| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 May 2005 12:23:49 AM |
| Object: |
Debating Darwinism |
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them, Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 05:37:38 PM |
|
|
<hobbitfan111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115270629.829901.312090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution known
as intelligent design.
I.D. is NOT an alternative theory! There is NO evidence to support I.D. - it
is nothing more than a variation of creationism - which also has no
supportive evidence!
Evolution, on the other hand, has tons and tons of supportive evidence.
And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community.
Surprising?
About as surprising as the Kentucky Derby rejecting the application of a
jackass.
Neither I.D. or creationism are science!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hutchison" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 02:11:04 AM |
|
|
<hobbitfan111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115270629.829901.312090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them, Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
Interesting that most Darwinian skeptics happen to be Christians!
Darwin's theory of evolution totally makes sense to a logical, practical and
intelligent person. The Christians have latched onto this "intelligent
design" theory only because they see the shortcomings of their own
creationist beliefs. ID is basically a hotchpotch of both and since it
incorporates some logic, may on the surface appear to be a valid
alternative.
Just ask any breeder (goldfish, cats, horses, whatever) whether they can
easily breed a new strain by "deliberate selection". The answer is of
course yes. Then imagine the effect that "natural selection" has over
countless generations and add into that mix changing environment and greater
or lesser numbers of predators/prey/foodsources. Natural selection works
perfectly well into Darwin's theory of evolution.
As for your missing links theories. There are countless missing links
throughout the millions of years of evolution. The Earth is a vast place to
be searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Just because they
haven't yet found a missing link in a given species doesn't mean they won't.
It seems you fail to grasp the complexity of a paleontologists job. There
are some periods in history or environmental anomolies that provide ideal
conditions for the discovery of fossils. There are other times and
conditions that are not so conducive to revealing this information.
In summary, it would help if Christians would think before they spoke or
wrote such nonsense.
Going off track a little, I've even talked to a Christian recently that
claimed the Earth travels around the Moon and it's not the first time I've
heard it. That's just nonsense! You people were educated for a reason, but
I really don't know whay they bothered to waste their money upon you.
It would have been cheaper to build a series of villages in a vast compound
and have babies perpetually born from virgins. It could actually be done
these days and they would be real virgins. They could be subjected to any
test for proof. Far better than the one you've got now whom clearly wasn't
a virgin!
Regards - Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism - |
05 May 2005 10:22:06 AM |
|
|
Steve Hutchison wrote:
<hobbitfan111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115270629.829901.312090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them, Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
Interesting that most Darwinian skeptics happen to be Christians!
Darwin's theory of evolution totally makes sense to a logical, practical and
intelligent person. The Christians have latched onto this "intelligent
design" theory only because they see the shortcomings of their own
creationist beliefs. ID is basically a hotchpotch of both and since it
incorporates some logic, may on the surface appear to be a valid
alternative.
===>"ID" proponents simply apply the method of Von Daniken and
suggest, without any possibility of testing their pseudo hypothesis,
that some extra terrestrial "intelligence" created life on earth.
It is just a modern version of the Genesis fiction about YHWH the
bungling ET. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hutchison" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism - |
05 May 2005 01:32:20 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:427A3A1E.1E5EF1A8@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Steve Hutchison wrote:
<hobbitfan111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115270629.829901.312090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen
skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution
known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth
is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory
of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of
the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them,
Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into
the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in
the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
Interesting that most Darwinian skeptics happen to be Christians!
Darwin's theory of evolution totally makes sense to a logical, practical
and
intelligent person. The Christians have latched onto this "intelligent
design" theory only because they see the shortcomings of their own
creationist beliefs. ID is basically a hotchpotch of both and since it
incorporates some logic, may on the surface appear to be a valid
alternative.
===>"ID" proponents simply apply the method of Von Daniken and
suggest, without any possibility of testing their pseudo hypothesis,
that some extra terrestrial "intelligence" created life on earth.
It is just a modern version of the Genesis fiction about YHWH the
bungling ET. -- L.
Oh, I see!
Well guess what? In that case I'm going to have to do a complete turn
around.
Without knowing more specific details about the ID theory, I'm going to have
to admit that I've long held a belief that some advanced alien culture has
messed with DNA on this Earth; probably more than a few times. Furthermore
I believe that aliens have indeed presented themselves to beings upon this
Earth and gave the impression (whether deliberately or unintentionally) that
they are God.
