| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZpiralZone" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2005 11:32:20 AM |
| Object: |
Is Evolution science? |
According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method. It is not science.
.
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 12:14:59 PM |
|
|
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f05bbe2w9d838936105f5dae@mail.gmail.com...
Jabs, right?
According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
principles (rules)."
Okay, so then evolutionary biology is very good science indeed.
QED.
Understandably, there are various kinds of
science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method. It is not science.
Sure it is.
You're perhaps being stupid, or disingenuous. At the least you've
evidently completely forgotten to make any argument at all for why
we should think that "evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method".
So, why exactly do you think evolutionary biology is any different
in this regard from any other science? AFAICT, it's plainly not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 02:35:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:14:59 -0500, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f05bbe2w9d838936105f5dae@mail.gmail.com...
Jabs, right?
Right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 07:31:19 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:14:59 -0500, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f05bbe2w9d838936105f5dae@mail.gmail.com...
Jabs, right?
Right.
And he is right... None of your opinions matter
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
05 Jan 2006 11:13:16 AM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135733479.155981.110280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Baker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:14:59 -0500, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message
news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f05bbe2w9d838936105f5dae@mail.gmail.com...
Jabs, right?
Right.
And he is right... None of your opinions matter
The day either you or Jabriol is right about anything will be the day the
world ends.
Now, *****, you disagreeable little toad, or we'll see how your ISP deals
with trolls.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tax Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 11:05:09 PM |
|
|
Thank you so much for cross posting this to alt.free.newsservers. It is
not exactly on topic there, but it's something we all need to know and to
think about.
Please cross post it to more groups. This is important information and
needs to be spread far and wide.
On 27 Dec 2005 17:31:19 -0800, "codebreaker@bigsecret.com"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:14:59 -0500, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f05bbe2w9d838936105f5dae@mail.gmail.com...
Jabs, right?
Right.
And he is right... None of your opinions matter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 01:02:52 PM |
|
|
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f05bbe2w9d838936105f5dae@mail.gmail.com...
[...]
Since evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method. It is not science.
You left something out between "evolution" and "can". This is why your
teachers always ask you to show your work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 02:39:42 PM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:w7Xrf.46913$tV6.20199@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f05bbe2w9d838936105f5dae@mail.gmail.com...
[...]
Since evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method. It is not science.
You left something out between "evolution" and "can". This is why your
teachers always ask you to show your work.
Nice quote!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 03:57:24 PM |
|
|
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 04:18:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 08:49:11 PM |
|
|
In <jason-0301061418520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and his
theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself (Charles
Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led him to
publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
So?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 11:11:58 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <jason-0301061418520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and his
theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself (Charles
Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led him to
publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
So?
I think his point is that Darwin was a theist. Unlike most theists
however Darwin would not allow church teaching to overide the evidence
he found contradicting the Bible.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
10 Jan 2006 07:12:44 AM |
|
|
On 8 Jan 2006 21:11:58 -0800, "lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu"
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <jason-0301061418520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and his
theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself (Charles
Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led him to
publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
So?
I think his point is that Darwin was a theist. Unlike most theists
however Darwin would not allow church teaching to overide the evidence
he found contradicting the Bible.
Darwin was a theist at the time he made his voyage on the Beagle, and
at the time the first edition of 'Origin' was published, but by the
time of his death, he had become agnostic.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
04 Jan 2006 10:15:44 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:49:11 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <jason-0301061418520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and his
theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself (Charles
Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led him to
publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
So?
The cretin's trying an 'Argument From Authority' gambit and can't
understand why he's being laughed at.
--
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
04 Jan 2006 10:25:35 AM |
|
|
In <v3tnr1tm3vrrhlvd42bemvhf3ncfl0a675@4ax.com>, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:49:11 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <jason-0301061418520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome
with the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the
creation of life?
So?
The cretin's trying an 'Argument From Authority' gambit and can't
understand why he's being laughed at.
And can't see how much it undermines his conflating abiogenesis and
evolution...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
05 Jan 2006 10:52:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:25:35 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <v3tnr1tm3vrrhlvd42bemvhf3ncfl0a675@4ax.com>, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:49:11 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <jason-0301061418520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome
with the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the
creation of life?
So?
The cretin's trying an 'Argument From Authority' gambit and can't
understand why he's being laughed at.
And can't see how much it undermines his conflating abiogenesis and
evolution...
That too.
--
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 04:47:50 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
which edition? Did he mean it literally or metaphorically
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 06:54:06 PM |
|
|
In article <qaDuf.58119$Cj5.26509@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
which edition? Did he mean it literally or metaphorically
Page 450 of the Mentor edition (last page)
....having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into
one..."
compare the above quote to Gen 2:7
summary: God breathed life into Adam's nostrils.
