, exactly a "kind" is means that not even creationists can
see any boundaries between kinds. Considering that the Bible never, in
any verse, declares that there is any type of limit to how a kind can
change, or any type of boundary to what a kind is, one wonders exactly
where this idea of limited kinds even comes from...
It's called "making it up."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 07:13:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
Patience is a virtue which carries a lot of wait.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 07:25:54 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desdinova" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 07:38:17 PM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet", he'll
try to make you prove it. He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged "Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 07:45:50 PM |
|
|
"Desdinova" <desdinova@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message
news:ZjIFc.182772$DG4.63690@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things
have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes
in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and
"macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet", he'll
try to make you prove it.
Well, yes, that's why I asked the question. If I can know what he will find
acceptable ahead of time, I can provide it or I can explain why, perhaps it
is not possible or not available.
He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged
"Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
Oh, but it's *fun*! But a lot of this has to do with credibility. If he
won't describe his standard of evidence--if he won't even tell us who
ordained him (why is he afraid of telling us *that*...he's proud enough of
it to call himself "Pastor")--that doesn't leave anything. And even
religious people will see through the facade.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desdinova" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 08:23:59 PM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:hrIFc.15433$Ch.4534@okepread04...
"Desdinova" <desdinova@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message
news:ZjIFc.182772$DG4.63690@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com>
writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things
have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small
changes
in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven
fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and
"macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you
say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet",
he'll
try to make you prove it.
Well, yes, that's why I asked the question. If I can know what he will
find
acceptable ahead of time, I can provide it or I can explain why, perhaps
it
is not possible or not available.
He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged
"Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
Oh, but it's *fun*! But a lot of this has to do with credibility. If he
won't describe his standard of evidence--if he won't even tell us who
ordained him (why is he afraid of telling us *that*...he's proud enough of
it to call himself "Pastor")--that doesn't leave anything. And even
religious people will see through the facade.
Good luck to you. If you find it enjoyable, go for it. I just don't have the
will to do all the research he wants, like trying to prove the blindingly
obvious, such as diseases and genetic deformities, etc. are not good things.
Regards.
--
Desdinova aa #2182
EAC Director of Separation of Church and Brain
"Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human
nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth
unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion
of the human race has ever been expressed."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 09:03:18 PM |
|
|
"Desdinova" <desdinova@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message
news:P_IFc.182787$DG4.147234@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:hrIFc.15433$Ch.4534@okepread04...
"Desdinova" <desdinova@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message
news:ZjIFc.182772$DG4.63690@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com>
writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things
have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small
changes
in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven
fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and
"macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you
say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet",
he'll
try to make you prove it.
Well, yes, that's why I asked the question. If I can know what he will
find
acceptable ahead of time, I can provide it or I can explain why, perhaps
it
is not possible or not available.
He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged
"Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to
refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
Oh, but it's *fun*! But a lot of this has to do with credibility. If
he
won't describe his standard of evidence--if he won't even tell us who
ordained him (why is he afraid of telling us *that*...he's proud enough
of
it to call himself "Pastor")--that doesn't leave anything. And even
religious people will see through the facade.
Good luck to you. If you find it enjoyable, go for it. I just don't have
the
will to do all the research he wants, like trying to prove the blindingly
obvious, such as diseases and genetic deformities, etc. are not good
things.
Dave waits us out, and I'll get bored sooner or later. After all, I can
only do this on weekends.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 10:16:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:45:50 -0700 in episode
<hrIFc.15433$Ch.4534@okepread04> we saw our hero "Adam Warlock"
<go@away.com>:
If I can know what he will
find acceptable ahead of time
Simple. That which supports, appears to support, or can be bent, folded,
or mutilated to appear to support Dave's beliefs is "evidence." That which
contradicts whatever he feels like believing today is *not "evidence."
Also, the boundaries and definitions will be shifted as necessary.
You may begin...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
04 Jul 2004 09:18:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:38:17 GMT, "Desdinova"
<desdinova@nodamnspam.com> posted thusly:
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet", he'll
try to make you prove it. He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged "Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
I wouldn't talk about not wanting an honest debate,
when I asked you three times why you made certain
claims and you ran away.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation.