An advanced alien culture could certainly conjure up a burning bush and
would have no technical difficulties with making a person appear to ascend
to heaven.
I wasn't aware that there was a theory in existence that incorporated such
possibilities, but now that you've pointed me in the right direction I shall
have to investigate a little more. I know you're probably reading this at
the moment thinking "oh no another crackpot", but let me tell you; these
ideas and theory have a lot more credence than some omni-present being
causing the effects.
Regards - Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism - |
05 May 2005 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
Steve Hutchison wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:427A3A1E.1E5EF1A8@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Steve Hutchison wrote:
<hobbitfan111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115270629.829901.312090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen
skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution
known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth
is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory
of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of
the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them,
Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into
the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in
the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
Interesting that most Darwinian skeptics happen to be Christians!
Darwin's theory of evolution totally makes sense to a logical, practical
and
intelligent person. The Christians have latched onto this "intelligent
design" theory only because they see the shortcomings of their own
creationist beliefs. ID is basically a hotchpotch of both and since it
incorporates some logic, may on the surface appear to be a valid
alternative.
===>"ID" proponents simply apply the method of Von Daniken and
suggest, without any possibility of testing their pseudo hypothesis,
that some extra terrestrial "intelligence" created life on earth.
It is just a modern version of the Genesis fiction about YHWH the
bungling ET. -- L.
Oh, I see!
Well guess what? In that case I'm going to have to do a complete turn
around.
Without knowing more specific details about the ID theory, I'm going to have
to admit that I've long held a belief that some advanced alien culture has
messed with DNA on this Earth; probably more than a few times. Furthermore
I believe that aliens have indeed presented themselves to beings upon this
Earth and gave the impression (whether deliberately or unintentionally) that
they are God.
An advanced alien culture could certainly conjure up a burning bush and
would have no technical difficulties with making a person appear to ascend
to heaven.
I wasn't aware that there was a theory in existence that incorporated such
possibilities, but now that you've pointed me in the right direction I shall
have to investigate a little more. I know you're probably reading this at
the moment thinking "oh no another crackpot", but let me tell you; these
ideas and theory have a lot more credence than some omni-present being
causing the effects.
Regards - Steve
===>Intelligence, terrestrial or extraterrestrial, is produced
through evolution, i.e. natural processes of the Cosmos.
Biblical/religious creationism is just speculative fiction. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Studies with Satan" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 01:31:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
WASHINGTON TIMES
Washington Times = Moonie *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 10:13:33 AM |
|
|
Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
hobbitfan111@yahoo.com wrote:
WASHINGTON TIMES
Washington Times = Moonie *****.
===>You've got it!
The Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times is supporting
the anti-scientific, destructive American Taliban.
Any true scientist would avoid getting involved in their silly
"ET" Hypothesis. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 12:34:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen
skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution
known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since
Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific
community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth
is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from
Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory
of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way
of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of
the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them,
Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into
the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when
possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in
the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
B C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Dufour" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 02:11:40 AM |
|
|
wrote:
hobbitfan...@yahoo.com wrote:
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching
of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen
skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution
known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian
scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since
Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific
community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray,
is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the
earth
is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from
Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't
question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over
time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his
theory
of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530
million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors
to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched
off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random
mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way
of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID
theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of
the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them,
Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that
Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into
the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when
possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in
the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
I am sure that Darwinism is not science either.
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
B C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism - |
05 May 2005 10:16:41 AM |
|
|
Steve Dufour wrote:
bernard_con...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
hobbitfan...@yahoo.com wrote:
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching
of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen
skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution
known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian
scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since
Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific
community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray,
is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the
earth
is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from
Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't
question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over
time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his
theory
of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530
million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors
to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched
off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random
mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way
of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID
theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of
the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them,
Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that
Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into
the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when
possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in
the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
I am sure that Darwinism is not science either.
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
B C.
===>There's no such thing as "Darwinism".
Evolution, like gravity, is a FACT.
Darwin's theory is one EXPLANATION of a set of facts,
as is the Newtonian theory of gravitation.
