| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZpiralZone" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2005 01:07:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Evolution science? |
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.
.
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 02:16:20 PM |
|
|
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:f61e0e1e0512261107p46eba57ftbeb3bb5ff887294e@mail.gmail.com...
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
Really. Of course there is still lots of _unreasonable_ doubt, but
none of it is in science.
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
Or "observe stuff". Observations needn't be of processes.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
By "theory" we mean it in the scientific sense, a body of scientific
explanations for observations.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
"Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
are "experiments" of a sort]
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Or basically, see if further observations also fit the theory well.
If not, theories get changed and improved to better fit the best,
latest evidence.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another?
Every one of us. Every observed evolutionary change in the lab or in
nature counts, since every even slightly changed organism is "another",
different organism to exactly the same extent that it has changed.
And yes, even macroevolutionary, species-level changes are often
observed to occur both in nature and in the lab, and can be
studied while they happen.
according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.
Nonsense. Even if it were actually true that all evolutionary change
was much too slow to ever observe directly [it's obviously not true,
but nevermind], the fact remains that we can and do observe and study
all of the overwhelming amount of evidence that evolution has occurred,
and we can test specific detailed ideas about it with newly-collected
or newly-studied observations.
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Jones Says \Drink More Koolaid" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 01:48:25 PM |
|
|
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another?
What a moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 03:08:50 PM |
|
|
In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46eba57ftbeb3bb5ff887294e@mail.gmail.com>,
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form evolved
into another? according to step one, unless you believe the above is not
the scientific way or method.
It's been done in the lab.
--
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: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 10:51:47 PM |
|
|
In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46eba57ftbeb3bb5ff887294e@mail.gmail.com>,
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
--
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: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 11:23:06 PM |
|
|
In article <3rydnaCTGKvHVS3eRVn-gQ@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46eba57ftbeb3bb5ff887294e@mail.gmail.com>,
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from
a common ancestor--right?
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing down like a house
of cards.
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
--
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? |
27 Dec 2005 08:57:53 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2612052123060001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
They ARE NOT.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 12:24:08 AM |
|
|
In <jason-2612052123060001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <3rydnaCTGKvHVS3eRVn-gQ@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46eba57ftbeb3bb5ff887294e@mail.gmail.com>,
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Not relevant to the ToE.
Okay, so
you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from a common
ancestor--right?
There's a century and a half worth of observations and research backing
the theory.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
considered this very important question: What if all of the above
assumptions are incorrect? If so, the entire theory of evolution will come
crashing down like a house of cards.
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
You can only claim these are "assumptions" because you remain willfully
and determinedly ignorant of the subject.
--
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: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 02:54:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:24:08 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-2612052123060001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <3rydnaCTGKvHVS3eRVn-gQ@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46eba57ftbeb3bb5ff887294e@mail.gmail.com>,
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Not relevant to the ToE.
Okay, so
you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from a common
ancestor--right?
There's a century and a half worth of observations and research backing
the theory.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
considered this very important question: What if all of the above
assumptions are incorrect? If so, the entire theory of evolution will come
crashing down like a house of cards.
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
You can only claim these are "assumptions" because you remain willfully
and determinedly ignorant of the subject.
You'll have to forgive Jason. He's only just arrived from the
Creationist Planet and hasn't caught on yet that here on Earth reality
isn't determined by what he believes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 03:16:08 PM |
|
|
In <8502r19e7j9rocr69mtug3agvrr637j29t@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:24:08 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-2612052123060001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <3rydnaCTGKvHVS3eRVn-gQ@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46eba57ftbeb3bb5ff887294e@mail.gmail.com>,
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution
can not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is
clearly false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been
proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Not relevant to the ToE.
Okay, so
you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from a
common ancestor--right?
There's a century and a half worth of observations and research backing
the theory.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
considered this very important question: What if all of the above
assumptions are incorrect? If so, the entire theory of evolution will
come crashing down like a house of cards.