Believing in the Creator. When Paul preached to
those worshipping nature and said... "turn from
these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven and earth and the sea and all things that
are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desdinova" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
05 Jul 2004 10:17:35 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb4ge0t09b2l849sddd3hb6d3hn6dac9kb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:38:17 GMT, "Desdinova"
<desdinova@nodamnspam.com> posted thusly:
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things
have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes
in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven
fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and
"macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you
say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet", he'll
try to make you prove it. He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged
"Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
I wouldn't talk about not wanting an honest debate,
when I asked you three times why you made certain
claims and you ran away.
No, you wanted me to prove that diseases and genetic defects are not a good
thing. You are pulling a "Clinton" (What the definition of "is" is.). This
is a dishonest debate tactic. If you think genetic defects and diseases are
a good thing, YOU prove it .Otherwise, you are not rational enough to hold
any kind of meaningful debate with.
--
Desdinova aa #2182
EAC Director of Separation of Church and Brain
"Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human
nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth
unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion
of the human race has ever been expressed."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
04 Jul 2004 05:16:17 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb4ge0t09b2l849sddd3hb6d3hn6dac9kb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:38:17 GMT, "Desdinova"
<desdinova@nodamnspam.com> posted thusly:
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things
have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes
in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven
fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and
"macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you
say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet", he'll
try to make you prove it. He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged
"Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
I wouldn't talk about not wanting an honest debate,
when I asked you three times why you made certain
claims and you ran away.
I don't see it that way, Dave. The fact is that you have no interest in
debate of any kind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
04 Jul 2004 10:00:01 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:38:17 GMT, "Desdinova"
<desdinova@nodamnspam.com> posted thusly:
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04...
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro"
is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
No evidence would ever be sufficient for alleged "Pastor" Dave. If you say
"the sky is blue", he'll say "prove it". If you say "water is wet", he'll
try to make you prove it. He just wants you to do the research so he can
then claim that it proves nothing. Just a wild goose chase. Alleged "Pastor"
Dave doesn't want to honestly debate the issues, he just wants to refute
everything. Don't waste anymore time on him.
I wouldn't talk about not wanting an honest debate,
when I asked you three times why you made certain
claims and you ran away.
If you want an honest debate, why won't you define your terms?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 10:14:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:25:54 -0700 in episode
<A8IFc.15431$Ch.11995@okepread04> we saw our hero "Adam Warlock"
<go@away.com>:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have
a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in
the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact,
they mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist
disputes this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that
macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro"
is an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for macroevolution.
How could they be so stubborn!
What kind of evidence would you expect to see, Dave?
He expects to see none of course.
And so he'll stare right at it and never see it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
03 Jul 2004 09:30:55 PM |
|
|
In article <esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they
mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
I would *encourage* them to want to see the evidence. We've got lots,
they're certainly welcome to look all they want. Then they too can
verify that the evidence from the field does indeed have the
characteristics predicted by macroevolutionary theory.
Macroevolution predicts, for instance, that when novel biological
features first appear in the fossil record, including the first
appearance of new species, we are likely to find other organisms both
before and after the new one, that have characteristics that are only
incrementally different from the new organism. Such appearances in the
fossil record are well-documented, and even though creationists try and
dismiss the evidence by attributing it to mere "horizontal" changes in
the genotype, the fact that they need to explain it at all confirms that
the evidence does indeed exist, just as macroevolutionary theory
predicted.
One could, of course, try to make predictions about what we ought to
find in the fossil evidence based on the assumption that, say,
microevolutionary changes always result in a net loss of genetic
information, and hence can only change "downwards." If such a principle
were true, it would produce an identifiable pattern in the fossil
record. New features would never appear, for instance, unless they were
deformities or handicaps of some sort. You would not be able to arrange
the species in any kind of chronological order, based on when the
organisms first appear, and find a series of incremental differences
leading from one earlier species through a series of chronologically
successive species or subspecies, to the time and place of the first
appearance of a new species.
