| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2005 08:51:53 AM |
| Object: |
Life After Darwin |
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html
My Life After Darwin
by John R Morgan, MD
Like most people, I never really bought the idea that life just
spontaneously developed out of nowhere, and then humans came from fish
or whatever.
It just didn't make sense.
A man named William Dembski with a PhD in mathematics from the
University of Chicago and a PhD in philosophy from the University of
Illinois has developed one good explanation why I always felt this way.
Let's say that you go to see the carving of Confederate heroes on
Stone Mountain right outside of Atlanta. Even though you didn't
actually see anyone perform the carving, you can infer that a designer
made the images. Now if you go to the back of the mountain and see
various amorphous shapes (although they are statistically as improbable
as the carving), you assume that they were randomly formed by erosion.
I know what you are thinking. This is basic common sense.
Unfortunately, however, we live in a time where common sense must be
justified; hence, Dembski is creating mathematical models to test the
validity of inferring design from something that is improbable and
specific. He hopes to prove that life falls into the category of
intelligent design.
I laud his efforts but in a way it is a sad commentary on our society.
Another man, Berkley law professor Phillip Johnson, has criticized the
intellectual leaps of faith necessary to accept evolution as a
life-creating force (leaps that I was never convinced to take). Johnson
argues that Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory and is now a
tautology that conveniently explains everything in nature. Although
Darwin himself operated within the context of the scientific method by
giving examples of empirical observations that would refute his
hypothesis, modern-day evolutionists entertain no such claims. Their
position is derived from a presupposed metaphysical belief that God
cannot exist.
As Johnson points out, in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species
(actually entitled The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection;
or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), the
fossil record was relatively incomplete. Darwin predicted that further
examination of fossils would demonstrate slow gradual change in living
organisms. Paleontologists have since found the abrupt appearance of
new organisms followed by long periods of static existence before
abrupt distinction.
The pattern of life as portrayed by the fossil record prompted Nobel
Prize-winning scientist, Francis Crick (he co-discovered DNA), to
suggest that space aliens must have visited earth at different times
bringing new species. Even the guy who discovered DNA has doubts about
evolution!
(Crick is actually an interesting fellow. He signed the "Resolution in
Scientific Freedom" with 49 other scientists noting that left-wing
institutions are censuring and punishing some scientists for
politically incorrect research.)
In Darwin's time it was also believed that cells were made of simple
vitalistic goo that contained life. Molecular biology has since
revealed that even the most primitive organisms contain amazingly
complex, interdependent parts. Micheal Behe, a professor of biological
sciences at Lehigh University, has adduced the concept of irreducible
complexity that challenges the logic of natural selection driving the
creation of complicated mechanisms with multiple independent parts.
(How can a sophisticated structure like a wing develop piecemeal if its
only functions in its completed form?)
My personal intellectual journey with Darwinism began at the University
of Georgia as an undergraduate. I majored in microbiology (graduating
1st in my class of roughly 5,000 students in 1991) and did non-human
genetic cloning research. I was overwhelmed with the diversity of life
and the power of genetics. In fact, I came to understand that genes
really matter. At the same time, I didn't buy the weak little theory
of survival of the fittest creating life.
I saw intraspecies change like bacterial anti-biotic resistance
(microevolution) but I needed missing-link evidence (macroevolution).
No one could give it to me.
I sincerely resented my professors conflating my skepticism in
Darwinism with irrational anti-intellectualism. I loved science and
truly respected the power of DNA. I just didn't think they had proven
how life was created.
I began reading everything I could get my hands on about evolution. I
put aside my biology textbooks that presented evolution as a
universally accepted law and started devouring the primary writings of
the modern-day evolution experts. It was at this point that I realized
that millions of students were being taught bad science for religious
and political reasons.
I also learned that a potentially internecine civil war was raging
within the Darwinian Nation.
On one side were the strict constructionists led by Richard Dawkins of
Oxford University in England. Dawkins was more like a religious zealot
than a political ideologue. He had long since accepted the fundamental
primacy of survival of the fittest, and was applying its logical
corollaries to human behavior.