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
You can only claim these are "assumptions" because you remain willfully
and determinedly ignorant of the subject.
You'll have to forgive Jason. He's only just arrived from the Creationist
Planet and hasn't caught on yet that here on Earth reality isn't
determined by what he believes.
Still trying to unwind from warpped speed...
--
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: "David Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
26 Dec 2005 11:32:57 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe
right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from
non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing, to
say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one
celled life form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is evidence
of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect to living
forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes
evolved from a common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
Have you ever considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then there
is no problem with it...right?
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a creative act.
Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 10:39:10 AM |
|
|
In article <2m4sf.7415$mK.2327@dukeread03>, David Horn
<nospam@devnull.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe
right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from
non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing, to
say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one
celled life form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is evidence
of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect to living
forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes
evolved from a common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
Have you ever considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then there
is no problem with it...right?
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a creative act.
Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that
would be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions.
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: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 10:52:58 AM |
|
|
In <jason-2712050839100001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <2m4sf.7415$mK.2327@dukeread03>, David Horn
<nospam@devnull.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing,
to say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life
form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is
evidence of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect
to living forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from a
common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
Have you ever considered this very important question: What if all of
the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing down like a
house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then
there is no problem with it...right?
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a creative
act. Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from. If
the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that would
be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions. Jason
That's funny coming from somebody who believes in an invisible pixie...
--
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? |
27 Dec 2005 11:42:32 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <2m4sf.7415$mK.2327@dukeread03>, David Horn
<nospam@devnull.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe
right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from
non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing, to
say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one
celled life form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is evidence
of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect to living
forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes
evolved from a common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
Have you ever considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then there
is no problem with it...right?
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a creative act.
Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that
would be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions.
Jason
And you do not understand the difference between assumption and
inference. We can infer things from evidence with minimal use of
assumptions. For example, we can infer a common ancestor for all those
creatures with specific characteristics, e.g. skull shape, number of
number and shape of teeth, the pattern and number of bones in the feet,
etc. This is why we can infer a common ancestor for apes and humans -
common characteristics that do not occur in other genus and that take
different forms.
We don't need the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor because all
of the intermediate forms that we have (and we will never have all of
them) have enough in common to identify kinship, if not at the genus
level, then perhaps at the family or order level.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 09:41:47 AM |
|
|
In article <cBpsf.3535$R84.20@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <2m4sf.7415$mK.2327@dukeread03>, David Horn
<nospam@devnull.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe
right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from
non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing, to
say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one
celled life form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is evidence
of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect to living
forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes
evolved from a common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
Have you ever considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then there
is no problem with it...right?
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a
creative act.
Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that
would be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions.
Jason
And you do not understand the difference between assumption and
inference. We can infer things from evidence with minimal use of
assumptions. For example, we can infer a common ancestor for all those
creatures with specific characteristics, e.g. skull shape, number of
number and shape of teeth, the pattern and number of bones in the feet,
etc. This is why we can infer a common ancestor for apes and humans -
common characteristics that do not occur in other genus and that take
different forms.
We don't need the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor because all
of the intermediate forms that we have (and we will never have all of
them) have enough in common to identify kinship, if not at the genus
level, then perhaps at the family or order level.
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life. We do have fossil evidence
that indicates that God did create life. There appears to be a double
standard. It's okay for evolutionists to infer that a common ancestor once
existed but it's NOT okay for advocates of creation science to infer that
God created life.
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: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 03:30:31 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
We do have fossil evidence that indicates that God did create life.
That's just stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 04:09:01 PM |
|
|
In article <XtDsf.61601$6e.45155@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
We do have fossil evidence that indicates that God did create life.
That's just stupid.
You must not have read "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow
The fossil evidence is mentioned in that 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: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 04:24:36 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2812051409010001@pm4-broad-56.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <XtDsf.61601$6e.45155@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
We do have fossil evidence that indicates that God did create life.
That's just stupid.
