Religions > Atheism > Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iainpenis angled at 100 degrees" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2005 04:11:06 PM |
| Object: |
Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
Pyroclastic wrote:
view, an emphisis on christian
WHY I OBJECT TO BIBLICAL CREATIONISM: It is malinspired, incorrect, and
useless.
1. It is MALINSPIRED, because the theory of evolution is correct:
a. It is a proven fact than life adapts to it's environment over
numerous generations.
b: Even without ANY fossil record, it is a hypothetical fact that
complex life can be forged naturally by environmental pressures of
millions of generations of an population of molecular replicators, and
that is it quite probable.
c: With point B in mind, the fossil record can be traced and compared
to environmental dynamics throughout the Earth's history -- and has,
very thoroughly.
2. It is INCORRECT: The Earth is not 6000 years old, this is quite
clear. Mankind's ancestors are not a single couple of Homo Sapiens
called Adam and Eve, because the number of generations doesn't match
migration patterns at all. The sky is not a former part of the sea,
although to a guesser, it might look like it(they meet in the horizon),
implying that biblical creationism is an elaborate wild guess evolved
from earlier creation myths, refined over centuries into folklore, and
finally, literature.
3. It is USELESS: Much has been gained from our knowledge of evolution
and in fact, it is actually so proven that if you chose to ignore it,
much of what we know about biology would become inexplicable once
more(even by creationism). "You can't take the benefits of science -
medicine, technology, chemistry, etc. - then deny results the same
methodology leads to, like evolution. It's a package deal." -- Bob
Dog.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 09:26:57 PM |
|
|
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it. Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance. By definition a Hypothetical claim
is something that is unproven. Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth. The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ, and at least 5000 years before him). Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot, the Bible was not written to explain where we
came from... it does that... but that wasn't the purpose. The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out, and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 09:56:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN,
He didn't
because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Well reproduce the flood, then.
Evolution has been demonstrated to occur in nature and the laboratory.
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance.
How about: a hypothesis explains the facts. Seems appropriate enough.
By definition a Hypothetical claim
is something that is unproven.
And a scientific hypothesis is by definition falsifiable. Which is why
scientists don't talk about proving hypotheses but do talk about
testing hypotheses.
Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth,
Without providing a scrap of evidence to support that age in the face
of vast and overwhelming evidence that it is unutterably more ancient.
not a 6000 year old earth.
Which is no better supported than the 10,000 year 'theory'.
The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ,
The Bible relates events which happened 2000 years *after* Christ?
and at least 5000 years before him).
Most Biblical scholars - you know, the people who study the Bible to
find out about it rather than the people who skim through it to provide
facile support
for their preconception - will point out that the a lot of the book of
Genesis is imported wholesale from older cultures. The parts which by
any stretch of the imagination can be called historical date from no
more than 1000 years before Christ.
Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot, the Bible was not written to explain where
we
came from...
Quite so. It is the rather lose collection of partly second or third
hand myths and patchy histories which happened to be important to the
Jews.
it does that...
Metophorically, possibly. Scientifically, not.
but that wasn't the purpose.
So what was the purpose? To provide a blank slate onto which later
generations can impose their preconceptions?
The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out,
I assume that this is intended as ironic?
and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
IT would be a starting point to address them and demonstrate that
assertion.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 07:16:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
But TOE does make sense. Furthermore, it's a work in progress like any
science is.
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance. By definition a Hypothetical
claim
is something that is unproven. Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth.
Which is just as demonstratebly false. It's easy to prove humanity has
existed more than 10,000 years so young earth creationism is absurd.
The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ, and at least 5000 years before him). Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot, the Bible was not written to explain where
we
came from... it does that... but that wasn't the purpose. The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out, and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
Why's that? If the Book of Genesis (which gives two contradictory
creation myths on humanity) isn't true, then why bother treating it as
seriously as Evolution which, by it's own admission, is a work in
progress. There are dogmatists who push it like a religion but the
Theory of Evolution is the best thing we've got. Science is an ongoing
process.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
06 Feb 2005 01:09:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Not true. Evolution is, in its most basic form, a change in allele
frequency in a population. This has been observed and reproduced.