On the other side were left wing ideologues led primarily by the
brilliant but ruthless Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, a self proclaimed
Marxist, loved the metaphysical liberation and culturally transforming
power of Darwinism. He despised, however, "the universal acid of
natural selection ... reducing human cultural change to the Darwinian
algorithm."
Basically, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Remember, leftists like Gould require a worldview where human behavior
is 100% culturally conditioned; and here was Dawkins stating that
culture itself was an extension of human genes. (At this point I should
note that Dawkins is not a right winger, and received the Humanist of
the Year Award in 1996)
Gould viciously attacked the "ultra-Darwinists."
In a perfidious stab in the back to those committed to keeping "the
divine foot out of the door" (to borrow from another left-wing
ideologue, Richard C. Lewontin) Gould proclaimed, "Darwin is dead!" He
went on to attack the inadequacy of natural selection to explain the
complexity of life. He also cogently argued that the fossil evidence
did not support slow gradual change.
He proposed a new theory of (macro)evolution that he called punctuated
equilibrium. Basically, he suggested that (macro)evolution must have
occurred in quick spurts not captured by the fossil record. In
addition, he attempted to down play the importance of survival of the
fittest. Using his talented literary skills, he painted the world of
biological change as a non-threatening nebulous impression. He
fashioned himself an "evolutionary pluralist."
Now what was a confused young student to do?
I knew Darwin had stated that any reliance on macro mutations (or
saltations as he called them) would cause him to reject his theory of
evolution because it is not plausible; and here was Gould asking me to
accept (macro)evolution based on some unknown rapid genetic change,
basically a macro mutation. (Phillip Johnson has argued that punctuated
equilibrium is a euphemism for miracle)
I also didn't trust Gould. His primary concern seemed to be
maintaining the leftist moral code of life rather than the scientific
understanding of life.
I also couldn't buy Dawkin's historical narrative of life. The
power of Darwinism rested in its claim to a plausible mechanism (which
Gould destroyed) and its claim to a process without intentionallity.
Dawkins was writing about "selfish genes." How could the substrate of
evolution (DNA) be selfish and at the same time be without intention?
In addition, I was learning about other mechanisms of genetic
inheritance called genomic imprinting. Without going into detail, the
evolutionists were touting this phenomenon as a genetic "battle of the
sexes." Again, they were asking me to accept Darwinism because DNA
changed without purpose while simultaneously rejoicing that female DNA
held a grudge against male DNA (I hope to fully describe the
inconsistencies in logic of genomic imprinting and natural selection in
another setting).
Basically, I came to realize that Dawkins and Gould were not the
sophisticated atheists they wanted to be. They actually had faith in a
god - the DNA molecule. They seemed to believe that it was
omnipotent. To Dawkins it was a selfish god. To Gould it was an
egalitarian god.
Personally, I decided to pass on worshipping the double helix. No, sir,
I decided to keep the Christian faith of my ancestors.
But maybe it wasn't actually free will that brought me to my
decision. Maybe it was determined by the genes God gave me.
John R. Morgan, MD, is a practicing physician in Atlanta.
.
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 07:11:49 PM |
|
|
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131929918.595676.274640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
way -- Darwin was an amateur. Did you know that?)
Moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 07:23:50 PM |
|
|
On 13 Nov 2005 16:58:38 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
It was Darwin's explanation for the observed facts that were labelled
evolution, that were the spur for the investigatin of heredity. Which
led to genetics, DNA etc.
Not only are you a *****-poor scientist, you're also a *****-poor
historian. Have you ever *even* heard of Gregor Mendel? (And by the
way -- Darwin was an amateur. Did you know that?)
You are both a liar and an idiot. Mendel was a monk, who experimented
with AFAIR peas.
What part of Darwin's explanation are you pretending he didn't make?
It doesn't matter that he was an amateur. So were most Victorians
doing science. What matters is that he spent years of research before
coming up with his explanation.
He didn't come up with evolution - it was known about for generations
before that. In fact the earliest person I know of to recognise
fossils for what they are, was Leonardo da Vinci.
Although it is entirely possible that the ancient Greeks knew about
them. I doubt the Romans would or the Saxons and Norse. Certainly the
Europe of the dark ages wouldn't.