You must not have read "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow
The fossil evidence is mentioned in that book.
Oh yeah he has great credentials to make an extraordinary claim like that.
He's a quack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sittingduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 04:46:20 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
You must not have read "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow
The fossil evidence is mentioned in that book.
Oh yeah he has great credentials to make an extraordinary claim like that.
He's a quack.
But he's a "Creationist Professor"!
Sounds qualified to me. (NOT)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2Q0HSVC9BG31R/ref=cm_cr_auth/002-1083834-9750434?%5Fencoding=UTF8
"Hmm, you'd think for such a paradigm breaking book Lubenow would have the
credentials necessary for this critical analysis. No, Ph.D. in
anthropology (or even in the biological sciences for that matter), no
published peer-reviewed journal articles dealing with the issue at hand.
If he's so correct in this, why didn't he ever submit his work to the
scientific journals (where REAL science is done afterall)? He must be
afraid of honest criticsim, that's why you publish to those who already
agree with you, it's called preaching to the choir.
oh wait, it's probably because of the conspiracy...yeah that's it."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 10:19:31 AM |
|
|
In <jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life.
They can infer anything they want but if they claim to be doing science,
they have to follow the same rules everybody else does.
--
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 12:01:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:19:31 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life.
They can infer anything they want but if they claim to be doing science,
they have to follow the same rules everybody else does.
And they don't infer it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 11:55:57 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <cBpsf.3535$R84.20@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <2m4sf.7415$mK.2327@dukeread03>, David Horn
<nospam@devnull.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe
right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from
non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing, to
say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one
celled life form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is evidence
of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect to living
forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes
evolved from a common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
Have you ever considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then there
is no problem with it...right?
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a
creative act.
Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that
would be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions.
Jason
And you do not understand the difference between assumption and
inference. We can infer things from evidence with minimal use of
assumptions. For example, we can infer a common ancestor for all those
creatures with specific characteristics, e.g. skull shape, number of
number and shape of teeth, the pattern and number of bones in the feet,
etc. This is why we can infer a common ancestor for apes and humans -
common characteristics that do not occur in other genus and that take
different forms.
We don't need the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor because all
of the intermediate forms that we have (and we will never have all of
them) have enough in common to identify kinship, if not at the genus
level, then perhaps at the family or order level.
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life. We do have fossil evidence
that indicates that God did create life. There appears to be a double
standard. It's okay for evolutionists to infer that a common ancestor once
existed but it's NOT okay for advocates of creation science to infer that
God created life.
Jason
I don't have a problem with your making the inference. The problem is
that you cannot support it scientifically. I apply the same standard to
all science: get it peer reviewed and published in the mainstream
scientific literature. So, if you can, back up your inferences with
publications in the mainstream scientific literature and I will accept
them to the same extent that I accept most scientific conclusions.
Otherwise, keep your inferences in your church where they belong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 01:34:22 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life. We do have fossil
evidence that indicates that God did create life. There appears to be
a double standard. It's okay for evolutionists to infer that a common
ancestor once existed but it's NOT okay for advocates of creation
science to infer that God created life.
Please provide references to the fossil evidence that shows a god created
life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 09:01:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:41:47 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life.
Because you don't infer it no less do you present a valid chain of
inference. You start with the existence of and action of God.
We do have fossil evidence
that indicates that God did create life.
There appears to be a double
standard. It's okay for evolutionists to infer that a common ancestor once
existed but it's NOT okay for advocates of creation science to infer that
God created life.
I'll play along. Tell me what evidence you have in mind and tell me
the chain of inference that goes from that evidence to God doing it.
Realize that you can't say "it is in the Bible" for this, the Bible is
not evidence for God's action any more that _Gone with the Wind_ is
evidence for Tara.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 10:47:30 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:41:47 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <cBpsf.3535$R84.20@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
....
