| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2003 10:06:24 AM |
| Object: |
Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It
There appears to be at least two major reasons why some scientists accept
the false teachings of evolution:
1. The main stream of science accepts evolution because that is all they
have ever been taught. Having never been exposed to the case agains
Darwin, they have never had an opportunity to challange it.
2. Dr. Michael Walker, senior lecturere in anthropology at Sydney
University, Australia gives another reason when he wrote:
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinism Theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it
has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life
sciences and earth sciences."
Taken from "To Have Evolved or To Have Not? That is The Question," Michael
Walker, Quadrant 25, 1981, p 45.
Once again a high priest of evolution states that the theory is seriously
flawed but continues to uphold it because the only alternative is special
creation by a supernatural Being.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Zodiac" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 05:53:24 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1212030806240001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It
There appears to be at least two major reasons why some scientists accept
the false teachings of evolution:
1. The main stream of science accepts evolution because that is all they
have ever been taught.
No, its because it is the best theory so far, and creationism is neither a
theory nor is it science.
Having never been exposed to the case agains
Darwin, they have never had an opportunity to challange it.
2. Dr. Michael Walker, senior lecturere in anthropology at Sydney
University, Australia gives another reason when he wrote:
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinism Theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it
has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life
sciences and earth sciences."
Why does evolution exclude a creator, not that I believe in one?
Taken from "To Have Evolved or To Have Not? That is The Question," Michael
Walker, Quadrant 25, 1981, p 45.
Once again a high priest of evolution states that the theory is seriously
flawed but continues to uphold it because the only alternative is special
creation by a supernatural Being.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
Why would an intellegent designer create disease, siamese twins, stilborns,
cancer, appendixes, tail bones, nipples for men, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.
Steve Zodiac
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
15 Nov 2004 05:54:20 AM |
|
|
"Steve Zodiac" <Zoonie@home.ca> wrote in message
news:vtkhn41khcrv46@corp.supernews.com...
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1212030806240001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It
*some* is the wrong word, try *most all*
There appears to be at least two major reasons why some scientists accept
the false teachings of evolution:
1. The main stream of science accepts evolution because that is all they
have ever been taught.
No, its because it is the best theory so far, and creationism is neither a
theory nor is it science.
Correct
Having never been exposed to the case agains
Darwin, they have never had an opportunity to challange it.
2. Dr. Michael Walker, senior lecturere in anthropology at Sydney
University, Australia gives another reason when he wrote:
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinism Theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it
has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life
sciences and earth sciences."
Why does evolution exclude a creator, not that I believe in one?
It doesn't, many of us believe that God created through evolution
Taken from "To Have Evolved or To Have Not? That is The Question,"
Michael
Walker, Quadrant 25, 1981, p 45.
Once again a high priest of evolution states that the theory is seriously
flawed but continues to uphold it because the only alternative is special
creation by a supernatural Being.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
Why would an intellegent designer create disease, siamese twins,
stilborns,
cancer, appendixes, tail bones, nipples for men, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.
Why is water wet ? Why not ?
Steve Zodiac
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
13 Dec 2003 08:26:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:53:24 -0600, "Steve Zodiac"
<Zoonie@home.ca> wrote:
Why would an intellegent designer create disease, siamese twins, stilborns,
cancer, appendixes, tail bones, nipples for men, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.
You assume God created the world in its present state.
You cannot think past what you currently see and think
everything's always been the same, which is why you
believe the "billions of years" scenario. You rule
catastrophic change.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
13 Dec 2003 02:01:59 AM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1212030806240001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It
There appears to be at least two major reasons why some scientists accept
the false teachings of evolution:
1. The main stream of science accepts evolution because that is all they
have ever been taught. Having never been exposed to the case agains
Darwin, they have never had an opportunity to challange it.
This doesn't explain, of course, either the evolutionists most obnoxious to
creationists -- the ones who directly challenge the claims of
antievolutionists, and set forth the case for evolution against special
creation or intelligent design -- or the original generation of scientists
(most of them Christians) who accepted Darwin's explanation for a variety of
biological data despite having been raised as creationists.
2. Dr. Michael Walker, senior lecturere in anthropology at Sydney
University, Australia gives another reason when he wrote:
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinism Theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it
has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life
sciences and earth sciences."