His wasn't even the first attempt at a theory. Look up Lamark.
You don't seem to grasp what the Victorian leisured class did with
their time. They didn't have TV or even electricity - they went out
and "did things". Those who could travel the world looking for
"interesting things" did so. Collecting what they found. And
cataloging and collating it.
They OBSERVED (do you know what the word means?) the change and
divergence in the fossil record. The word coined to describe this was
"evolution".
It wasn't controversial among the educated or the amateurs you sneer
at.
Darwin knew about evolution. The fact of evolution. But he derived his
explanation from modern specimens in isolated populations that had
been derived from other isolated populations, as he went East from
South America into the Galapagos Islands.
Mendel, and subsequently others like Watson and Crick, confirmed
Darwin.
Which gave the mechanism for evolution: garbled copying of genetic
material, filtered by the almost tautological survival to pass the
genes on to the next generation. Which in turn led to the discovery of
another method: genetic drift.
You really don't have *any* clue about what you think you're talking
about do you? Go study the magic words and try to present them in a
more coherent manner the next time.
You obviously don't, lying creationist.
Translation: it was over your head.
Typical evolutionist -- you believe by faith.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 04:25:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:27:23 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
While the fossil record does support his theory, let's not forget that
he was unaware of genes. Genetics is an even more powerful supporter of
evidence and the amount of genetic evidence is far more vast.
Oooo, dead-end there, I'm afraid. Genetics doesn't support evolution
either. You evolutionists like to clutch at real science and try to
graft onto evolution, but all you can do is muck up the real science.
Genetics was discovered by a Catholic monk. It is real science -- with
real limitations. It can not be forced to account for change from one
species to another.
It has done so already.
You see, this is why I call evolution a faith. Because evolutionists
are really, really long on assertions and really, really short on
examples. Do you even know what genetics is?
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be creationists. As for the
other...yes, they're liars for sure, but the ones they lie to the most
are themselves.
It was Darwin's explanation for the observed facts that were labelled
evolution, that were the spur for the investigatin of heredity. Which
led to genetics, DNA etc.
Which gave the mechanism for evolution: garbled copying of genetic
material, filtered by the almost tautological survival to pass the
genes on to the next generation. Which in turn led to the discovery of
another method: genetic drift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 07:03:23 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be creationists. As for the
other...yes, they're liars for sure, but the ones they lie to the most
are themselves.
It's hard for me to tell the difference between a stupid, lying
creationist and stupid, lying evolutionist. They both believe by faith
and they both steadfastly refuse to provide scientific evidence for
their beliefs.
By the way, John, have you provided any evidence for your "science"?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
14 Nov 2005 06:49:32 AM |
|
|
On 13 Nov 2005 17:03:23 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be creationists. As for the
other...yes, they're liars for sure, but the ones they lie to the most
are themselves.
It's hard for me to tell the difference between a stupid, lying
creationist and stupid, lying evolutionist. They both believe by faith
and they both steadfastly refuse to provide scientific evidence for
their beliefs.
It's probably hard for you to tell the difference between your ***** and
a hole in the ground.
By the way, John, have you provided any evidence for your "science"?
http:\\www.talkorigins.org
Your move, fuckchop.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
14 Nov 2005 12:52:40 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 17:03:23 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be creationists. As for the
other...yes, they're liars for sure, but the ones they lie to the most
are themselves.
It's hard for me to tell the difference between a stupid, lying
creationist and stupid, lying evolutionist. They both believe by faith
and they both steadfastly refuse to provide scientific evidence for
their beliefs.
It's probably hard for you to tell the difference between your ***** and
a hole in the ground.
By the way, John, have you provided any evidence for your "science"?
http:\\www.talkorigins.org
Your move, fuckchop.
Same old bullying beligerence by which Evolution has pushed its case
world wide. If Evolution could win by wisdom and truth, it would do
so. But it cannot.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
15 Nov 2005 11:13:23 AM |
|
|
On 14 Nov 2005 10:52:40 -0800, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 17:03:23 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be creationists. As for the
other...yes, they're liars for sure, but the ones they lie to the most
are themselves.