There are other SCIENTIFIC theories for both, but to
attribute either gravitation or evolution to some extraterrestrial
"intelligence" is just STUPID! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism - ET-ism anyone? |
05 May 2005 10:06:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
hobbitfan...@yahoo.com wrote:
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen
skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution
known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since
Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific
community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth
is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from
Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory
of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way
of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of
the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them,
Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into
the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when
possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in
the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
B C.
===>The Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times is supporting
the anti-scientific, destructive American Taliban.
Any true scientist would avoid getting involved in their silly
"ET" Hypothesis. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: "Intelligent Design" is ET-ism! (was Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 10:08:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
hobbitfan...@yahoo.com wrote:
WASHINGTON TIMES
Editorial
May 5, 2005
Debating Darwinism
Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day
debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen
skeptics
of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution
known
as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial
lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists
have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since
Darwinian
theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific
community.
Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is
that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth
is
round. It is an absurd proposition." But that's not entirely fair.
Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from
Darwin's
theory. Moreover, Darwinian skeptics and ID theorists don't question
evolution, at least as it's understood as species changing over time.
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection
is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged
that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory
of
common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian
Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million
years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to
the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their
failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off
from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion
requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent
design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations
play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way
of
making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't
possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an
"intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory
departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of
creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of
the
Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't
necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and
certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them,
Darwin's
theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students
unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of
science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists
refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into
the
hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when
possible
and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the
Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He
continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in
the
scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
B C.
===>The Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times is supporting
the anti-scientific, destructive American Taliban.
Any true scientist would avoid getting involved in their silly
"ET" Hypothesis. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 01:13:46 AM |
|
|
On 4 May 2005 22:34:31 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
Sure there is and your denial of it proves the point.
Of course, terms like, "social Darwinism" are just a
figment of our imagination. <chuckle>
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
Science is a religion, when you equate it with
Darwinism.
BTW, do you have time for a debate?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 08:07:02 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:37ej711rll19d7cpqq1ap2ntg7r1dae6hm@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2005 22:34:31 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
Sure there is and your denial of it proves the point.
Of course, terms like, "social Darwinism" are just a
figment of our imagination. <chuckle>
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
Science is a religion, when you equate it with
Darwinism.
BTW, do you have time for a debate?
Who is he going to debate????? You?? ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 12:17:12 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 4 May 2005 22:34:31 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
Sure there is and your denial of it proves the point.
Of course, terms like, "social Darwinism" are just a
figment of our imagination. <chuckle>
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
Science is a religion, when you equate it with
Darwinism.
BTW, do you have time for a debate?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
Who are you debating with?
Consider the array of scientists who accept current cosmology and
biology.
Anatomists, Archaeo-anatomists, Anthropologists, Astro-physicists,
Biologists, Chemists, Geochemists, Geophysicists, Physicists,
Palaeontologists, Zoologists just to name a few of the disciplines
which accept orthodox science.
B C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
05 May 2005 04:08:41 PM |
|
|
On 5 May 2005 10:17:12 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 4 May 2005 22:34:31 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
There is no cult known as Darwinism. There are no Darwinists.
Sure there is and your denial of it proves the point.
Of course, terms like, "social Darwinism" are just a
figment of our imagination. <chuckle>
It is quite understandable that scientists refuse to debate science
with people who imagine that science is a religion.
Science is a religion, when you equate it with
Darwinism.
BTW, do you have time for a debate?
Who are you debating with?
Consider the array of scientists who accept current cosmology and
biology.
Anatomists, Archaeo-anatomists, Anthropologists, Astro-physicists,
Biologists, Chemists, Geochemists, Geophysicists, Physicists,
Palaeontologists, Zoologists just to name a few of the disciplines
which accept orthodox science.
And there it is, folks. Their argument is that
majority opinion equals truth.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
06 May 2005 12:26:42 PM |
|
|
Nonsense. Science is about providing the best possible interpretation
of the facts available at that time. When new facts emerge we adjust
our explanation to take account of them.
Within the last 6 months our understanding of the hominid tree has been
changed at least twice. First by the discovery of "Hobbit Man" ( Homo
floresiensis) who seems to be a a direct descendant of Homo erectus.
The second example is the discovery of a 13 million year old hominid
which has been named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus which might be
regarded as the "missing link" between the hominids and the apes.
There are no "-isms" in science. The concept of an -ism is alien to
to scientists who must remain perpetually sceptical and re-adjust their
understanding when new facts emerge.