More generally speaking people think of evolution as one species
changing over time to become another. This has been observed in the
laboratory and in the wild, and creationsits agree tha tthis happens
(they could hardly deny it).
So evolution is a fact - or a collection of observed facts. The Theory
of Evolution is an explanation for those facts, which has been steadily
built over 140 years.
Creation has nothing like the scientific credentials that the Theory of
Evolution has. There are, to my knowledge, no papers published in
standard scientific journals that either establish creation as a
credible alterative to evolution, or that cast any doubt on the Theory
of Evolution. Yet despite this derth of scientific support for their
"model", creationists want to pretend that this isn't important. They
want to try and bypass the scientific method and force their religious
belief into being taught in school alongside the established scientific
theory of evolution without having to do the science that would earn
such a position. **THAT'S** what I object to.
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance. By definition a Hypothetical
claim
is something that is unproven.
But evolution is not hypothetical. You apparently don't undertsand the
difference between the word "theory" when used in science, and when
used in common parlance.
Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth.
That's a lie regardless of which time-period you choose, and not a
single science paper has ever been published in peer-reviewed
literature which even pretends to demonstrate such a hypothesis - not
since the evidence showing that the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old
became established
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ, and at least 5000 years before him).
Not according to calculations using the dates and ages given in the
Bible. If you have math to show otherwise, please publish it here or
reference it online so we can see it.
Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot, the Bible was not written to explain where
we
came from.
And your authority for this statement is?
.. it does that...
No it doesn't. It merely glosses over our ignorance on the topic by
chanting, repeatedly, "godidit".
So let me conclude by paraphrasing your last sentence: The simple fact
is that your arguments are not well laid out *and* they're invalid in
every sense of the word.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 09:50:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
The only thing that proves is that someone else got the same result.
(Made the same mistake?)
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance.
Say what? Did you mean to say that in one sentence?
By definition a Hypothetical claim
is something that is unproven. Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth.
Usher got 4004 BCE. That's about 6000 years ago.
The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ, and at least 5000 years before him).
Depends on your assumptions on begatting.
Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot, the Bible was not written to explain where we
came from...
Right!
it does that...
Wrong!
but that wasn't the purpose. The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out, and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
Because they were in the same sentence?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iainpenis angled at 100 degrees" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
03 Feb 2005 01:29:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Wrong. It[that evolution of complex organisms WOULD occur] can be
assertained logically, like mathematics.
Notwithstanding, evolution by natural selection has been reproduced in
a lab uncountable times, even by schoolchildren, and in the wild, on
paper, in computer simulations -- from every concievable angle,
evolution by natural selection appears to be a reality.
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance.
Yes they do -- I said "hypothetical fact" : A fact of or relating to a
hypothesis.
By definition a Hypothetical claim
is something that is unproven.
Okay -- so it was a hypothesis for split second, but now it is a theory
proven(if you don't like the idea of science as a prover, then it's
proven "off the record" as much as osmosis is proven) by logic -- happy
now?
Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth.
These are equally absurd -- you might as well argue the earth is 30
years old -- older than me, therefore maybe everyone else is mistaken.
There are no "new earth" theorists. There are people all over the
planet who believe a variety of nonsense but that does not make them
"theorists".
The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ,
You mean in prophesies?
and at least 5000 years before him). Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot,
the Bible was not written to explain where we
came from... it does that...
Not correctly nor impressively nor articulately nor consistantly nor
thoughtfully nor fully nor satisfactorily nor scientifically nor
logically nor plausibly, and probably not always honestly.
but that wasn't the purpose.
Here is a good place to tell me what the purpose is, rather than what
it is not.
When I said creationism was useless, I meant it has no use. I never
specified a use, so no, you haven't shown my point to about it being
usless to be moot.
The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out,
They seem concisely and neatly laid out to me.
and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
Why not, mootness notwithstanding?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 07:54:43 AM |
|
|
First off, you need to distinguish between Microevolution (adaptation
caused by Natural Selection), and Macroevolution (new species).