It's hard for me to tell the difference between a stupid, lying
creationist and stupid, lying evolutionist. They both believe by faith
and they both steadfastly refuse to provide scientific evidence for
their beliefs.
It's probably hard for you to tell the difference between your ***** and
a hole in the ground.
By the way, John, have you provided any evidence for your "science"?
http:\\www.talkorigins.org
Your move, fuckchop.
Same old bullying beligerence by which Evolution has pushed its case
world wide. If Evolution could win by wisdom and truth, it would do
so. But it cannot.
Cut the crap, Terry. We know you're smarter than that.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
15 Nov 2005 07:55:28 AM |
|
|
On 14 Nov 2005 10:52:40 -0800, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 17:03:23 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be creationists. As for the
other...yes, they're liars for sure, but the ones they lie to the most
are themselves.
It's hard for me to tell the difference between a stupid, lying
creationist and stupid, lying evolutionist. They both believe by faith
and they both steadfastly refuse to provide scientific evidence for
their beliefs.
It's probably hard for you to tell the difference between your ***** and
a hole in the ground.
By the way, John, have you provided any evidence for your "science"?
http:\\www.talkorigins.org
Your move, fuckchop.
Same old bullying beligerence by which Evolution has pushed its case
world wide. If Evolution could win by wisdom and truth, it would do
so. But it cannot.
It is the same with those atheist fools who insist the world is
spherical. They travel around the world forcing their Satanic beliefs
on all. They have no evidence; it is just a theory.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 07:47:31 PM |
|
|
On 13 Nov 2005 17:03:23 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Why are creationists such in-your-face stupid liars?
If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be creationists. As for the
other...yes, they're liars for sure, but the ones they lie to the most
are themselves.
It's hard for me to tell the difference between a stupid, lying
creationist and stupid, lying evolutionist. They both believe by faith
and they both steadfastly refuse to provide scientific evidence for
their beliefs.
What do you imagine you are achieving by these deliberate lies?
There is no such thing as an "evolitionist" - that is a dishonest
attempt by creationists to tar reality as an -ism.
By the way, John, have you provided any evidence for your "science"?
It works in the real world, moron.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 06:51:56 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
While the fossil record does support his theory, let's not forget that
he was unaware of genes. Genetics is an even more powerful supporter of
evidence and the amount of genetic evidence is far more vast.
Oooo, dead-end there, I'm afraid. Genetics doesn't support evolution
either. You evolutionists like to clutch at real science and try to
graft onto evolution, but all you can do is muck up the real science.
Genetics was discovered by a Catholic monk. It is real science -- with
real limitations. It can not be forced to account for change from one
species to another.
It has done so already.
You see, this is why I call evolution a faith. Because evolutionists
are really, really long on assertions and really, really short on
examples. Do you even know what genetics is?
Yes, that is why I know that you won't discuss science, but your
religious doctrines, though you might try to wrap them up in the lie
called "Intelligent Design".
Thousands of generations of really pissed-off fruit flies can attest to
that.
Your assertion is entertaining.
I'm glad you think so. Do you understand why I said it? I'll assume
you didn't.
I did.
The fact is; excited evolutionists have mucked around with fruit flies
for years and years trying to prove evolution. Fruit flies have
extremely short life spans -- so the scientists had hoped they could
"cause" evolution. They would get excited for awhile when it looked
like they were making some headway, but the changes would never go
beyond a certain point.
When it comes to fruit flies, evolutionary faith has run into the brick
wall of the laws of genetic science. That's why genetics doesn't work
as a motor for evolution. Genetics says "changes have limits".
Exactly the opposite of what evolution needs.
Nice misunderstanding of it.
I know of one fossil that is commonly accepted as a transitional specie.
The socalled lizard/bird. In the whole of the fossil record are there even
9 other examples you can point to?
I don't understand your comment. All species are either transitionals to
future species or dead ends.
Spoken like a devout evolutionist!
Yes, I am foolishly committed to reality.
Most self-delusionists are. The only problem is they've lost track of
what reality *is*.
Your comments don't appear to bear that out. The amount of evidence is
far greater than you seem to be aware of.
Right -- we're just not going to tell anybody about it. (It's our
little secret.)
Which college textbook would you like to start with?