B C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
07 May 2005 12:13:11 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2005 10:26:42 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
Nonsense. Science is about providing the best possible interpretation
If you're going to avoid quoting my words, then you
only prove that you are afraid of what I've said.
Science may be about that. Evolution isn't.
of the facts available at that time. When new facts emerge we adjust
our explanation to take account of them.
You mean that you never give up on the concept, even if
the data doesn't fit the facts.
Within the last 6 months our understanding of the hominid tree has been
changed at least twice.
That's because it was wrong.
First by the discovery of "Hobbit Man"
Hobbit man was not some ape to man tree placement. You
simply demand that it is.
The second example is the discovery of a 13 million year old hominid
which has been named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus which might be
regarded as the "missing link" between the hominids and the apes.
13 million years old? And what is it? Prove both.
Otherwise, shut up. You have nothing to say.
There are no "-isms" in science.
That's true.
The concept of an -ism is alien to to scientists who must remain
perpetually sceptical and re-adjust their
understanding when new facts emerge.
That's not true. You treat scienTISTS as if they're
gods, who cannot err. ScienTISTS have prejudices.
DON'T EVER equate scientists to science in a
conversation with me.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
07 May 2005 12:40:40 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2005 10:26:42 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
Nonsense. Science is about providing the best possible interpretation
If you're going to avoid quoting my words, then you
only prove that you are afraid of what I've said.
Science may be about that. Evolution isn't.
of the facts available at that time. When new facts emerge we adjust
our explanation to take account of them.
You mean that you never give up on the concept, even if
the data doesn't fit the facts.
Within the last 6 months our understanding of the hominid tree has been
changed at least twice.
That's because it was wrong.
First by the discovery of "Hobbit Man"
Hobbit man was not some ape to man tree placement. You
simply demand that it is.
The second example is the discovery of a 13 million year old hominid
which has been named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus which might be
regarded as the "missing link" between the hominids and the apes.
13 million years old? And what is it? Prove both.
Otherwise, shut up. You have nothing to say.
There are no "-isms" in science.
That's true.
The concept of an -ism is alien to to scientists who must remain
perpetually sceptical and re-adjust their
understanding when new facts emerge.
That's not true. You treat scienTISTS as if they're
gods, who cannot err. ScienTISTS have prejudices.
DON'T EVER equate scintists to science in a
conversation with me.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hutchison" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
07 May 2005 02:41:13 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mvko71hq4sq3p1o0lkg4qt0m8jc66n8r0m@4ax.com...
On 6 May 2005 10:26:42 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
Nonsense. Science is about providing the best possible interpretation
If you're going to avoid quoting my words, then you
only prove that you are afraid of what I've said.
Science may be about that. Evolution isn't.
The theory of evolution is still that - a theory, however it works very
well, has tangible proof and is consistant, logical and fits within the
realms of science. Creationism doesn't!
In fact Creationism is just a bunch of hogwash manufactured by a lot of
blinkered, illogical, religious nuts.
of the facts available at that time. When new facts emerge we adjust
our explanation to take account of them.
You mean that you never give up on the concept, even if
the data doesn't fit the facts.
But the data does fit the facts. If you disagree please provide examples.
Note that I'm not asking for proof (which you can't provide) just examples
of where Evolution is wrong. However be prepared for a logical, rational
rebuttal.
Within the last 6 months our understanding of the hominid tree has been
changed at least twice.
That's because it was wrong.
Science isn't "generally" in the business of claiming absolutes like most
religions tend to do (however there are some notable exceptions).
Scientists recognise that we don't know everything about our planet and are
prepared to adjust their thinking and understanding of science if new facts
come to light.
First by the discovery of "Hobbit Man"
Hobbit man was not some ape to man tree placement. You
simply demand that it is.
Bernard didn't claim that at all. Try re-reading his post.
If you re-read it and don't understand what he meant then that's okay, just
ask and we would be happy to enlighten you.
The second example is the discovery of a 13 million year old hominid
which has been named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus which might be
regarded as the "missing link" between the hominids and the apes.
13 million years old? And what is it? Prove both.
Otherwise, shut up. You have nothing to say.
Um .. he doesn't have to shut up and there is no absolute "proof" that the
above is true. It's based partly on speculation and conjecture, but there
is some supporting evidence. I don't think that anyone is drawing absolute
conclusions yet however.
There are no "-isms" in science.