Microevolution is something that can be observed, and there is nowhere
in the Bible that says that this doesn't happen, it is completely
compatible with the creation account in Genesis. Macroevolution on the
other hand cannot be proven. There is no way to PROVE this. You do not
understand the Scientific Method if you believe that MACROEVOLUTION can
be proven. I am currently studying Anthropology, and the first thing
that my Anthropology Professor said is that in order to prove something
scientifically you MUST be able to REPRODUCE IT. You cannot reproduce
macroevolution. You can DEDUCE it, but you can deduce the fact that ice
cream sales causes crime to rise. Ice Cream sales go up in the summer,
so does Crime. The two are linked, and predictable. They are
scientifically proven just as much as evolution is.
The reasons that I say your arguments are not well laid out is because
each one of them rests on a logical falicy. Point 1 assumes that
Evolution is correct without any evidence to back it up. This is called
Apealing to False authority. The Authority here is the THEORY of
Evolution. (BTW, the Fosil Record is far from complete). Point 2 again
makes points with no backing. Show me one shred of evidence that the
Bible is a wild guess at explaining the creation of the world. You say
it evolved from earlier myths, show me the myths (if you do your
homework, you will find that the Genesis account is quite different
from anything else you will find). Point 3 is simply a bad point. Just
because it doesn't serve a purpose that you can see doesn't mean it is
useless. Like I said, the Genesis account is not intended to cure
disease, bring about world peace, or any of the other things you claim
we can credit to evolution. It is there to recount the process in which
God created the earth. The Bible has given more people purpose in life
than Evolution ever could. If you ask me, evolution is worthless... if
you're ok being a random mutation with no purpose in life the so beit.
I'm sorry that you don't value yourself over a protazoa.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 09:31:09 AM |
|
|
<T.Arsenal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107590083.676629.289580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
First off, you need to distinguish between Microevolution (adaptation
caused by Natural Selection), and Macroevolution (new species).
Microevolution is something that can be observed, and there is nowhere
in the Bible that says that this doesn't happen, it is completely
compatible with the creation account in Genesis. Macroevolution on the
other hand cannot be proven. There is no way to PROVE this. You do not
understand the Scientific Method if you believe that MACROEVOLUTION can
be proven. I am currently studying Anthropology, and the first thing
that my Anthropology Professor said is that in order to prove something
scientifically you MUST be able to REPRODUCE IT. You cannot reproduce
macroevolution.
And you don't understand the first thing about science if you think that
science "proves" things.
And I just love the bit about your Anthro professor, particularly in light
of your accusing others
of using the argument from authority.
You can DEDUCE it, but you can deduce the fact that ice
cream sales causes crime to rise.
Only if you choose to DEDUCE something wrong, i.e., that there's a causal
link between
these two correlated events.
Ice Cream sales go up in the summer,
so does Crime. The two are linked, and predictable. They are
scientifically proven just as much as evolution is.
The reasons that I say your arguments are not well laid out is because
each one of them rests on a logical falicy. Point 1 assumes that
Evolution is correct without any evidence to back it up. This is called
Apealing to False authority. The Authority here is the THEORY of
Evolution.
Not only is there plenty of evidence for evolution, but biologists are
constantly gathering new
evidence to test the theory. Test is the key word here. No one starts with
the assumption
that the ToE is correct.
(BTW, the Fosil Record is far from complete).
BTW, what is your point here?
Point 2 again
makes points with no backing. Show me one shred of evidence that the
Bible is a wild guess at explaining the creation of the world.
Sorry. It's your claim that the Bible is more than a wild guess at
explaining creation.
You come up with the evidence *for* your position.
You say
it evolved from earlier myths, show me the myths (if you do your
homework, you will find that the Genesis account is quite different
from anything else you will find).
Start with the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are flood myths all over the place.
Point 3 is simply a bad point. Just
because it doesn't serve a purpose that you can see doesn't mean it is
useless. Like I said, the Genesis account is not intended to cure
disease, bring about world peace, or any of the other things you claim
we can credit to evolution.
The application of what we learn by understanding evolution can certainly
lead
to some good things in, say, medicine. But the ToE itself doesn't have a
purpose.
It's just valid science.
It is there to recount the process in which
God created the earth. The Bible has given more people purpose in life
than Evolution ever could.
The TofE is just that, a scientifically valid explanation of the way things
work.
It's not supposed to give anyone a "purpose in life." (Although is may just
do
that for those working in biology.)