Any one. Give me your best shot. WOW me.
Would a middle school text work for you?
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence, but, have no scientific alternative
available. Amazing. Does Pat Robertson have your number? He's looking
for folks like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 08:03:07 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence,
On the contrary. The evidence is completely welcome. But the evidence
does not show what you would like it to show.
but, have no scientific alternative
available.
Your defiinition of "scientific" is synonymous with "wholly
materialistic." And no, there is no satisfactory wholly materialistic
explanation for life on earth.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 11:31:18 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131758093.549782.110660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or
read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number
of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and
evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence,
On the contrary. The evidence is completely welcome. But the evidence
does not show what you would like it to show.
but, have no scientific alternative
available.
Your defiinition of "scientific" is synonymous with "wholly
materialistic." And no, there is no satisfactory wholly materialistic
explanation for life on earth.
TCross
Dammit. We have to bring back the sky pixie then.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 09:03:56 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 18:03:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1131758093.549782.110660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence,
On the contrary. The evidence is completely welcome. But the evidence
does not show what you would like it to show.
but, have no scientific alternative
available.
Your defiinition of "scientific" is synonymous with "wholly
materialistic." And no, there is no satisfactory wholly materialistic
explanation for life on earth.
TCross
Why not? What specifically is wrong with the theory of evolution as it
is understood today?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 09:24:46 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:nrman1pp27ouesikg5e4li5gl6ap5m251l@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 18:03:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1131758093.549782.110660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or
read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number
of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and
evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence,
On the contrary. The evidence is completely welcome. But the evidence
does not show what you would like it to show.
but, have no scientific alternative
available.
Your defiinition of "scientific" is synonymous with "wholly
materialistic." And no, there is no satisfactory wholly materialistic
explanation for life on earth.
TCross
Why not? What specifically is wrong with the theory of evolution as it
is understood today?
They're just repeating the mantra that they think makes them
sound super intelligent and is in reality, something they
know to be a lie and is designed to avoid having to deal
with the facts.
The truth is, they try to restrict science to only natural
conclusion and science is not limited to natural
conclusions. They claim that they can show macroevolution
scientifically, but that's not true at all. That is their
philosophy, but it is not true. While science cannot prove
that the God of the Bible created the universe, intelligent
design is not automatically ruled out, simply because it
isn't, "natural". The evolutionists try to claim that
science is limited to natural answers, but that is not what
science is and only fools and frauds claim that science
can only lead to natural answers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 10:09:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:24:46 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<3gddf.89$Bm3.1780@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:nrman1pp27ouesikg5e4li5gl6ap5m251l@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 18:03:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1131758093.549782.110660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or
read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number
of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and
evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence,
On the contrary. The evidence is completely welcome. But the evidence
does not show what you would like it to show.
but, have no scientific alternative
available.
Your defiinition of "scientific" is synonymous with "wholly
materialistic." And no, there is no satisfactory wholly materialistic
explanation for life on earth.
TCross
Why not? What specifically is wrong with the theory of evolution as it
is understood today?
They're just repeating the mantra that they think makes them
sound super intelligent and is in reality, something they
know to be a lie and is designed to avoid having to deal
with the facts.
The truth is, they try to restrict science to only natural
conclusion and science is not limited to natural
conclusions.
Why not? Which scientists say that science can investigate the
supernatural?
They claim that they can show macroevolution
scientifically, but that's not true at all. That is their
philosophy, but it is not true.
Why not?
While science cannot prove
that the God of the Bible created the universe, intelligent
design is not automatically ruled out, simply because it
isn't, "natural".
I think it's ruled out because there is no evidence for it.
The evolutionists try to claim that
science is limited to natural answers, but that is not what
science is and only fools and frauds claim that science
can only lead to natural answers.
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 10:13:57 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sjqan155v032o1i3tckk2tvhnnkng8av69@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:24:46 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<3gddf.89$Bm3.1780@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:nrman1pp27ouesikg5e4li5gl6ap5m251l@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 18:03:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1131758093.549782.110660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or
read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number
of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written
by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and
evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence,
On the contrary. The evidence is completely welcome. But the evidence
does not show what you would like it to show.
but, have no scientific alternative
available.