Yet, a great many scientists and technologists are believers in God, and
followers, often, of traditional sorts of Christianity. They would not seem
to be strongly motivated to exclude the Creator from science (although they
would be motivated to avoid interpreting the facts in ways that imply the
Creator wove elaborate lies into the fabric of the heavens and the Earth).
Taken from "To Have Evolved or To Have Not? That is The Question," Michael
Walker, Quadrant 25, 1981, p 45.
Once again a high priest of evolution states that the theory is seriously
flawed but continues to uphold it because the only alternative is special
creation by a supernatural Being.
Evolution does not have clergy, or prophets, or persons on whose naked
authority evolutionary theory either rests or could be refuted.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 10:36:57 AM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1212030806240001@pm3-43.kalama.com:
Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It
There appears to be at least two major reasons why some scientists
accept the false teachings of evolution:
There appear to be several reasons why certain so-called Christians fight
good science and lie about it, calling its findings "false teachings."
1. The main stream of science accepts evolution because that is all
they have ever been taught. Having never been exposed to the case
agains Darwin, they have never had an opportunity to challange it.
There is no really good case against Darwin's basic insights. People
like you have been trying to challenge them for well over a century and
all you have managed to do is prove that some people would rather go to
hell for a heresy than obey God's commandments.
2. Dr. Michael Walker, senior lecturere in anthropology at Sydney
University, Australia gives another reason when he wrote:
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinism Theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because
it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the
life sciences and earth sciences."
Whether they do or not, it is irrelevant to the actual scientific
observations.
Taken from "To Have Evolved or To Have Not? That is The Question,"
Michael Walker, Quadrant 25, 1981, p 45.
That question has been abundantly answered by gene sequences.
Once again a high priest of evolution states that the theory is
seriously flawed but continues to uphold it because the only
alternative is special creation by a supernatural Being.
This was never REALLY the case, though fundamentalists have continually
told this lie. The main reason evolution continues to be upheld is
because it is still the best scientific theory we have. Creationists, at
best manage a blasphemous claim about the nature of God, at worst, offer
no theories whatever to explain the main evidence. Moreover, when you
examine THEIR motivation's roots, you find that it is the heresy of sola
scriptura ad litteram that is driving THEIR behaviour, not any real love
for God or truth. They pretend to be talking science, but what they are
REALLY trying to do is establish their private, literalist interpretation
of holy writ and its supremacy over all others and by inference, the
supremacy of their sterile cults over all other denominations. They have
no gods but themselves.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 12:07:47 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns944F57A621C99doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1212030806240001@pm3-43.kalama.com:
Once again a high priest of evolution states that the theory is
seriously flawed but continues to uphold it because the only
alternative is special creation by a supernatural Being.
This was never REALLY the case, though fundamentalists have continually
told this lie. The main reason evolution continues to be upheld is
because it is still the best scientific theory we have. Creationists, at
best manage a blasphemous claim about the nature of God, at worst, offer
no theories whatever to explain the main evidence. Moreover, when you
examine THEIR motivation's roots, you find that it is the heresy of sola
scriptura ad litteram that is driving THEIR behaviour, not any real love
for God or truth. They pretend to be talking science, but what they are
REALLY trying to do is establish their private, literalist interpretation
of holy writ and its supremacy over all others and by inference, the
supremacy of their sterile cults over all other denominations. They have
no gods but themselves.
Hi Dave:
It is futile to try to reason with these "Creationists", "Bible Babblers"
and "Evangelicals". Almost like an old chicken trying to lay an egg in a
strong head wind. Blessed art the Bible Babblers, for they shall be called
Big Wheels.
Peace,
--
Stephen Bayzik
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
13 Dec 2003 11:35:14 AM |
|
|
"Stephen Bayzik" <stephen.bayzik@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:WtnCb.13848$aF2.1569925@news20.bellglobal.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns944F57A621C99doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1212030806240001@pm3-43.kalama.com:
Once again a high priest of evolution states that the theory is
seriously flawed but continues to uphold it because the only
alternative is special creation by a supernatural Being.
This was never REALLY the case, though fundamentalists have
continually told this lie. The main reason evolution continues to be
upheld is because it is still the best scientific theory we have.