That's true.
The concept of an -ism is alien to to scientists who must remain
perpetually sceptical and re-adjust their
understanding when new facts emerge.
That's not true. You treat scienTISTS as if they're
gods, who cannot err. ScienTISTS have prejudices.
Yes that's quite right and some scientists even cling onto "so called
facts" to the same degree that creationists do. Remember that scientists
are still individuals and vary greatly in their opinions. Many do have an
agenda and for some, their whole career is riding on whether a particular
"fact or theory" is correct or not. Ideally we would live in a world where
no one has an agenda, not even the Catholic church, but we know in reality
that it's not true. However most scientists are logical, rational and
reasonable and are prepared to update their thinking as new theories or
facts emerge.
DON'T EVER equate scintists to science in a
conversation with me.
Pastor Dave
Now see that's just silly talk. You creationists are trying to claim
ownership of common sense when you possess very little and even pretend that
you know more about science than "real" scientists do.
That last comment was a crack at your pseudo scientists whom try to prove
the ridiculous!
Regards - Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
07 May 2005 12:21:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 07:41:13 GMT, "Steve Hutchison"
<cable4pc@bigpond.net.au> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mvko71hq4sq3p1o0lkg4qt0m8jc66n8r0m@4ax.com...
On 6 May 2005 10:26:42 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
Nonsense. Science is about providing the best possible interpretation
If you're going to avoid quoting my words, then you
only prove that you are afraid of what I've said.
Science may be about that. Evolution isn't.
The theory of evolution is still that - a theory, however it works very
well, has tangible proof and is consistant, logical and fits within the
realms of science.
That is your belief. That does not make it fact.
Creationism doesn't!
You mean you don't believe in it and therefore, claim
it doesn't work.
In fact Creationism is just a bunch of hogwash manufactured by a lot of
blinkered, illogical, religious nuts.
You have it confused with evolution. You have zero
facts to support "goo to you" and it amazes me that
people could even believe that they cam from goo.
of the facts available at that time. When new facts emerge we adjust
our explanation to take account of them.
You mean that you never give up on the concept, even if
the data doesn't fit the facts.
But the data does fit the facts. If you disagree please provide examples.
Note that I'm not asking for proof (which you can't provide) just examples
of where Evolution is wrong. However be prepared for a logical, rational
rebuttal.
It is not up to me to prove it wrong. It is up to you
to prove what you call fact, to be fact.
You people can't even support your belief and then when
that's pointed out, you demand that someone else prove
it wrong.
"We're going to teach children that it is absolute
truth and when they ask for proof, we're going to avoid
the question and ridicule them for asking it, even
though science is all about asking questions and
seeking answers. Then we'll claim that science is all
about asking questions and seeking answers."
Then, if someone does show evidence that you make an
assumption, you'll criticize them for spending their
time trying to debunk evolution, per YOUR REQUEST and
claim that they don't spend their time proving
creation.
Within the last 6 months our understanding of the hominid tree has been
changed at least twice.
That's because it was wrong.
Science isn't "generally" in the business of claiming absolutes like most
religions tend to do (however there are some notable exceptions).
Science isn't in the business of claiming absolutes.
So why do you? After all, when someone questions your
belief, you ridicule them. That is the same as
claiming that it is an absolute.
Scientists recognise that we don't know everything about our planet and are
prepared to adjust their thinking and understanding of science if new facts
come to light.
They are no "prepared to adjust their thinking". If
they were, then they would question evolution, since
there are no facts supporting "goo to you".
First by the discovery of "Hobbit Man"
Hobbit man was not some ape to man tree placement. You
simply demand that it is.
Bernard didn't claim that at all. Try re-reading his post.
If you re-read it and don't understand what he meant then that's okay, just
ask and we would be happy to enlighten you.
Trying to claim I don't understand won't help you. It
is the typical ploy of evolutionists. When someone
points out a simple truth, they "just don't understand
science".
The second example is the discovery of a 13 million year old hominid
which has been named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus which might be
regarded as the "missing link" between the hominids and the apes.
13 million years old? And what is it? Prove both.
Otherwise, shut up. You have nothing to say.
Um .. he doesn't have to shut up and there is no absolute "proof" that the
above is true.
Then evolutionists shouldn't act like it is.
It's based partly on speculation and conjecture, but there
is some supporting evidence. I don't think that anyone is drawing absolute
conclusions yet however.