Those predictions, however, fail to match what we find in the actual
fossils. New features do appear, even entire new species, and yet one
can trace the incremental differences in physiology from the older
species through the newer ones. We find structures in older species
that are retained in the newer species, but with adaptations that change
their function in ways that give the newer species an advantage in its
particular ecological niche. The fossil record does record the odd
deformity and maladaptation predicted by the microevolution-only theory,
but the theory predicts that this should be the only evolution we find,
when in fact the overwhelming number of fossils show adaptation and
success rather than maladaptation and failure.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
04 Jul 2004 09:24:34 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:30:55 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they
mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
I would *encourage* them to want to see the evidence. We've got lots,
Lie.
they're certainly welcome to look all they want. Then they too can
verify that the evidence from the field does indeed have the
characteristics predicted by macroevolutionary theory.
Macroevolution predicts, for instance, that when novel biological
features first appear in the fossil record, including the first
appearance of new species, we are likely to find other organisms both
before and after the new one, that have characteristics that are only
incrementally different from the new organism.
Lie.
Such appearances in the
fossil record are well-documented,
Lie. You're told that and then, when it is found to be
otherwise, of course the books and materials are never
updated for the student. In fact, there are still
books out there teaching Haeckel's drawings as if they
are fact and they were dismissed as fraud over 100
years ago.
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
04 Jul 2004 05:17:20 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9j4ge0h7k0dqlv87sqkj0phn8rfofig7sf@4ax.com...
Snip, since Dave didn't answer anything.
Who ordained you, Dave?
What kind of Christian behaves like you, Dave, particularly one who calls
himself "Pastor?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
04 Jul 2004 11:20:51 AM |
|
|
In article <9j4ge0h7k0dqlv87sqkj0phn8rfofig7sf@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:30:55 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
I would *encourage* them to want to see the evidence. We've got lots,
Lie.
No thanks, I'd rather not. Why should I when I've got the facts? You
yourself admit that the evidence does exist whenever you claim that it
proves microevolution. It can't prove anything, not even
microevolution, if it does not exist. Therefore it does exist, even if
you arbitrarily limit the conclusions you think someone should be
allowed to draw from it.
Theistic evolutionists look at the evidence without any pro-evolution
bias (since they did and still do firmly believe that God created
everything), and they conclude that it does support the conclusions of
evolutionary theory. So call it names all you want, but the evidence is
there and is sufficient to demonstrate evolution to unbiased observers.
they're certainly welcome to look all they want. Then they too can
verify that the evidence from the field does indeed have the
characteristics predicted by macroevolutionary theory.
Macroevolution predicts, for instance, that when novel biological
features first appear in the fossil record, including the first
appearance of new species, we are likely to find other organisms both
before and after the new one, that have characteristics that are only
incrementally different from the new organism.
Lie.
Oh, you don't think macroevolution predicts that? Why not?
Such appearances in the
fossil record are well-documented,
Lie.
So now you are denying that any new features ever appear in the fossil
record, in association with earlier organisms whose features are only
incrementally different from the newer organisms? Your claim could be
disproven by showing a fossil organism with a feature not found in
earlier organisms, with other, earlier fossils having similar features
that are only incrementally different from the new one, is that correct?
You're told that and then, when it is found to be
otherwise, of course the books and materials are never
updated for the student. In fact, there are still
books out there teaching Haeckel's drawings as if they
are fact and they were dismissed as fraud over 100
years ago.
Publishers don't have time to update the textbooks, they're too busy
being lobbied by creationists. ;)
Seriously, though, I think most evolutionists would agree with you that
textbooks need to be updated where they are out of date and/or
incorrect. Of course Haeckel's drawings of embryos have nothing to do
with the fossil record. But still, unless they're being presented in
the context of describing frauds, they don't belong in science textbooks.
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
Ah yes, the famous quote-out-of-context that makes it sound like Stanley
is denying all transitional forms when he is merely describing a narrow
selection of specific fossils at a single geographical site from a
single geological era. Why do creationists have to use quotations out
of context? Can't they just do their own research and publish the
results? They publish plenty of other stuff.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
04 Jul 2004 11:51:49 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9j4ge0h7k0dqlv87sqkj0phn8rfofig7sf@4ax.com>...
Macroevolution predicts, for instance, that when novel biological
features first appear in the fossil record, including the first
appearance of new species, we are likely to find other organisms both
before and after the new one, that have characteristics that are only
incrementally different from the new organism.