And you do not understand the difference between assumption and
inference. We can infer things from evidence with minimal use of
assumptions. For example, we can infer a common ancestor for all those
creatures with specific characteristics, e.g. skull shape, number of
number and shape of teeth, the pattern and number of bones in the feet,
etc. This is why we can infer a common ancestor for apes and humans -
common characteristics that do not occur in other genus and that take
different forms.
We don't need the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor because all
of the intermediate forms that we have (and we will never have all of
them) have enough in common to identify kinship, if not at the genus
level, then perhaps at the family or order level.
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life. We do have fossil evidence
that indicates that God did create life.
No, you do not.
There appears to be a double standard.
No, that comes from your lack of comprehension of how science works.
It's okay for evolutionists to infer that a common ancestor once
existed but it's NOT okay for advocates of creation science to infer that
God created life.
There are proper ways to infer. If I tell you that I drove from Chicago
to San Francisco the fastest way, it is proper for you to infer that I
used I-80, even though I didn't tell you that. It is not proper for you
to infer that I drove an armadillo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 11:58:35 AM |
|
|
In <69f5r1hkq9g8tud6qn6shn6ts0s7tj2o00@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:41:47 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2812050741470001@pm4-broad-60.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <cBpsf.3535$R84.20@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
And you do not understand the difference between assumption and
inference. We can infer things from evidence with minimal use of
assumptions. For example, we can infer a common ancestor for all those
creatures with specific characteristics, e.g. skull shape, number of
number and shape of teeth, the pattern and number of bones in the feet,
etc. This is why we can infer a common ancestor for apes and humans -
common characteristics that do not occur in other genus and that take
different forms.
We don't need the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor because all
of the intermediate forms that we have (and we will never have all of
them) have enough in common to identify kinship, if not at the genus
level, then perhaps at the family or order level.
Why do the advocates of evolution get so upset when the advocates of
creation science infer that God created life. We do have fossil evidence
that indicates that God did create life.
No, you do not.
There appears to be a double standard.
No, that comes from your lack of comprehension of how science works.
It's okay for evolutionists to infer that a common ancestor once existed
but it's NOT okay for advocates of creation science to infer that God
created life.
There are proper ways to infer. If I tell you that I drove from Chicago to
San Francisco the fastest way, it is proper for you to infer that I used
I-80, even though I didn't tell you that. It is not proper for you to
infer that I drove an armadillo.
Now there's an interesting mental image...
--
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: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 11:44:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:39:10 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <2m4sf.7415$mK.2327@dukeread03>, David Horn
<nospam@devnull.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe
right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from
non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing, to
say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one
celled life form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is evidence
of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect to living
forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes
evolved from a common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
Have you ever considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then there
is no problem with it...right?
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a creative act.
Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that
would be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions.
Jason
I assume that you concede that the existence of Jesus is only an
assumption since we don't have his skeleton?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 08:47:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:39:10 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2712050839100001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that
would be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions.
Can you please show me the bones of your great-great grandparents? All
of them? If not, we should not infer that they ever existed, should
we?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
27 Dec 2005 10:54:05 AM |
|
|
alt.free.newsservers removed
Jason wrote:
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions
and evidence.
Actually, I do. Not only am I well-educated and trained in the sciences,
but I spent a number of years in law enforcement. I know the correct
applications of "evidence" and I know the difference between it and
"assumptions." I also understand the difference between an assumption and
an hypothesis.
An example is the common ancestor that humans and great
apes evolved from.
The "common ancestor" is an hypothetical construct based on the evidence
that has been accumulated over the many years of study that have come and
gone between the first gathering of evidence and now.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a
museum--that would be proof and evidence.
Again, science doesn't deal in "proof," and I tire of telling you that.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common
ancestor--that means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that
the common ancestor once existed.
No, that means that we don't have the skeleton or fossil. It also means
that we can reasonably construct a hypothetical "common ancestor" based on
the information that is gathered. Your desire is to try to represent an
"assumption" as nothing more than a substanceless guess, and that may be
true in col | | | | | |