Sure they are, just as they always do regarding
evolution.
There are no "-isms" in science.
That's true.
The concept of an -ism is alien to to scientists who must remain
perpetually sceptical and re-adjust their
understanding when new facts emerge.
That's not true. You treat scienTISTS as if they're
gods, who cannot err. ScienTISTS have prejudices.
Yes that's quite right and some scientists even cling onto "so called
facts" to the same degree that creationists do. Remember that scientists
are still individuals and vary greatly in their opinions. Many do have an
agenda and for some, their whole career is riding on whether a particular
"fact or theory" is correct or not. Ideally we would live in a world where
no one has an agenda, not even the Catholic church, but we know in reality
that it's not true. However most scientists are logical, rational and
reasonable and are prepared to update their thinking as new theories or
facts emerge.
Most are not. If they were, they would have abandoned
it long ago.
DON'T EVER equate scintists to science in a
conversation with me.
Pastor Dave
Now see that's just silly talk. You creationists are trying to claim
ownership of common sense when you possess very little and even pretend that
you know more about science than "real" scientists do.
That last comment was a crack at your pseudo scientists whom try to prove
the ridiculous!
It was a statement of fact. It was a criticism of what
happens.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hutchison" |
|
| Title: Re: Debating Darwinism |
07 May 2005 04:19:45 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave, may I say that you are one of the most illogical people I've
ever discussed anything with. You don't seem to read the meaning of what
your replying to and your reasoning powers are seriously lacking. That
being said, feel free to reply to my posting with whatever pops into your
head, whether it's relevant and meaningful to the subject at hand or not.
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:botp71l9km7pse4h05fkb76n75439mm6gq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 07:41:13 GMT, "Steve Hutchison"
<cable4pc@bigpond.net.au> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mvko71hq4sq3p1o0lkg4qt0m8jc66n8r0m@4ax.com...
On 6 May 2005 10:26:42 -0700,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk spake thusly:
Nonsense. Science is about providing the best possible interpretation
If you're going to avoid quoting my words, then you
only prove that you are afraid of what I've said.
Science may be about that. Evolution isn't.
The theory of evolution is still that - a theory, however it works very
well, has tangible proof and is consistant, logical and fits within the
realms of science.
That is your belief. That does not make it fact.
It's not just my belief. There is a whole swag of step by step logical
science to support evolution. The majority of scientists these days agree
with the conclusions. It doesn't mean to say there's nothing more to
discover about evolution; far from it.
Creationism doesn't!
You mean you don't believe in it and therefore, claim
it doesn't work.
It doesn't work because the God you speak of doesn't exist. It's just a
fairytale to make you do as those in power want.
In fact Creationism is just a bunch of hogwash manufactured by a lot of
blinkered, illogical, religious nuts.
You have it confused with evolution. You have zero
facts to support "goo to you" and it amazes me that
people could even believe that they cam from goo.
The problem Dave, is that you've made the jump too large for your limited
intelligence to comprehend. Let's look instead at a more simple
illustration:
Lions, cheetahs, tigers, house cats, etc. all have differences, but overall
they have a great many similarities of which I'm sure you don't need me to
list (you can see for yourself can't you). Did you know that at one stage
there were 8 distinct species of tigers (now there are only 3 left in
existence). Do you really think that God, whom is supposed to be unlimited
in power and omni-present, would create 8 of the same animal in an almost
identical fashion?
Are you trying to say that God has a very limited imagination?
Are you also aware that Humans and Chimpanzees have 98% of our DNA in common
with each other? That's rather high for mere coincidence don't you think?
For the most part, humans have 99.x in common with each other (eg. negro
compared to asian, caucasian compared to negro, etc.), but there are some
rare instances where it is only 98.x in common (depending which sub-race is
compared to another). Hey it doesn't mean that some of us are more like
apes, but does serve to illustrate how close our DNA really is to chimps.
We're also quite closely related to orangutans and gorillas. Not quite as
close as to chimps, but in the 97.x range.
of the facts available at that time. When new facts emerge we adjust
our explanation to take account of them.
You mean that you never give up on the concept, even if
the data doesn't fit the facts.
But the data does fit the facts. If you disagree please provide
examples.
Note that I'm not asking for proof (which you can't provide) just
examples
of where Evolution is wrong. However be prepared for a logical, rational
rebuttal.