Your defiinition of "scientific" is synonymous with "wholly
materialistic." And no, there is no satisfactory wholly materialistic
explanation for life on earth.
TCross
Why not? What specifically is wrong with the theory of evolution as it
is understood today?
They're just repeating the mantra that they think makes them
sound super intelligent and is in reality, something they
know to be a lie and is designed to avoid having to deal
with the facts.
The truth is, they try to restrict science to only natural
conclusion and science is not limited to natural
conclusions.
Why not? Which scientists say that science can investigate the
supernatural?
They claim that they can show macroevolution
scientifically, but that's not true at all. That is their
philosophy, but it is not true.
Why not?
While science cannot prove
that the God of the Bible created the universe, intelligent
design is not automatically ruled out, simply because it
isn't, "natural".
I think it's ruled out because there is no evidence for it.
The evolutionists try to claim that
science is limited to natural answers, but that is not what
science is and only fools and frauds claim that science
can only lead to natural answers.
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell
you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved". The fossil record does not show
that and having similar DNA (96%) to that of a chimp, does
not prove a thing, especially when our supposed evolution
was not from chimps and that 4% speaks to thousands
upon thousands of differences. And when chimps build
skyscrapers, then they can tell me about chimps and man.
A common designer speaks to the issue just fine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 10:40:45 PM |
|
|
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
The 'creationist' claiming that 'evolution' is unproven does not prove
his own position.
and vice-versa.
but regarding 'creation' one must ask, why is it necessary to view the
universe as a 'creation' in the first place? There are other options,
including an eternally existent universe with repeating life cycles,
reproducing itself. if one can conceive a deity, surely one can
conceive of 'eternity.'
In any case, the notion of the deity and creator in the Judeo-Christian
traditions is based on a concept derived from texts, that is, alleged
revelation. if one cannot validate the alleged revelation then all
else which follows cannot be verified.
so one must ask, from whence is my assumption of 'creation' ?
and the answer always returns, whether via parents or other teachers,
the texts.
remove the texts from the equation and there is no necessity to presume
a creator.
even the ancient Indians had the concept of a universe eternally
reproducing itself,
as did the Nordic people.
but now we are back in the realm of religion, as usual.
the religion gives birth to the culture.
a religion with a linear start and end point concerned with
'eschatology' carries with it an inherent sense of trauma in that one
is always on the edge of "the end of the world."
And when chimps build
skyscrapers,
Some paleoanthropologist or simianologist will emerge from the rain
forests after ten years and tell us with utmost certainty that
chimpanzees have culture,
when it is not even established that naked Negroes running in the
forests had culture.
chimpanzees? This is all part and parcel of late 19th century early
20th century propaganda aimed at European culture.
Insular cultures do not fall for such swindles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 09:06:06 AM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "League" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 05:38:09 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't.
Prove it.
Claims are not proof.
He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
As I've stated again,prove it with fact.
Not by your beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 10:55:14 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
Snip to your hearts content.
The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
and given the law of biogenesis.
To answer your question, I have read and enjoyed the web
sites of a couple of Muslims who did a great job at
presenting the scientific data regarding Intelligent Design.
What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
No, it can't, since both are based on evolutionary thought
You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
and that won't fly, since it isn't true. And while you
people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
predict.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 11:24:50 AM |
|
|
In article <T7pdf.47$U62.2348@news.uswest.net>, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
Snip to your hearts content.
The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
and given the law of biogenesis.
To answer your question, I have read and enjoyed the web
sites of a couple of Muslims who did a great job at
presenting the scientific data regarding Intelligent Design.
What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
No, it can't, since both are based on evolutionary thought
You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
and that won't fly, since it isn't true. And while you
people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
predict.
Richard,
Great post. You made some great points.
Keep up the great work.
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: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 04:52:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:24:50 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <T7pdf.47$U62.2348@news.uswest.net>, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
Snip to your hearts content.
The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
and given the law of biogenesis.
To answer your question, I have read and enjoyed the web
sites of a couple of Muslims who did a great job at
presenting the scientific data regarding Intelligent Design.