If you ask me, evolution is worthless...
Hmm. Well, I guess that settles it, then.
if
you're ok being a random mutation with no purpose in life the so beit.
I'm sorry that you don't value yourself over a protazoa.
Again. We all need to look in the right places for purpose in life and a
feeling of self-worth.
Neither of these things are the responsibility of scientific theories. If
you can't handle the
thought that you are the product of natural forces, then so be it. I'm
sorry that you can't
look at a protozoon and recognize and appreciate the wonder at the
similarities to your own cells.
I'm sorry that the fact of such similarities threatens how much you value
your own life. It shouldn't.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 08:30:38 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
<T.Arsenal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107590083.676629.289580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
First off, you need to distinguish between Microevolution
(adaptation
caused by Natural Selection), and Macroevolution (new species).
Microevolution is something that can be observed, and there is
nowhere
in the Bible that says that this doesn't happen, it is completely
compatible with the creation account in Genesis. Macroevolution on
the
other hand cannot be proven. There is no way to PROVE this. You do
not
understand the Scientific Method if you believe that MACROEVOLUTION
can
be proven. I am currently studying Anthropology, and the first
thing
that my Anthropology Professor said is that in order to prove
something
scientifically you MUST be able to REPRODUCE IT. You cannot
reproduce
macroevolution.
And you don't understand the first thing about science if you think
that
science "proves" things.
And I just love the bit about your Anthro professor, particularly in
light
of your accusing others
of using the argument from authority.
Remember folks, his anthro professor may not exist or the guy
misunderstood what the person said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 09:15:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
The Bible has given more people purpose in life
than Evolution ever could.
Could you explain to me what the purpose in life is that the Bible
gives? I'm not kidding. I'd really like to understand this. I've
heard this argument many times, but I've never heard an explanation.
Alternatively, if purpose is unique to an individual, can you give me a
real-world example of someone's purpose in life? Please help me
understand. Thanks...
If you ask me, evolution is worthless... if
you're ok being a random mutation with no purpose in life the so
beit.
I'm sorry that you don't value yourself over a protazoa.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 10:25:16 PM |
|
|
What everybody but the creationists themselves objects to in creationism
as a scientific explanation of anything is that 'Goddidit' is a useless
"theory" scientifically.
To be scientifically worthwhile, a scientific theory has be, among other
things, at least theoretically falsifiable. This is not the only
criterion for acceptability as a scientific theory, but it is an
essential one. See Karl Popper for a clear exposition of why
falsifiability is so critical.
Until the creationists, or others, can show that creationism is, like
useful scientific theories, at least theoretically falsifiable, it is
unscientific.
That in no way is intended to imply that it is a false theory, merely
that it not a part of science. There is a lot to life that is outside of
science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 11:14:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:25:16 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:
What everybody but the creationists themselves objects to in creationism
as a scientific explanation of anything is that 'Goddidit' is a useless
"theory" scientifically.
Well of course you object to that. That's because you
have a much better and much more scientific idea about
how things got here. It goes as follows...
Nothing blew up and here we are.
There was no life and one day, some chemicals decided,
in spite of the fact that it is impossible, to mix up
just right, even though it could never happen by itself
and start living. And then of course, here we are.
To be scientifically worthwhile, a scientific theory has be, among other
things, at least theoretically falsifiable.
See above. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
06 Feb 2005 01:14:48 AM |
|
|
In article <alka01hplgbmi1u01qdf31ctd2i31sacu3@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:25:16 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:
What everybody but the creationists themselves objects to in creationism
as a scientific explanation of anything is that 'Goddidit' is a useless
"theory" scientifically.
Well of course you object to that. That's because you
have a much better and much more scientific idea about
how things got here. It goes as follows...
Nothing blew up and here we are.
There was no life and one day, some chemicals decided,
in spite of the fact that it is impossible, to mix up
just right, even though it could never happen by itself
and start living. And then of course, here we are.
To be scientifically worthwhile, a scientific theory has be, among other
things, at least theoretically falsifiable.
See above. <chuckle>
Dave, it is noted that the point Virgil made flew right over your head,
and you failed to address a single point that he made. Instead, you
erected a very poor strawman. Can't you do better than that?