It is not up to me to prove it wrong. It is up to you
to prove what you call fact, to be fact.
Fact: DNA strongly links all mammals together. Did you know that a rat has
60% of its DNA in common with ours?
You people can't even support your belief and then when
that's pointed out, you demand that someone else prove
it wrong.
Actually it was you that was calling Bernard wrong and I stepped in because
I strongly disagree with your illogical statements.
"We're going to teach children that it is absolute
truth and when they ask for proof, we're going to avoid
the question and ridicule them for asking it, even
though science is all about asking questions and
seeking answers. Then we'll claim that science is all
about asking questions and seeking answers."
Um ... no you're describing what the Catholic church does.
Science IS all about asking questions and seeking answers.
Obviously evolution will continue to be taught in schools because it has the
facts to back it up. If evolution is proven to be wrong (whether in minor
or major ways) then science text books will be adjusted to reflect the
current knowledge and children will be taught the teachings of the day.
Science isn't about being perfect and knowing everything, it is about
understanding our universe as best we can and then passing that learning on
until it is updated with more accurate data.
I shouldn't need to be telling you that, cause it kind of goes without
saying, but you seem to be seriously lacking in intelligence so I shall take
nothing for granted in our discussions.
Then, if someone does show evidence that you make an
assumption, you'll criticize them for spending their
time trying to debunk evolution, per YOUR REQUEST and
claim that they don't spend their time proving
creation.
Okay, but you haven't provided any evidence at all disproving evolution.
You made some crack about goo to human and that was all, so what are you
complaining about?
You can't provide any information to disprove evolution even though I have
spent time noting down quite a few facts in support of it.
You also can't provide any facts proving creation.
So go ahead, spend some time debunking evolution, I'm all ears.
All I ask is that you try to be a little more rational if you decide to
provide any facts and/or conclusions.
Within the last 6 months our understanding of the hominid tree has
been
changed at least twice.
That's because it was wrong.
Science isn't "generally" in the business of claiming absolutes like
most
religions tend to do (however there are some notable exceptions).
Science isn't in the business of claiming absolutes.
So why do you? After all, when someone questions your
belief, you ridicule them. That is the same as
claiming that it is an absolute.
It seems you have misunderstood (yet again).
I'm all for you questioning my belief on evolution. The pertinant question
is are you able to provide any facts or are you basing your questions purely
on emotion or perhaps the first thought that pops into your head?
Bring the facts on, lets see what you've got.
Now you're absolutely correct in your assertion that I ridicule you. You
come up with this creation bunkum which has no basis in science, no
supporting facts, no reason to really believe in it at all and expect
everyone to believe such a foolish notion. Why do you expect us all to
believe in this ridiculous theory that the church promotes?
Tell me this? How long do you think it is between this so called creation
of Adam and Eve to the time when humans were able to read and write? How
many thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of generations apart do you
think these two events might have been? (and that's assuming that they
didn't just grunt to start with).
This so called fact about creation was passed from parent to child
throughout those many generations wasn't it? You don't suppose that each
generation might have accidentally modified the story just a little?
What about the tower of Babel, when all the peoples of the world went their
own separate ways and were totally unable to communicate with each other.
Gee I wonder if that might have affected every story that was ever told?
Yes I'm going to use your own scripture against you. You refuse to provide
any facts in support of your arguments and instead rely solely on the bible
as your source of education. Of course I'm going to ridicule you!
Scientists recognise that we don't know everything about our planet and
are
prepared to adjust their thinking and understanding of science if new
facts
come to light.
They are no "prepared to adjust their thinking". If
they were, then they would question evolution, since
there are no facts supporting "goo to you".
Have you ever actually been educated?
Sorry to sound so rude, but your statement is totally ridiculous.
If you did go to school, checkout some of the things you were taught and
then compare them to the textbooks of today. Every single field of science
has updated its relevant books. How do you figure that scientists are not
prepared to adjust their thinking?
Oh I get it. You're making a very broad statement about the entire
scientific community based on your disbelief of evolution. Do you realise
how silly it is to do that?
Sometimes when discussing things with you Pastor Dave, it's like talking to
a nine year old!
Anyhow the point being, is that you still have not provided one skeric of
information, data or fact disproving any portion of the theory of evolution.
Are you going to provide any facts or are you just going to continue
waffling on?