Creationists, at best manage a blasphemous claim about the nature of
God, at worst, offer no theories whatever to explain the main
evidence. Moreover, when you examine THEIR motivation's roots, you
find that it is the heresy of sola scriptura ad litteram that is
driving THEIR behaviour, not any real love for God or truth. They
pretend to be talking science, but what they are REALLY trying to do
is establish their private, literalist interpretation of holy writ
and its supremacy over all others and by inference, the supremacy of
their sterile cults over all other denominations. They have no gods
but themselves.
Hi Dave:
It is futile to try to reason with these "Creationists", "Bible
Babblers" and "Evangelicals". Almost like an old chicken trying to lay
an egg in a strong head wind. Blessed art the Bible Babblers, for
they shall be called Big Wheels.
Peace,
--
Stephen Bayzik
Good to hear from you. I was gone for a couple of months there after the
hurricane blew me out to the west coast!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Baverstock" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 03:06:51 PM |
|
|
There is no really good case against Darwin's basic insights.
It's not like we've never seen Evolution between species take place, or
found any of the thousands of intermediary fossils that MUST exist for it
to have happened. See the definition of "Science" below.
Whether they do or not, it is irrelevant to the actual scientific
observations.
mhmmm Scientific Observations -- note that, and see below.
This was never REALLY the case, though fundamentalists have continually
told this lie. The main reason evolution continues to be upheld is
because it is still the best scientific theory we have.
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
Creationists, at
best manage a blasphemous claim about the nature of God, at worst, offer
no theories whatever to explain the main evidence.
Show us the main evidence you speak of.
Moreover, when you
examine THEIR motivation's roots, you find that it is the heresy of sola
scriptura ad litteram that is driving THEIR behaviour, not any real love
for God or truth.
Some people are like that yes. I am not one of them. I love God, and truth.
(btw, could you translate that uhhh latin I'm guessing?)
They pretend to be talking science, but what they are
REALLY trying to do is establish their private, literalist interpretation
of holy writ and its supremacy over all others and by inference, the
supremacy of their sterile cults over all other denominations. They have
no gods but themselves.
Well, now that would kinda contradict what we believe eh? When Cassie
(sorry, can't think of her last name) died in Columbine, when they asked
who was a Christian, and she stood up, she didn't believe. In the face of
death, she lived a lie. Right. That makes _alot_ of sense. (In case some
people don't get it, that was sarcasm. She stood up for who she put her
faith in -- Jesus, the son of the most high God, not in herself)
--
With all of God's love,
Richard Baverstock
<baver@thebeever.com>
John 11:25-26: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the
life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou
this?" (KJV)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Naylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
15 Dec 2003 02:55:20 AM |
|
|
"Richard Baverstock" <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.12.21.06.48.658435@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com...
<snip>
Well, now that would kinda contradict what we believe eh? When Cassie
(sorry, can't think of her last name) died in Columbine, when they asked
who was a Christian, and she stood up, she didn't believe. In the face of
death, she lived a lie. Right. That makes _alot_ of sense. (In case some
people don't get it, that was sarcasm. She stood up for who she put her
faith in -- Jesus, the son of the most high God, not in herself)
I thought that it had been proved that the Cassie Bernall "martyrdom" never
took place. Many witnesses denied that the shooters at Columbine asked
whether there were jocks, Christians or blacks present before opening fire.
Emily Wyant, who was with Bernall when she died, denies absolutely that
Bernall affirmed her faith to the shooters and was then shot for it. Craig
Scott started off the story, but when asked where he heard the conversation,
pointed under a table there Valeen Schnurr, *not* Cassie Bernall, had been
hiding. Schnurr's own evidence is that the gunman heard her praying and
asked her if she believed in God. When she said yes, he refrained from
further firing at her.
None of this stopped Bernall's "Christian" parents from publishing a book
based (knowingly) on something that never happened, or stopped
fundamentalist "liars for Jesus" jumping on the bandwagon of this
non-existent "martyrdom".
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
13 Dec 2003 01:46:44 AM |
|
|
"Richard Baverstock" <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.12.21.06.48.658435@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com...
There is no really good case against Darwin's basic insights.
It's not like we've never seen Evolution between species take place, or
found any of the thousands of intermediary fossils that MUST exist for it
to have happened. See the definition of "Science" below.