Note: Having read PD's posts in the past, the question above was purely
rhetorical.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
06 Feb 2005 03:23:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:14:48 GMT, David Fritzinger
<dfritzinnospam@mac.com> said in alt.atheism:
Note: Having read PD's posts in the past, the question above was purely
rhetorical.
Wouldn't "purely beating my head against a stone wall" have been more
appropriate? :)
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
06 Feb 2005 09:03:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:14:48 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com>
spake thusly:
In article <alka01hplgbmi1u01qdf31ctd2i31sacu3@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:25:16 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:
What everybody but the creationists themselves objects to in creationism
as a scientific explanation of anything is that 'Goddidit' is a useless
"theory" scientifically.
Well of course you object to that. That's because you
have a much better and much more scientific idea about
how things got here. It goes as follows...
Nothing blew up and here we are.
There was no life and one day, some chemicals decided,
in spite of the fact that it is impossible, to mix up
just right, even though it could never happen by itself
and start living. And then of course, here we are.
To be scientifically worthwhile, a scientific theory has be, among other
things, at least theoretically falsifiable.
See above. <chuckle>
Dave, it is noted that the point Virgil made flew right over your head,
and you failed to address a single point that he made. Instead, you
erected a very poor strawman. Can't you do better than that?
Note: Having read PD's posts in the past, the question above was purely
rhetorical.
They get really upset when you show their beliefs to be
what they really are and you can explain it in a simple
way. They try to pretend that no one is as smart as
they are, so that they can call you dumb and say that
you just don't understand science. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
06 Feb 2005 11:52:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:03:58 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
They get really upset when you show their beliefs to be
what they really are and you can explain it in a simple
way. They try to pretend that no one is as smart as
they are, so that they can call you dumb and say that
you just don't understand science. <chuckle>
Funny, coming from someone who not only doesn't understand science,
but makes great efforts to not understand it.
Afraid of losing your faith?
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 08:47:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:52:37 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:03:58 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
They get really upset when you show their beliefs to be
what they really are and you can explain it in a simple
way. They try to pretend that no one is as smart as
they are, so that they can call you dumb and say that
you just don't understand science. <chuckle>
Funny, coming from someone who not only doesn't understand science,
but makes great efforts to not understand it.
Afraid of losing your faith?
He has no faith. That is why he comes here.
He's trying to convince himself.
I can see no other reason. It is certainly not to convince us; Or does he
believe that he can influence us to his beliefs, with insults, logical fallacy,
childish playground psychology?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:47:31 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
said in alt.atheism:
I can see no other reason. It is certainly not to convince us; Or does he
believe that he can influence us to his beliefs, with insults, logical fallacy,
childish playground psychology?
Phony (but believed by him) explanations and threats. Isn't that what
Christian proselytizing is all about?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 07:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:03:58 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
They get really upset when you show their beliefs to be
what they really are and you can explain it in a simple
way. They try to pretend that no one is as smart as
they are, so that they can call you dumb and say that
you just don't understand science. <chuckle>
It is the hypocritical attitude of the creationist, that is most disappointing.
They can offer no evidence, what-so-ever, for creation, or even for the
existence of a god.
They can offer nothing to explain the origins of their "god", only special
pleading, "God was always there".
Yet they demand that every non-creationist, be able to explain the origins of
the universe, (and everything else, for that matter) in the minutest detail.
Nor will they accept that the universe might always have existed, but cannot
explain why, if their god can have always have existed, the universe cannot.
When, unlike them, we honestly admit our ignorance, they go into a frenzy of
"goddidits", and call us the fools, for believing cosmology, without evidence.
It is true that we are ignorant of the processes that brought the universe into
being, before 10^-43 seconds of it's existence, IIRC, but even if we never know,
it is not evidence that "goddidit".
Still, what can you expect? They wish to be like their god, and their god is
a hypocrite.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 03:00:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:19:01 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> spake
thusly:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:03:58 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
They get really upset when you show their beliefs to be
what they really are and you can explain it in a simple
way. They try to pretend that no one is as smart as
they are, so that they can call you dumb and say that
you just don't understand science. <chuckle>
It is the hypocritical attitude of the creationist, that is most disappointing.