What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
No, it can't, since both are based on evolutionary thought
You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
and that won't fly, since it isn't true. And while you
people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
predict.
Richard,
Great post. You made some great points.
Keep up the great work.
Yeah, right. Raytard has never made a point in his life other than the
one on top of his head.
Jason
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 11:11:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:55:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<T7pdf.47$U62.2348@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
Snip to your hearts content.
The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
Since no evidence about creation exists, it isn't a scientific issue.
The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
and given the law of biogenesis.
Sudden in geological terms is very slow. Lack of transitionals is an
assertion of Creation Science advocates that doesn't really reflect the
evidence. Nothing in chemistry makes abiogenesis impossible. Yes, life
is a continuing process today, but there is clear evidence that no life
was on this planet at one time. Whatever the original self-sustaining
biochemical reactions looked like, they would be exceedingly unlikely to
survive in today's environment, though we can argue about how to
classify viruses and prions.
To answer your question, I have read and enjoyed the web
sites of a couple of Muslims who did a great job at
presenting the scientific data regarding Intelligent Design.
How can you tell if they did a good job?
What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
Show me the science.
No, it can't, since both are based on evolutionary thought
You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
and that won't fly, since it isn't true.
ID supports evolution? Great, that should tick off a bunch of
Creationists.
And while you
people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
What's dishonest about it?
ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
predict.
What does ID predict about the fossil record that is supported? What
discoveries in the fossils would disprove ID?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 10:16:41 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:i48cn15gqnurq981f2ck7rmfge9ufltd6q@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:55:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<T7pdf.47$U62.2348@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
Snip to your hearts content.
The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
Since no evidence about creation exists, it isn't a scientific issue.
The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
and given the law of biogenesis.
Sudden in geological terms is very slow. Lack of transitionals is an
assertion of Creation Science advocates that doesn't really reflect the
evidence. Nothing in chemistry makes abiogenesis impossible. Yes, life
is a continuing process today, but there is clear evidence that no life
was on this planet at one time. Whatever the original self-sustaining
biochemical reactions looked like, they would be exceedingly unlikely to
survive in today's environment, though we can argue about how to
classify viruses and prions.
To answer your question, I have read and enjoyed the web
sites of a couple of Muslims who did a great job at
presenting the scientific data regarding Intelligent Design.
How can you tell if they did a good job?
What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
Show me the science.
No, it can't, since both are based on evolutionary thought
You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
and that won't fly, since it isn't true.
ID supports evolution? Great, that should tick off a bunch of
Creationists.
And while you
people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
What's dishonest about it?
ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
predict.
What does ID predict about the fossil record that is supported? What
discoveries in the fossils would disprove ID?
Show me what fossil records are supported first because you see without any
evidence on your behalf,this is going to be a short conversation.
Oh, and if you continue to be an idiot and answer my questions with your
more inane questioning,then this conversation is over.
Now either prove your claims, or go away. I am not
interested in discussion. I am interested in you proving
your claims, which is what any real scientific approach
would see happen. Those who claim it is true, proving
that it is true. The fact that you keep trying to turn the
tables, tells us that you don't have the proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 07:30:55 AM |
|
|
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:I6zdf.36$bv3.4744@news.uswest.net...
Show me what fossil records are supported first because you see without
any evidence on your behalf,this is going to be a short conversation.
You are the one making the claims that fly in the face of the overwhelming
scientific consensus - I should think that the burden of proof rests
squarely upon your spindly shoulders.
Idiot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 10:28:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:16:41 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<I6zdf.36$bv3.4744@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:i48cn15gqnurq981f2ck7rmfge9ufltd6q@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:55:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<T7pdf.47$U62.2348@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
Snip to your hearts content.
The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
Since no evidence about creation exists, it isn't a scientific issue.
The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
and given the law of biogenesis.
Sudden in geological terms is very slow. Lack of transitionals is an
assertion of Creation Science advocates that doesn't really reflect the
evidence. Nothing in chemistry makes abiogenesis impossible. Yes, life
is a continuing process today, but there is clear evidence that no life
was on this planet at one time. Whatever the original self-sustaining
biochemical reactions looked like, they would be exceedingly unlikely to
survive in today's environment, though we can argue about how to
classify viruses and prions.