Whether they do or not, it is irrelevant to the actual scientific
observations.
mhmmm Scientific Observations -- note that, and see below.
This was never REALLY the case, though fundamentalists have continually
told this lie. The main reason evolution continues to be upheld is
because it is still the best scientific theory we have.
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
One can always quibble about definitions, but these seem acceptable.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
According to the definitions above, *phenomena* are observed. It does not
state that every entity invoked to explain those phenomena must be directly
observed. Subatomic particles cannot be directly observed. Gravity cannot
be directly observed (gravity is not falling bodies; it is the posited
explanation for the consistent behavior of falling and orbiting bodies). Of
course, if you want to get nit-picky, nothing except your direct sense
impressions can be *directly* observed; all other "observations" are
inferences from sense impressions, sometimes very indirect inferences (one
can, e.g. observe tracks in a bubble chamber and infer the particles that
made them).
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
"Evolution" (the change of gene frequencies in populations over time, giving
rise to common descent with modification) is itself the explanation (the
"theory") offered for a wide range of *observed* phenomena. The nested
hierarchy of life, the use of similar structures for dissimilar purposes and
vice-versa, vestigial structures (an extreme example of similar structures
for dissimilar purposes), biogeography (the distribution of similar species
in adjacent territories), and the fossil record are observable phenomena for
which common descent with modification is the proffered explanation.
OTOH, evolution is itself a phenomenon which stands in need of explanations,
and the "theory of evolution" is for the most part an account of the
mechanisms proposed to explain descent with modification and common descent.
It might seem very odd to have, as the subject of a theory, a phenomenon
that for the most part can't be directly observed -- but as noted, all
manner of phenomena commonly accepted by science are not directly
observable. With sufficient supporting evidence, common ancestry of, e.g.
humans and other primates becomes an indirect observation for which
explanations can be sought.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
As others have noted, evolution (the change in gene frequencies over time in
populations, and even the change of a population from one species to
another) has indeed been observed (at least to the extent that, say,
electrons have been "observed"). Beyond that, a "prediction" in the sense
relevant to scientific theories is a statement about what a future
observation will show. Evolutionary theory makes statements about future
observations of the empirical effects of evolution (mostly evolution which
happened in the past), not necessarily about what will evolve in the future.
One can "predict" the evidence left by events in the past, if one hasn't
looked at the evidence yet. Thus, e.g. one can predict (note: no scare
quotes) that when the siamang genome is checked, it will [a] possess an
LLGLO pseudogene, and [b] this pseudogene will differ from a functional
LGGLO gene in the same way that human, chimpanzee, and macaque LGGLO
pseudogenes do. One can predict that, in general, genes which exist in many
variant forms but which serve identical functions in all species which have
them will be more similar between humans and (other) apes than between
humans and cats and dogs. One can predict that one will not find hominid
fossils in undisturbed Mesozoic, Paleozoic, or Precambrian sediments.
One can, of course, test evolution by seeing if these predictions are
confirmed or disconfirmed. Finding fossils that don't fit into the nested
hierarchy of life would be a failed test of evolution, regardless of the
sediments the fossils occurred in.
Creationists, at
best manage a blasphemous claim about the nature of God, at worst, offer
no theories whatever to explain the main evidence.
Show us the main evidence you speak of.
See, for starters: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Moreover, when you
examine THEIR motivation's roots, you find that it is the heresy of sola
scriptura ad litteram that is driving THEIR behaviour, not any real love
for God or truth.
Some people are like that yes. I am not one of them. I love God, and
truth.
(btw, could you translate that uhhh latin I'm guessing?)
"scripture alone [without the input of extrascriptural tradition or
scientific discovery], and literally interpreted."
They pretend to be talking science, but what they are
REALLY trying to do is establish their private, literalist
interpretation
of holy writ and its supremacy over all others and by inference, the
supremacy of their sterile cults over all other denominations. They
have
no gods but themselves.
Well, now that would kinda contradict what we believe eh? When Cassie
(sorry, can't think of her last name) died in Columbine, when they asked
who was a Christian, and she stood up, she didn't believe. In the face of
death, she lived a lie. Right. That makes _alot_ of sense. (In case some
people don't get it, that was sarcasm. She stood up for who she put her
faith in -- Jesus, the son of the most high God, not in herself)
One suspects that Cassie Bernal did not die for the principle of _sola
scriptura ad litteram_, or for the principle that there cannot, by
definition, be evidence that contradicts the literal reading of Genesis.