They can offer no evidence, what-so-ever, for creation, or even for the
existence of a god.
And here comes the typical lie. The evolutionist
claims his evidence is "indirect evidence". They
"observe the results". Of course they claim this,
because they cannot observe the cause. Yet, when you
point to evidence which should also be considered as
"observing the results", they claim that you are
failing to present any evidence.
The really funny part is, they say that you claim,
"Goddidit" and yet, they believe that nothing did it.
Nothing exploded, here we are and then no intelligence
caused life to spring forth from non-living matter,
even though that's impossible. What do they offer for
proof? We're here. That's their offer of proof. So
their argument amounts to, "Nothing did it" and yet,
they claim that I'm a hypocrite, for believing that
intelligent design, which is what life is, requires an
intelligent designer, which is something anyone who
studies language, for example, knows and DNA is a
language. <chuckle>
They can offer nothing to explain the origins of their "god", only special
pleading, "God was always there".
See above. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 03:31:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:00:56 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And here comes the typical lie. The evolutionist
claims his evidence is "indirect evidence". They
"observe the results". Of course they claim this,
because they cannot observe the cause.
really? we can't observe mutations and natural selection? since when?
The really funny part is, they say that you claim,
"Goddidit" and yet, they believe that nothing did it.
WRONG sports fans. and that's the difference between science and
magic.
science posits a mechanism...differential reproduction. that is not
'nothing' unless you believe reproduction is nothing. and few
creationists are willing to go THAT far.
'god did it' explains everything and therefore nothing. it explains my
flat tire, the smudge on the carpet, the reason why my toes are cold.
if you creationists knew how pathetic you make a dignified religion
appear, you would be appalled.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 04:02:21 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:19:01 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> spake
thusly:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:03:58 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
They get really upset when you show their beliefs to be
what they really are and you can explain it in a simple
way. They try to pretend that no one is as smart as
they are, so that they can call you dumb and say that
you just don't understand science. <chuckle>
It is the hypocritical attitude of the creationist, that is most
disappointing.
They can offer no evidence, what-so-ever, for creation, or even for
the
existence of a god.
And here comes the typical lie. The evolutionist
claims his evidence is "indirect evidence". They
"observe the results". Of course they claim this,
because they cannot observe the cause. Yet, when you
point to evidence which should also be considered as
"observing the results", they claim that you are
failing to present any evidence.
The really funny part is, they say that you claim,
"Goddidit" and yet, they believe that nothing did it.
Nothing exploded, here we are and then no intelligence
caused life to spring forth from non-living matter,
even though that's impossible. What do they offer for
proof? We're here. That's their offer of proof. So
their argument amounts to, "Nothing did it" and yet,
they claim that I'm a hypocrite, for believing that
intelligent design, which is what life is, requires an
intelligent designer, which is something anyone who
studies language, for example, knows and DNA is a
language. <chuckle>
They can offer nothing to explain the origins of their "god", only
special
pleading, "God was always there".
See above. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Hi again, "Pastor"!
Sorted out your little tif with our Jase' yet?
And by the way, do you still assert that the behemoth was a dinosaur?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 07:59:12 AM |
|
|
TV's Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:03:58 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
They get really upset when you show their beliefs to be
what they really are and you can explain it in a simple
way. They try to pretend that no one is as smart as
they are, so that they can call you dumb and say that
you just don't understand science. <chuckle>
It is the hypocritical attitude of the creationist, that is most
disappointing.
They can offer no evidence, what-so-ever, for creation, or even for the
existence of a god.
And oh so arrogant. They claim they have all the answers, and the rest of
the world is wrong.
They can offer nothing to explain the origins of their "god", only special
pleading, "God was always there".
Yet they demand that every non-creationist, be able to explain the origins
of
the universe, (and everything else, for that matter) in the minutest
detail.
And they ignorantly claim that evolution is wrong because it does not
adequately explain origins, when evolution was never meant to explain the
origin of the universe, merely changes in life forms.
Nor will they accept that the universe might always have existed, but
cannot
explain why, if their god can have always have existed, the universe
cannot.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. They cannot have it both ways.
When, unlike them, we honestly admit our ignorance, they go into a frenzy
of
"goddidits", and call us the fools, for believing cosmology, without
evidence.