Lie.
I know that you, as a creationist, cannot afford to honestly deal in
evidence, but here it is:
"Understanding Evolution" by E. Peter Volpe (Wm. C. Brown, 1984)
which, in Chapter 17, details snail evolution, supporting both
Darwinian descent with modification and Eldredge and Gould's
punctuated equilibrium within the same fossil bed!
"Evolution and escalation" by G. J. Vermeij (Princeton University
Press, 1987) addresses invertebrate transitions.
"Evolution" by Mark Ridley (Blackwell Science, 1996)
"The Fossil Book : A Record of Prehistoric Life" by Rich, Rich,
Fenton, & Fenton (Dover Publications, 1997)
"Wonderful Life" by Stephen Gould (WW Norton, 1989)
"History of Life" by Richard Cowen (Blackwell Scientific Publications,
1995)
"Vital Dust" by Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve (Basic Books, 1995)
outlines pathways from what creationists love to call "inanimate
matter" to cellular life.
"Eight Little Piggies" by Stephen Gould (WW Norton, 1993). An article
called "Wheels and Wedges" recounts direct evidence of snail evolution
in response to more predatory crabs in the fossil record, which Darwin
himself drew our attention to.
Oh look! I didn't even mention the talk-origins archives! How
awkward for you! Now you've no recourse but to actually deal with the
evidence. What a nightmare for you! Of course, you can always
pretend it doesn't exist. That seems to be your strong suit - running
away.
Such appearances in the
fossil record are well-documented,
Lie. You're told that and then, when it is found to be
otherwise, of course the books and materials are never
updated for the student.
Yet you cannot offer a shred of evidence to support your claim! Could
it be that your claim is a lie? Well, since you're a creationist, it
would have to be a lie, wouldn't it, because you have to lie to
yourself to even begin to think that a primitive fairy-tale with no
supportive evidence whatsoever is actually the truth, whereas a solid
scientific theory with 150 years-worth of accumulated evidence is a
lie. Ever read any George Orwell? 1984 maybe?
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants.
Where does the Theory of Evolution say this is not possible? Please,
I'd really like to know. Can **YOU** point out to me where it is,
because if you cannot, **YOU'RE A LIAR**. This type of challenge is
not even worthy of kindergarten because it is of precisely the same
dumb-*****, clueless, childish, meaningless basis as asking someone, "If
you're descended from your parents, how come your parents are still
alive?"
In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
Well you personally have been repeatedly shown the transitional
evidence, and chosen to pretend it doesn't exist, so just shut it with
your brain-dead, blind-faith gibberish, will you?
Now if you want to actually **DISCUSS** some of the evidence and put
your explanation up against mine, visit: http://tinyurl.com/23qks
I've been waiting since June 26th for you or someone to offer a better
explanation than mine for that evidence, but no one from your camp
seems up to the challenge. I wonder why?
I notice that you've been too cowardly to actually dare venture in
there, but this is actual evidence presented for discussion and you're
clearly not up to it, are you? You're fine when it comes to posting
childish blather on the Internet, but when it comes to actually
backing up the crap you post, then instead of backing up, you're
backing off and running away like Duke and Roadrunner and Jabriol and
"Crutch of the Anal Truth". I wonder why?
If you or any creationist on the planet has a better explanation than
the Theory of Evolution does for this evidence, let's hear it, or SHUT
IT WITH YOUR CLUELSS BRAIN-DEAD WHINEY ***** GRIPING THAT YOU CANNOT
EVEN BEGIN TO SUPPORT NOR EVER HAVE, "PASTOR" DAVE.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
05 Jul 2004 08:19:27 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:30:55 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <esiee0150akuuo7esjk0v5up06i84o36pv@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:38:30 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> posted thusly:
In article <1088883051.345804@yasure>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> writes:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they
mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Good, then no creation scientist disputes that macro-evolution
happens, either, because the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is
an arbitrary one human beings assign, and nature has no such
distinction.