I'm fairly sure that David Oldbridge, of all people, would not hold that
Christians in general have no gods but themselves, or even that everyone who
accepts creationism does so. His point concerns the major creationist
organizations, the proponents of dishonest apologetics for their particular
version of "scientific creationism," while adhering to the principle that
evidence that contradicts their point of view cannot, in principle, exist.
These people are rather more likely to whine about martyrdom (while raking
in the bucks) than actually suffer it.
--
With all of God's love,
Richard Baverstock
<baver@thebeever.com>
John 11:25-26: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the
life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou
this?" (KJV)
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 03:35:27 PM |
|
|
"Richard Baverstock" <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.12.21.06.48.658435@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com...
There is no really good case against Darwin's basic insights.
It's not like we've never seen Evolution between species take place, or
found any of the thousands of intermediary fossils that MUST exist for it
to have happened. See the definition of "Science" below.
Whether they do or not, it is irrelevant to the actual scientific
observations.
mhmmm Scientific Observations -- note that, and see below.
This was never REALLY the case, though fundamentalists have continually
told this lie. The main reason evolution continues to be upheld is
because it is still the best scientific theory we have.
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
You are simply wrong. Evolution is observed in many different ways. Science
has demonstrated that heredity is a matter of chemistry, specifically DNA.
We can *directly observe* mutations to DNA and its inheritance. We can
observe selection effects in the wild and in the lab. We can make specific
predictions about future observations, specifically, that the morphology and
genetics of newly discovered species will fit a pattern called the nested
hierarchy. We can manipulate heredity artificially, a power which is
harnessed in the production of life-saving proteins.
If you want wings, that may soon be possible.
Creationists, at
best manage a blasphemous claim about the nature of God, at worst, offer
no theories whatever to explain the main evidence.
Show us the main evidence you speak of.
The nested hierarchy of extant species, the nested hierarchy in time of
extinct species and the recently discovered nested hierarchy of genomes. In
addition, we can directly observe mutation and its effects on heredity.
Moreover, when you
examine THEIR motivation's roots, you find that it is the heresy of sola
scriptura ad litteram that is driving THEIR behaviour, not any real love
for God or truth.
Well, the truth is that evolution is scientific fact.
Some people are like that yes. I am not one of them. I love God, and
truth.
(btw, could you translate that uhhh latin I'm guessing?)
They pretend to be talking science, but what they are
REALLY trying to do is establish their private, literalist
interpretation
of holy writ and its supremacy over all others and by inference, the
supremacy of their sterile cults over all other denominations. They
have
no gods but themselves.
Well, now that would kinda contradict what we believe eh? When Cassie
(sorry, can't think of her last name) died in Columbine, when they asked
who was a Christian, and she stood up, she didn't believe. In the face of
death, she lived a lie. Right. That makes _alot_ of sense. (In case some
people don't get it, that was sarcasm. She stood up for who she put her
faith in -- Jesus, the son of the most high God, not in herself)
--
With all of God's love,
Richard Baverstock
<baver@thebeever.com>
John 11:25-26: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the
life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou
this?" (KJV)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 03:28:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:06:51 -0500, Richard Baverstock
<baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote:
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
Evolution has been observed: Labs at the University of Chicago (to
name just a portion) have observed the evolution of fruitflies from
one species to two distinct species. Also, evolution can be used to
make predictions about natural phenomena: Drug testing is usually done
on animals as closely related to humans as possible.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam West" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 08:51:45 PM |
|
|
In article <fjcktv4t71t068hlbtdlld4svloso6rm4v@4ax.com>, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:06:51 -0500, Richard Baverstock
<baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote:
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or
is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
Evolution has been observed: Labs at the University of Chicago (to
name just a portion) have observed the evolution of fruitflies from
one species to two distinct species. Also, evolution can be used to
make predictions about natural phenomena: Drug testing is usually done
on animals as closely related to humans as possible.
On University of Chicago: Paper citation please? I'd like to read it.
On animals used for drug testing: Not true. It's really more about cost than
anything else. Mice are just cheaper. And frankly, we don't know much at
all about the animal's genome. Or genome's in general for that matter.