It is true that we are ignorant of the processes that brought the universe
into
being, before 10^-43 seconds of it's existence, IIRC, but even if we never
know,
it is not evidence that "goddidit".
Still, what can you expect? They wish to be like their god, and their
god is
a hypocrite.
They're extremely arrogant hypocrites. There's nothing worse.
--
Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast -
Meatwad
Get off your fuckin' cross. We need the fuckin' space to nail the next fool
martyr - Tool, "Eulogy"
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 03:04:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 01:59:12 -0600, after pondering deep
thoughts, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> spake
thusly:
And they ignorantly claim that evolution is wrong because it does not
adequately explain origins, when evolution was never meant to explain the
origin of the universe, merely changes in life forms.
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't. Once it was proved wrong, evolutionists
tried to distance themselves from it and claimed that
it was a separate issue. <chuckle>
The fact is, nothing matters if you claim that God did
not do it and then can't explain the origin of life,
especially when any educated person knows that it is
impossible for it to happen on its own. Yet, they
believe it anyway, which only shows that your belief is
a religion, not science. Science doesn't spit in the
face of facts and the fact is that you cannot explain
the origin of life. You cannot repeatedly demonstrate
it through experimentation. Nor can you directly prove
macroevolution. These are facts and you need to face
them.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 05:46:17 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ul0f011e8dg1pc0q4cr2oceer7d58ps7jn@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 01:59:12 -0600, after pondering deep
thoughts, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> spake
thusly:
And they ignorantly claim that evolution is wrong because it does not
adequately explain origins, when evolution was never meant to explain the
origin of the universe, merely changes in life forms.
<chucklehead>
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
</chucklehead>
Spontaneous generation is an explanation for live things appearing
(nearly immediately) from dead things, e.g., maggots from rotten meat.
Abiogenesis is any explanation of how self-replicating molecules arise
from non-self-replicating molecules. The former was indeed "proved
wrong." The latter is the object of much speculation. If you don't
believe in abiogenesis, tell us why.
<chucklehead>
Once it was proved wrong, evolutionists
tried to distance themselves from it and claimed that
it was a separate issue. <chuckle>
</chucklehead>
But you know it's a separate issue. Abiogenesis has to explain how
life arose de novo. It can't rely on previously alive material. If you
have an argument to show that abiogenesis never took place, tell us.
<chucklehead>
The fact is, nothing matters if you claim that God did
not do it and then can't explain the origin of life,
</chucklehead>
What does this even mean? That your life doesn't matter unless God
exists? Tell us why this is a "fact." It may be (for you), but why is that
so?
<chucklehead>
especially when any educated person knows that it is
impossible for it to happen on its own.
</chucklehead>
But many educated people know that it *is* possible. And why would
you make such a statement? You must know it's wrong. And you must
know it's irrelevant. Any educated person used to think that the matching
shapes of South America and Africa were purely coincidental.
<chucklehead>
Yet, they
believe it anyway, which only shows that your belief is
a religion, not science.
</chucklehead>
I'm having some trouble following the pronouns here, but I take it that
your definition of a religion is any set of idiotic ideas. Science isn't a
religion -- it doesn't posit a god or make general rules for moral
behavior. But you know that, too. If you have some disagreements with
the philosophy that science is based upon, why don't you state them?
<chucklehead>
Science doesn't spit in the
face of facts and the fact is that you cannot explain
the origin of life. You cannot repeatedly demonstrate
it through experimentation. Nor can you directly prove
macroevolution. These are facts and you need to face
them.
</chucklehead>
Science is the very business of not being able to explain things and making
the effort to change that. It's no slam on science that it cannot (yet)
explain
something, say, the origin of life. Do you really not understand that? Why
do
you insist that science must explain singular events through replication?
You know that's not a demand of every scientific explanation. You also have
been repeatedly told that science isn't in the proof business. So why do
you
demand "direct" proofs. If you don't believe that "macroevolution" has been
observed, please tell us why the claimed observations of speciation are
wrong.
<chucklehead>
Pastor Dave Raymond
</chucklehead>
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 03:57:03 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ul0f011e8dg1pc0q4cr2oceer7d58ps7jn@4ax.com...