Interestingly, if you provide creationists with evidence for the
evolution of new species, they will respond that a kind is not a
species.
Yea, imagine creationists wanting to see evidence for
macroevolution. How could they be so stubborn!
I would *encourage* them to want to see the evidence. We've got lots,
Lie.
Liar.
they're certainly welcome to look all they want. Then they too can
verify that the evidence from the field does indeed have the
characteristics predicted by macroevolutionary theory.
Macroevolution predicts, for instance, that when novel biological
features first appear in the fossil record, including the first
appearance of new species, we are likely to find other organisms both
before and after the new one, that have characteristics that are only
incrementally different from the new organism.
Lie.
Liar.
Such appearances in the
fossil record are well-documented,
Lie. You're told that and then, when it is found to be
otherwise, of course the books and materials are never
updated for the student. In fact, there are still
books out there teaching Haeckel's drawings as if they
are fact and they were dismissed as fraud over 100
years ago.
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
Wow, Dave, 100 years ago and almost 25 years ago. Got
anything recent. Science marches on. Or are you talking
about science history?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
01 Jul 2004 06:43:14 AM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ujMEc.465$B%4.50073@news.uswest.net...
The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people
to
accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and
well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many
people are so wrong?
a.. Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and
museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and
that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the
problems
with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to
study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
b.. Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this
word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they
mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good
design".
Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this
type
of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of
resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the
creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing
trait.
2.. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created
people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is
possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the
flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no
further change can take place.
c.. Some other considerations include:
a.. Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does
not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is
made.
b.. Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist
can
believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field",
even
if it is not obviously seen in his own.
c.. Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution,
they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details
themselves.
d.. Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the
"best"
theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
e.. Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as
outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only
with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there
is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and
scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate.
However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis
Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated
with
their religious and scientific ideas working together.
Nope. Not even close. You obviously don't understand the evidence for the
Theory of Evolution as you forgot to mention, for instance, the nested
hierarchy in your discussion of the subject. Go back, review the subject,
and try to compose an original essay.
-----
Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over
time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms of evolution,
including mutation, variation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic
drift, speciation, hybridization, contingency, common descent, etc. The
primary areas of evidence are as follows:
* The nested hierarchy of extant life.
* The nested hierarchy in time of extinct life.
* The discovery that heredity is chemistry (Watson & Crick, 1953).
* Observation of genetic mutation.
* Observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time.
* Observation of natural and artificial selection and their effects.
* Observation of speciation in the wild and in the lab.
* Observation of hybridization in the wild and in the lab.
* The recently discovered nested hierarchy of genomes (including viral
inserts and pseudo-genes).
* Direct manipulation of the genomes.
National Academy of Sciences
"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology
and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In
contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot
be meaningfully tested."
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desdinova" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
01 Jul 2004 03:40:29 PM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ujMEc.465$B%4.50073@news.uswest.net...
The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people
to
accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and
well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many
people are so wrong?
a.. Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and
museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and
that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the
problems
with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to
study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
b.. Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this
word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
1.. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a
built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the
environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they
mean
that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes
this.
Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good
design".
Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this
type
of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of
resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the
creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing
trait.
2.. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created
people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is
possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the
flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no
further change can take place.
c.. Some other considerations include:
a.. Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does
not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is
made.
b.. Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist
can
believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field",
even
if it is not obviously seen in his own.
c.. Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution,
they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details
themselves.
d.. Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the
"best"
theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
e.. Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as
outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only
with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there
is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and
scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate.
However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis
Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated
with
their religious and scientific ideas working together.
Did you cut and paste that all by yourself, Raymond? Mommy will be so proud.
Do you know the meaning of the word "plagiarism"?
Thought not.
--
Desdinova aa #2182
EAC Director of Separation of Church and Brain
There are none so blind as those who view life filtered
through the stained glass of church windows.
"Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human
nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth
unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion
of the human race has ever been expressed."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
01 Jul 2004 02:00:25 PM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <laserlover2ooo@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ujMEc.465$B%4.50073@news.uswest.net>...
The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to
accept
Especially in the face of overwhelming evidence for it.
a.. Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and
museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and
Our *universe*? Somebody has certainly failed to read for
comprehension. So Stephen Hawking is a biologist now?
that evolution is a proven fact.