Further, similarity doesn't equate to ancestor. It's all much more
complicated. Read a bit from Ford Doolittle for some interesting discussions
on this.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 09:47:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:51:45 GMT, (Adam West)
wrote:
In article <fjcktv4t71t068hlbtdlld4svloso6rm4v@4ax.com>, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:06:51 -0500, Richard Baverstock
<baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote:
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or
is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
Evolution has been observed: Labs at the University of Chicago (to
name just a portion) have observed the evolution of fruitflies from
one species to two distinct species. Also, evolution can be used to
make predictions about natural phenomena: Drug testing is usually done
on animals as closely related to humans as possible.
On University of Chicago: Paper citation please? I'd like to read it.
If there's a paper on that in particular, I honestly don't know. I
was working in a lab there for several years before law school, and
that was one of the things presented at a departmental get-together.
On animals used for drug testing: Not true. It's really more about cost than
anything else. Mice are just cheaper. And frankly, we don't know much at
all about the animal's genome. Or genome's in general for that matter.
But look at the story of the testing of thalidomide, for instance. If
we had used something more closely related to us than we had, it is
much more likely we would have seen the same drawbacks that were seen
in human fetuses.
Further, similarity doesn't equate to ancestor. It's all much more
complicated.
Of course--but when there's genetic, biochemical, geopaleological,
phylogenetic, and who knows what other similarities, it certainly
points to a common ancestor, which is all I meant to say.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam West" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 10:25:03 PM |
|
|
In article <iq2ltv4tnjccm70caelibfm4c6pro6ocp4@4ax.com>, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:51:45 GMT, (Adam West)
wrote:
In article <fjcktv4t71t068hlbtdlld4svloso6rm4v@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:06:51 -0500, Richard Baverstock
<baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote:
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or
is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
Evolution has been observed: Labs at the University of Chicago (to
name just a portion) have observed the evolution of fruitflies from
one species to two distinct species. Also, evolution can be used to
make predictions about natural phenomena: Drug testing is usually done
on animals as closely related to humans as possible.
On University of Chicago: Paper citation please? I'd like to read it.
If there's a paper on that in particular, I honestly don't know. I
was working in a lab there for several years before law school, and
that was one of the things presented at a departmental get-together.
A shame really. It's the kinda thing I'd really like to see in writing. Do you
know of any other papers that support speciation?
On animals used for drug testing: Not true. It's really more about cost than
anything else. Mice are just cheaper. And frankly, we don't know much at
all about the animal's genome. Or genome's in general for that matter.
But look at the story of the testing of thalidomide, for instance. If
we had used something more closely related to us than we had, it is
much more likely we would have seen the same drawbacks that were seen
in human fetuses.
I don't know that story, but I agree that using something closer to human
would help. However, I thought you were suggesting that "evolution can be used
to make predictions about natural phenomena" to which I take acception.
Evolution isn't used. Similarity is. There's an important difference here I
think.
Further, similarity doesn't equate to ancestor. It's all much more
complicated.
Of course--but when there's genetic, biochemical, geopaleological,
phylogenetic, and who knows what other similarities, it certainly
points to a common ancestor, which is all I meant to say.
As far as genetic, biochemical and phylogeneic (those I am somewhat familiar
with) I don't think it necessarily does point to a common ancestor. Genetics -
we just don't know much at all. And there are so many cases where one single
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) can cause havoc - so even a tiny difference may
have radical phenotype implications. Biochemical - it's too low level and in
the end, based on the laws of physics. But we can't even simulate a protein
folding yet. Phylogenetic - it's based on (primarily) similarity associations.
Nice trees and good for quick analysis, but doesn't really say much else.
These are all truly useful techniques and disciplines. But they don't
necessarily support evolution.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
12 Dec 2003 10:54:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:25:03 GMT, (Adam West)
wrote:
In article <iq2ltv4tnjccm70caelibfm4c6pro6ocp4@4ax.com>, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:51:45 GMT, (Adam West)
wrote:
In article <fjcktv4t71t068hlbtdlld4svloso6rm4v@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:06:51 -0500, Richard Baverstock
<baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote:
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or
is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
Evolution has been observed: Labs at the University of Chicago (to
name just a portion) have observed the evolution of fruitflies from
one species to two distinct species. Also, evolution can be used to
make predictions about natural phenomena: Drug testing is usually done
on animals as closely related to humans as possible.