[snip]
If you don't believe that "macroevolution" has been
observed, please tell us why the claimed observations of speciation
are
wrong.
It is true by definition that "macroevolution" has never been observed.
The definition of macroevolution is change to a degree greater than any
that has been observed.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 04:40:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ul0f011e8dg1pc0q4cr2oceer7d58ps7jn@4ax.com...
[snip]
If you don't believe that "macroevolution" has been
observed, please tell us why the claimed observations of speciation
are
wrong.
It is true by definition that "macroevolution" has never been observed.
The definition of macroevolution is change to a degree greater than any
that has been observed.
You have it garbled a bit. That's the creationist definition of
macroevolution, and it's actually "change to a degree greater than I am
willing to believe" or, even better "any change that I'm not willing to
believe in right now, and I don't come from no monkey, so there".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 06:59:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:40:02 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> spake thusly:
ken@kendenny.com wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ul0f011e8dg1pc0q4cr2oceer7d58ps7jn@4ax.com...
[snip]
If you don't believe that "macroevolution" has been
observed, please tell us why the claimed observations of speciation
are
wrong.
It is true by definition that "macroevolution" has never been observed.
The definition of macroevolution is change to a degree greater than any
that has been observed.
You have it garbled a bit. That's the creationist definition of
macroevolution,
Sorry, but it is not the creationists who are busy
trying to redefines macroevolution, by pointing to
examples of microevolution.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 06:59:53 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:40:02 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> spake thusly:
ken@kendenny.com wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ul0f011e8dg1pc0q4cr2oceer7d58ps7jn@4ax.com...
[snip]
If you don't believe that "macroevolution" has been
observed, please tell us why the claimed observations of speciation
are
wrong.
It is true by definition that "macroevolution" has never been observed.
The definition of macroevolution is change to a degree greater than any
that has been observed.
You have it garbled a bit. That's the creationist definition of
macroevolution,
Sorry, but it is not the creationists who are busy
trying to redefines macroevolution, by pointing to
examples of microevolution.
Keep your sorries in a sack, mister. Do you agree with that definition
of macroevolution? If so, then claiming that macroevolution hasn't been
observed seems like a silly exercise. If not, what definition of
macroevolution do you like?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 07:13:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:59:53 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:40:02 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> spake thusly:
ken@kendenny.com wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ul0f011e8dg1pc0q4cr2oceer7d58ps7jn@4ax.com...
[snip]
If you don't believe that "macroevolution" has been
observed, please tell us why the claimed observations of speciation
are
wrong.
It is true by definition that "macroevolution" has never been observed.
The definition of macroevolution is change to a degree greater than any
that has been observed.
You have it garbled a bit. That's the creationist definition of
macroevolution,
Sorry, but it is not the creationists who are busy
trying to redefines macroevolution, by pointing to
examples of microevolution.
Keep your sorries in a sack, mister. Do you agree with that definition
of macroevolution? If so, then claiming that macroevolution hasn't been
observed seems like a silly exercise. If not, what definition of
macroevolution do you like?
Demonstrate macroevolution. And roses to roses and
insects to insects and bacteria to bacteria and canidae
to canidae, etc., do not count. That is
microevolution.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution?
Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution?
Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution?
1. CAN YOU FIND A MORE EXCELLENT OBJECT FOR YOUR LOVE THAN JESUS? If you search through the whole creation, could you find any like him? Are riches, honors, pleasures, or other relationships comparable to Jesus, whom you ought to love supremely? Shou
George Berkeley: What allows an idea to represent a material object?
"Pledge fight to return to S.F. courtroom; Atheists object to 'under God' phrase"
Parents object to newborn tests because of religion
Object off Alaska coast may be WWII sub Family of USS Grunion commander undertake undersea investigation
| Which Celestial Object is It?
Family Members Object to Rosa Parks' Will
NEWS FLASH: Pussies object to vagina!
Massachusetts Democrats Object to Stem Cell Research Ban
As shyly as Ramzi blesses, you can object the socialism much more never.
Liberalism Is A Real Mental Disorder. ==> CRIMINAL Aliens Object to Being Called ILLEGAL
OT: What is this mechancial object
|
|
|