Erm, well, yes, it is.
They have not been told about the problems
with the theory of evolution,
Any more than they have been taught about the "problems" with Newton's
Law of Universal Gravitation--generally because no layman wants OR
NEEDS to solve gravitational field problems in five dimensions.
As for legitimate scientific controversies, these make it into science
programs such as NOVA all the time, not to mention the evening news,
so what's the beef there? Heck, it's become fashionable to put waffly
language in children's textbooks when INDUSTRY challenges the
scientific community, as when they make timid or questionable
statements about global climate change.
nor have they been given the opportunity to
study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
Probably because it is not an alternative worth discussing. There's no
evidence for it, and today it tends to be posited in such a way as to
be unfalsifiable. That really isn't worth a scientist's time. Special
creation is a mythological alternative to science, and therefore of
more interest to ethnologists than biologists.
b.. Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this
word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
2.. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created
people from hydrogen gas.
Ha, ha! So supernova explosions which spread the heavier elements
around the universe (that special 1% of all matter which makes the
Earth and the life on it possible) are part of evolutionary theory
too, now? You are confused.
Evolutionists say that large scale change is
possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the
flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no
further change can take place.
What sort of limits would those be? I've never seen any evidence of
such limits. Please enlighten us.
c.. Some other considerations include:
a.. Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does
not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.
A LIE. "Day to day scientific activity," as you put it, in the field
of biology and more specifically, medical research, does INDEED rest
on evolutionary biology, implicitly. Bio couldn't be done without it!
You are a fool.
Even the most primitive agricultural science relies on genetics
(Linnaeus, 17th century monk--some "evilutionist," eh?). You would
still be eating game marrow and berries if humans hadn't figured out
how to selectively breed plants and animals. Better put that dunce-cap
on--even a Mennonite would laugh at you.
b.. Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can
believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even
if it is not obviously seen in his own.
So what? Evolution certainly doesn't exist in "some other field" for
biologists!
c.. Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution,
they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details
themselves.
A false argument to authority. Why are you asking physicists and
chemists about evolutionary biology? Why not ask ... biologists?
d.. Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best"
Ad hom.
theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
Well, sure--you gotta have something to work with.
A theory is just a model--no claims are made about it being "absolute"
reality. (Especially in physics, where the question of what is real,
and what is really happening, is a bit too twisted for human minds to
comprehend.)
e.. Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as
outside the scope of scientific study.
Yeah, duh.
Can we equate "what is true" only
with "what can be seen and measured"?
No, but we certainly can call it "what we can know about." Science is
the study of what is knowable. The unknowable is best left to
philosophers, theologists and fools, like yourself.
Is the physical dimension "all there
is"?
All we can know about. Why worry about what we can't? It can't touch
us, we can't touch it--who cares?
Does it matter if tachyons are "real" or not? By definition they can't
interact with ordinary matter. Your god seems to be the same.
Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and
scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate.
Many scientists have come to that conclusion after a little bit of
thought.
Thinking--you should try it some time.
However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis
Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with
their religious and scientific ideas working together.
Plenty of believers are scientists, even today. Just because they
aren't fundies doesn't mean they're atheists. False dichotomy.
-Hy
.
|
|
|
| User: "ted holden" |
|
| Title: Re: How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong? |
10 Jul 2004 11:31:33 PM |
|
|
How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong?
Easy: they're all idiots. There is simply no law of physics which prevents
a scientist from being an idiot, or an idiot from being a scientist.
The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionites is that there is
some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In
order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you
would need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual level similar to
that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and
Rastafari.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in
evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to
believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's
basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume
nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are
defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or
explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that
evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a
choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for
Fornicator or some such traditional design, or a big scarlet letter I for
IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional
choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The
Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves
trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic
plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both
old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to
become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems,
including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure,
specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail,
specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the
day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving
any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus
selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some
gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening
at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the
likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve
such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order
infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for
that to happen once.
All of that is the best case of course. In real life, it's even worse than
that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for
hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve
flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life,
all you'd ever get would some s | | |