Btw, your goo to human statement is about as useful as someone from the 16th
century explaining to me how humans will never travel to the moon, oh and um
... didn't you know that it's made of cheese?
Now let's be very specific shall we. There are lots of things known about
evolution today that were not known when Darwin first proposed the theory.
Consequently science journals and text books have been updated to reflect
that very information, so your claim that "They are not prepared to adjust
their thinking" is absolute rubbish.
First by the discovery of "Hobbit Man"
Hobbit man was not some ape to man tree placement. You
simply demand that it is.
Bernard didn't claim that at all. Try re-reading his post.
If you re-read it and don't understand what he meant then that's okay,
just
ask and we would be happy to enlighten you.
Trying to claim I don't understand won't help you. It
is the typical ploy of evolutionists. When someone
points out a simple truth, they "just don't understand
science".
Now see this is exactly what I'm talking about ....
You fail to understand Bernards statement, then when I point out that you
misunderstood his meaning, you rave on yet again with more garble.
Let's have a go at trying to explain this to you shall we:
===
Within the last 6 months our understanding of the hominid tree has been
changed at least twice. First by the discovery of "Hobbit Man" ( Homo
floresiensis) who seems to be a a direct descendant of Homo erectus.
===
The above is what Bernard said, to which you replied
"Hobbit man was not some ape to man tree placement. You simply demand that
it is."
There is nothing in Bernard's statement about ape to man. Homo erectus was
not an ape although it was certainly closer in the tree to them than modern
day humans are. They could probably have been described as ape-like, but
they did not qualify as apes scientifically.
Hobbit man was not a stepping stone from human to ape but is indeed believed
to be a separate branch in the tree and upon their extinction that was the
end of their lineage.
Chances are, they were finally made extinct by contact with disease possibly
brought by the Dutch, however that is all very speculative.
If you didn't know then all you had to do was ask and I would have been
happy to explain what Bernard said. If you need to know more then feel free
to ask.
The second example is the discovery of a 13 million year old hominid
which has been named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus which might be
regarded as the "missing link" between the hominids and the apes.
13 million years old? And what is it? Prove both.
Otherwise, shut up. You have nothing to say.
Um .. he doesn't have to shut up and there is no absolute "proof" that
the
above is true.
Then evolutionists shouldn't act like it is.
Many scientists do regard evolution to be absolutely proven and in truth
there is good reason to think so. Personally I see there being a fair bit
more to discover in that field and many would agree with me, however the
facts are on the side of the evolutionists versus the foolish notions of the
creationists.
It's based partly on speculation and conjecture, but there
is some supporting evidence. I don't think that anyone is drawing
absolute
conclusions yet however.
Sure they are, just as they always do regarding
evolution.
The relevant statement that Bernard originally made regarding this is as
follows:
====
The second example is the discovery of a 13 million year old hominid
which has been named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus which might be
regarded as the "missing link" between the hominids and the apes.
====
Do you notice the words "might be regarded as the missing link".
Bernard didn't claim any absolutes there and neither did I. The statement
above (which you refuted) is available for all to read and draw their own
conclusions.
If you think you know of someone whom is claiming it as absolute proof then
name them. I speculate that you can't because:
a) You know so very little about he subject, so how would you know any of
the scientists involved.
b) I've certainly never heard any scientists claim absolute proof of such a
thing and I highly doubt that they would be yet as the discovery is too
recent.
There are no "-isms" in science.
That's true.
The concept of an -ism is alien to to scientists who must remain
perpetually sceptical and re-adjust their
understanding when new facts emerge.
That's not true. You treat scienTISTS as if they're
gods, who cannot err. ScienTISTS have prejudices.
Yes that's quite right and some scientists even cling onto "so called
facts" to the same degree that creationists do. Remember that
scientists
are still individuals and vary greatly in their opinions. Many do have
an
agenda and for some, their whole career is riding on whether a particular
"fact or theory" is correct or not. Ideally we would live in a world
where
no one has an agenda, not even the Catholic church, but we know in
reality
that it's not true. However most scientists are logical, rational and
reasonable and are prepared to update their thinking as new theories or
facts emerge.
Most are not. If they were, they would have abandoned
it long ago.
So you're saying that scientists should abandon "evolution", which has
lots of supporting evidence to back it up, in favour of creation which has
no | | | | | | | | | |