Upon request I will post some evidence indicating that Darwin may have
cried out to God while he was on his death bed.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 09:10:40 PM |
|
|
In <jason-0301061654060001@pm4-broad-59.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <qaDuf.58119$Cj5.26509@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) -
someone who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was
overcome with the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the
creation of life?
which edition? Did he mean it literally or metaphorically
Page 450 of the Mentor edition (last page) ...having been originally
breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..."
compare the above quote to Gen 2:7
summary: God breathed life into Adam's nostrils.
Upon request I will post some evidence indicating that Darwin may have
cried out to God while he was on his death bed.
If you pull out the Lady Hope story, you deserve the beating you'll get on
the newsgroups...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
05 Jan 2006 12:22:55 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <qaDuf.58119$Cj5.26509@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
which edition? Did he mean it literally or metaphorically
Page 450 of the Mentor edition (last page)
...having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into
one..."
compare the above quote to Gen 2:7
summary: God breathed life into Adam's nostrils.
Upon request I will post some evidence indicating that Darwin may have
cried out to God while he was on his death bed.
Which is fine. There are plenty of people who both believe in God and
accept the scientific truths of evolutionary theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
05 Jan 2006 12:42:40 AM |
|
|
In article <3X2vf.3317$Hl6.443@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <qaDuf.58119$Cj5.26509@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <1136325444.008879.321320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
donnej@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone who has demonized Darwin and
his theories knows even the slightest thing about the man himself
(Charles Darwin), what he believed, how he believed it, and what led
him to publish his theories.
Actually, I'm not that curious, because clearly anyone who does know
EVEN THE SLIGHTEST thing about Darwin, as a person, as someone who
struggled with what he observed scientifically and what he knew the
Church would say (based on their previous reactions to the earth
revolving around the sun theories by Copernicus and Galileo) - someone
who agonized and prayed and waited and hoped until he was overcome with
the need to tell the truth. Yes, the truth.
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the creation
of life?
which edition? Did he mean it literally or metaphorically
Page 450 of the Mentor edition (last page)
...having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into
one..."
compare the above quote to Gen 2:7
summary: God breathed life into Adam's nostrils.
Upon request I will post some evidence indicating that Darwin may have
cried out to God while he was on his death bed.
Which is fine. There are plenty of people who both believe in God and
accept the scientific truths of evolutionary theory.
That's true. I believe that microevolution is a fact. Some creationists
believe that God created the world and did not create mankind, plant or
animals. Those things evolved from non-life. I don't believe that. I
believe that God created mankind, plants and animals. All of the plants
and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those animals and plants
that God created.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
06 Jan 2006 05:43:28 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0401062242400001@pm4-broad-27.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3X2vf.3317$Hl6.443@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
[snip]
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the
creation
of life?
which edition? Did he mean it literally or metaphorically
Page 450 of the Mentor edition (last page)
...having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or
into
one..."
And so you must concede that the common descent of all life from a few
forms or one isn't necessarily a threat to conventional theistic
religion?
compare the above quote to Gen 2:7
summary: God breathed life into Adam's nostrils.
Upon request I will post some evidence indicating that Darwin may have
cried out to God while he was on his death bed.
And no doubt when he hit his thumb with a hammer. Don't bother with
the Lady Hope myth.
Which is fine. There are plenty of people who both believe in God and
accept the scientific truths of evolutionary theory.
That's true. I believe that microevolution is a fact.
Good, since your "microevolution" includes science's "macroevolution".
It's your "macroevolution" that's based on a falsehood [since it has
nothing much to do with how science uses the term].
Some creationists
believe that God created the world and did not create mankind, plant or
animals. Those things evolved from non-life.
Then God would still get the credit.
I don't believe that. I
believe that God created mankind, plants and animals.
But there's no reason to insist that they were each created separately
from non-life, instead of creating them by natural evolution from very
early common ancestors.
All of the plants
and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those animals and plants
that God created.
And this "microevolution" of yours is apparently all that's needed for
the evolution of all life from their earliest single-celled common
ancestors.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
06 Jan 2006 06:41:35 PM |
|
|
In article <dpmum9$lk8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0401062242400001@pm4-broad-27.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3X2vf.3317$Hl6.443@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
[snip]
Did you know that Darwin on the last page of his book stated that he
believed the creator played an important role in relation to the
creation
of life?
which edition? Did he mean it literally or metaphorically
Page 450 of the Mentor edition (last page)
...having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or
into
one..."