To answer your question, I have read and enjoyed the web
sites of a couple of Muslims who did a great job at
presenting the scientific data regarding Intelligent Design.
How can you tell if they did a good job?
What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
Show me the science.
No, it can't, since both are based on evolutionary thought
You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
and that won't fly, since it isn't true.
ID supports evolution? Great, that should tick off a bunch of
Creationists.
And while you
people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
What's dishonest about it?
ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
predict.
What does ID predict about the fossil record that is supported? What
discoveries in the fossils would disprove ID?
Show me what fossil records are supported first because you see without any
evidence on your behalf,this is going to be a short conversation.
I don't have to rehash all of science for you. You are the one making
the contrary claim, you provide the evidence.
Oh, and if you continue to be an idiot and answer my questions with your
more inane questioning,then this conversation is over.
You haven't started, except to make an assertion that you have been
unable to back up.
Now either prove your claims, or go away. I am not
interested in discussion. I am interested in you proving
your claims, which is what any real scientific approach
would see happen. Those who claim it is true, proving
that it is true. The fact that you keep trying to turn the
tables, tells us that you don't have the proof.
Sorry, the science has been confirmed over the decades. If you don't
like the results, fine, show us how it is wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "League" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 05:43:52 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:i48cn15gqnurq981f2ck7rmfge9ufltd6q@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:55:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<T7pdf.47$U62.2348@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:931cn116nr7fve83463n2hdddq7j55ddsa@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 20:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1131770445.278660.314240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved".
You have correctly summarized the situation.
Of course he hasn't. He has completely misrepresented the knowledge of
science, falsely claimed there is no evidence, and declared victory for
ignorance.
[snip]
Snip to your hearts content.
The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
Since no evidence about creation exists, it isn't a scientific issue.
Oh theres plenty of evidence from mimicry to thermodynamics.
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
and given the law of biogenesis.
Sudden in geological terms is very slow. Lack of transitionals is an
assertion of Creation Science advocates that doesn't really reflect the
evidence. Nothing in chemistry makes abiogenesis impossible. Yes, life
is a continuing process today, but there is clear evidence that no life
was on this planet at one time. Whatever the original self-sustaining
biochemical reactions looked like, they would be exceedingly unlikely to
survive in today's environment, though we can argue about how to
classify viruses and prions.
To answer your question, I have read and enjoyed the web
sites of a couple of Muslims who did a great job at
presenting the scientific data regarding Intelligent Design.
How can you tell if they did a good job?
HBow can you tell if they didn't?
What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
Show me the science.
Second law of thermodynamics for one.
Now show me the science of evolution.
No, it can't, since both are based on evolutionary thought
You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
and that won't fly, since it isn't true.
ID supports evolution? Great, that should tick off a bunch of
Creationists.
And while you
people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
What's dishonest about it?
Do you even know what the term is?
Or are you just throwing out one red-herring after another to show how dumb
you really are? :-)
ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
predict.
What does ID predict about the fossil record that is supported? What
discoveries in the fossils would disprove ID?
What doesnt it predict?
See...two can play your little game also )0)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 05:51:26 PM |
|
|
"League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6vdf.76$U62.6098@news.uswest.net...
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
Evolution: change in gene frequency over time.
Genes change - evolution happens.
What is so flipping hard for you morons to understand about that?
Read some books for christ's sake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 06:46:55 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6vdf.76$U62.6098@news.uswest.net...
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
Evolution: change in gene frequency over time.
Genes change - evolution happens.
What is so flipping hard for you morons to understand about that?
The problem is you have no evidence for evolution so you co-opt
genetics and call *that* evolution.
What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for "evolution". If the
evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?
Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
on you.
Describe a line of evolving creatures that evolve from a small land
mammal into a whale.
I don't expect you to provide evidence (you don't have any), just tell
me how it *could* happen.
Can you do that?
(Remember -- each and every change has to beneficial to our developing
whale.)
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 07:10:18 PM |
|
|
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131929215.099542.77580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6vdf.76$U62.6098@news.uswest.net...
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
Evolution: change in gene frequency over time.
Genes change - evolution happens.
What is so flipping hard | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