And so you must concede that the common descent of all life from a few
forms or one isn't necessarily a threat to conventional theistic
religion?
compare the above quote to Gen 2:7
summary: God breathed life into Adam's nostrils.
Upon request I will post some evidence indicating that Darwin may have
cried out to God while he was on his death bed.
And no doubt when he hit his thumb with a hammer. Don't bother with
the Lady Hope myth.
Which is fine. There are plenty of people who both believe in God and
accept the scientific truths of evolutionary theory.
That's true. I believe that microevolution is a fact.
Good, since your "microevolution" includes science's "macroevolution".
It's your "macroevolution" that's based on a falsehood [since it has
nothing much to do with how science uses the term].
Some creationists
believe that God created the world and did not create mankind, plant or
animals. Those things evolved from non-life.
Then God would still get the credit.
I don't believe that. I
believe that God created mankind, plants and animals.
But there's no reason to insist that they were each created separately
from non-life, instead of creating them by natural evolution from very
early common ancestors.
All of the plants
and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those animals and plants
that God created.
And this "microevolution" of yours is apparently all that's needed for
the evolution of all life from their earliest single-celled common
ancestors.
cheers
I believe that God created mankind, lots of plants and animals. All of the
plants and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those plants and
animals that God created.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
06 Jan 2006 07:40:27 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0601061641360001@pm1-broad-126.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dpmum9$lk8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
[snip]
And so you must concede that the common descent of all life from a few
forms or one isn't necessarily a threat to conventional theistic
religion?
[snip]
All of the plants
and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those animals and
plants
that God created.
And this "microevolution" of yours is apparently all that's needed for
the evolution of all life from their earliest single-celled common
ancestors.
I believe that God created mankind, lots of plants and animals. All of the
plants and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those plants and
animals that God created.
Fine. You have every right to that religious belief, and even the
right to tell us all about it. It would be nice, however, if you'd
concede that there is no scientific basis for it, and further, that
others as deeply religious as you might see the natural evolution of
all life from common ancestors as simply God's chosen way of creating l
ife's diversity.
Or not.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
06 Jan 2006 09:40:26 PM |
|
|
In article <dpn5hk$p3q$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0601061641360001@pm1-broad-126.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dpmum9$lk8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
[snip]
And so you must concede that the common descent of all life from a few
forms or one isn't necessarily a threat to conventional theistic
religion?
[snip]
All of the plants
and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those animals and
plants
that God created.
And this "microevolution" of yours is apparently all that's needed for
the evolution of all life from their earliest single-celled common
ancestors.
I believe that God created mankind, lots of plants and animals. All of the
plants and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those plants and
animals that God created.
Fine. You have every right to that religious belief, and even the
right to tell us all about it. It would be nice, however, if you'd
concede that there is no scientific basis for it, and further, that
others as deeply religious as you might see the natural evolution of
all life from common ancestors as simply God's chosen way of creating l
ife's diversity.
Or not.
cheers
I already know that. I talked to a chaplain at the state college in my
town and he told me that the creation story in the first three chapters of
the Bible is a myth. It's a great place for him to work. One of the
reasons that I subscribe to the ICR newsletter is because they provided
the scientific basis that supports what I already believed. That's the
reason that I enjoyed reading Dr. Gish's fossil book.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
07 Jan 2006 08:49:33 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0601061940260001@pm4-broad-17.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dpn5hk$p3q$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0601061641360001@pm1-broad-126.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dpmum9$lk8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
[snip]
And this "microevolution" of yours is apparently all that's needed
for
the evolution of all life from their earliest single-celled common
ancestors.
I believe that God created mankind, lots of plants and animals. All of
the
plants and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those plants
and
animals that God created.
Fine. You have every right to that religious belief, and even the
right to tell us all about it. It would be nice, however, if you'd
concede that there is no scientific basis for it, and further, that
others as deeply religious as you might see the natural evolution of
all life from common ancestors as simply God's chosen way of creating
life's diversity.
[snip]
I already know that. I talked to a chaplain at the state college in my
town and he told me that the creation story in the first three chapters of
the Bible is a myth.
Probably meant Myth with a capital M. That's not a dismissal.
And isn't he as entitled to whatever opinion he has on the matter
as you are?
It's a great place for him to work. One of the
reasons that I subscribe to the ICR newsletter is because they provided
the scientific basis that supports what I already believed. That's the
reason that I enjoyed reading Dr. Gish's fossil book.
Which nicely illustrates a truth about conmen like the professional
creationists: If you make a point of telling your victims just what
they desperately want to hear, they'll happily do most of your work
for you. It's easy to trick people when they willingly play along
with whatever you tell them.
There is no scientific basis for what Gish is selling, even if
it's what you already believed. I hope you haven't wasted too
much money on these people.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
07 Jan 2006 11:51:30 AM |
|
|
In article <dpojp3$j65$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0601061940260001@pm4-broad-17.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dpn5hk$p3q$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0601061641360001@pm1-broad-126.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dpmum9$lk8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
[snip]
And this "microevolution" of yours is apparently all that's needed
for
the evolution of all life from their earliest single-celled common
ancestors.
I believe that God created mankind, lots of plants and animals. All of
the
plants and animals now in the world micro-evolved from those plants
and
animals that God created.
Fine. You have every right to that religious belief, and even the
right to tell us all about it. It would be nice, however, if you'd
concede that there is no scientific basis for it, and further, that
others as deeply religious as you might see the natural evolution of
all life from common ancestors as simply God's chosen way of creating
life's diversity.
[snip]
I already know that. I talked to a chaplain at the state college in my
town and he told me that the creation story in the first three chapters of
the Bible is a myth.
Probably meant Myth with a capital M. That's not a dismissal.
And isn't he as entitled to whatever opinion he has on the matter
as you are?
It's a great place for him to work. One of the
reasons that I subscribe to the ICR newsletter is because they provided
the scientific basis that supports what I already believed. That's the
reason that I enjoyed reading Dr. Gish's fossil book.
Which nicely illustrates a truth about conmen like the professional
creationists: If you make a point of telling your victims just what
they desperately want to hear, they'll happily do most of your work
for you. It's easy to trick people when they willingly play along
with whatever you tell them.
There is no scientific basis for what Gish is selling, even if
it's what you already believed. I hope you haven't wasted too
much money on these people.
cheers
Hello,
You appear to be assuming that Dr. Gish knows that he is lying in order to
sell copies of his book and earn a salary from ICR. You may also assume
that all of the other people that have Ph.D. degrees that are employed
by ICR are doing the same thing.
If you choose to believe that--so be it.
I know that any of those people could turn their backs on ICR and creation
science and obtain jobs as professors at hundreds of different colleges.
They could even make money by writing books denouncing creation science
and ICR.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
07 Jan 2006 01:00:23 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0701060951300001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dpojp3$j65$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
You appear to be assuming that Dr. Gish knows that he is lying in order to
sell copies of his book and earn a salary from ICR.
He and others have a history of continuing to repeat untruths long
after having been publicly corrected on them. That's blatantly
dishonest. There's no defending them if they concede something is
untrue then later continue to say it. It's also dishonest, but a bit
less blatant, when they stubbornly ignore corrections and repeat
their falsehoods.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
They're particularly dishonest when it comes to abusing quotes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quotes.html>
<http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq.html>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/>
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/misquote.htm>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html>
<http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/index.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html>
You may also assume
that all of the other people that have Ph.D. degrees that are employed
by ICR are doing the same thing.
Some may be sincere, but misinformed and/or deluded. There aren't
many creationists that have any advanced degrees in relevant fields,
however. Any that do aren't basing their beliefs on any valid
scientific evidence, but purely on religious grounds such as you do.
If you choose to believe that--so be it.
Good. Maybe you will someday look further into these matters and
come to believe it too. If you were to independently study many
of their claims and check their facts, you might become furious
at having been so badly misled by them.
I know that any of those people could turn their backs on ICR and creation
science and obtain jobs as professors at hundreds of different colleges.
You don't know any such thing.
They could even make money by writing books denouncing creation science
and ICR.
Unlikely, since they'd have to know what they were talking
about.
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
07 Jan 2006 04:14:57 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0701060951300001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
I know that any of those people could turn their backs on ICR and creation
science and obtain jobs as professors at hundreds of different colleges.
You *are* delusional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
07 Jan 2006 08:35:26 PM |
|
|
In article <B3Xvf.2617$2i3.464@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0701060951300001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
I know that any of those people could turn their backs on ICR and creation
science and obtain jobs as professors at hundreds of different colleges.
You *are* delusional.
Do you think that people that have Ph.D. degrees in various fields of
science have a difficult time finding jobs as professors? There are
several hundred colleges in America.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
07 Jan 2006 09:56:47 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0701061835270001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <B3Xvf.2617$2i3.464@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0701060951300001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
I know that any of those people could turn their backs on ICR and
creation
science and obtain jobs as professors at hundreds of different
colleges.
You *are* delusional.
Do you think that people that have Ph.D. degrees in various fields of
science have a difficult time finding jobs as professors? There are
several hundred colleges in America.
No, I think people that work for a sham like ICR will have trouble. You
really must work on your reading comprehension. It sucks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