On University of Chicago: Paper citation please? I'd like to read it.
If there's a paper on that in particular, I honestly don't know. I
was working in a lab there for several years before law school, and
that was one of the things presented at a departmental get-together.
A shame really. It's the kinda thing I'd really like to see in writing. Do you
know of any other papers that support speciation?
Actually do have some references in the old computer. I'll get them
to you when I get the hard drive out come Monday or Tuesday.
On animals used for drug testing: Not true. It's really more about cost than
anything else. Mice are just cheaper. And frankly, we don't know much at
all about the animal's genome. Or genome's in general for that matter.
But look at the story of the testing of thalidomide, for instance. If
we had used something more closely related to us than we had, it is
much more likely we would have seen the same drawbacks that were seen
in human fetuses.
I don't know that story, but I agree that using something closer to human
would help. However, I thought you were suggesting that "evolution can be used
to make predictions about natural phenomena" to which I take acception.
Evolution isn't used. Similarity is. There's an important difference here I
think.
You may be right. But here's how I view it: Evolutionary theory
predicts the similarities which we find. It also predicts
similarities or differences between organisms yet to be discovered.
For instance: Evolution predicts that the most conserved genes (or
proteins) will be those which perform the most basic and indispensable
functions. So far, this predictions has been borne out. But most
importantly, evolution allows for the discovery of something that
would run exactly counter to evolutionary theory, thereby destroying
the theory as it is. I'm not sure if you could term this making
"predictions about natural phenomena," but it seems to be quite the
same thing.
Further, similarity doesn't equate to ancestor. It's all much more
complicated.
Of course--but when there's genetic, biochemical, geopaleological,
phylogenetic, and who knows what other similarities, it certainly
points to a common ancestor, which is all I meant to say.
As far as genetic, biochemical and phylogeneic (those I am somewhat familiar
with) I don't think it necessarily does point to a common ancestor. Genetics -
we just don't know much at all. And there are so many cases where one single
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) can cause havoc - so even a tiny difference may
have radical phenotype implications. Biochemical - it's too low level and in
the end, based on the laws of physics. But we can't even simulate a protein
folding yet. Phylogenetic - it's based on (primarily) similarity associations.
Nice trees and good for quick analysis, but doesn't really say much else.
These are all truly useful techniques and disciplines. But they don't
necessarily support evolution.
Not individually, but when each clade generated by one technique looks
similar to the clades generated by other techniques, it does make the
argument for evolution that much stronger.
In reality, though, evolution is simply this: It is the best
scientific theory available to us. Years from now, it may be that
it's completely wrong. But based on the evidence we have, it is
pretty darn good.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam West" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
13 Dec 2003 09:53:55 AM |
|
|
In article <og6ltvcfembeiihuts82ir13ge02e2lksg@4ax.com>, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:25:03 GMT, (Adam West)
wrote:
In article <iq2ltv4tnjccm70caelibfm4c6pro6ocp4@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:51:45 GMT, (Adam West)
wrote:
In article <fjcktv4t71t068hlbtdlld4svloso6rm4v@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:06:51 -0500, Richard Baverstock
<baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote:
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested
or
is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science, all
things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have been
repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_ phenomena
that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can use
it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having wings).
Evolution has been observed: Labs at the University of Chicago (to
name just a portion) have observed the evolution of fruitflies from
one species to two distinct species. Also, evolution can be used to
make predictions about natural phenomena: Drug testing is usually done
on animals as closely related to humans as possible.
On University of Chicago: Paper citation please? I'd like to read it.
If there's a paper on that in particular, I honestly don't know. I
was working in a lab there for several years before law school, and
that was one of the things presented at a departmental get-together.
A shame really. It's the kinda thing I'd really like to see in writing. Do you
know of any other papers that support speciation?
Actually do have some references in the old computer. I'll get them
to you when I get the hard drive out come Monday or Tuesday.
That'd be great!
On animals used for drug testing: Not true. It's really more about cost than
anything else. Mice are just cheaper. And frankly, we don't know much at
all about the animal's genome. Or genome's in general for that matter.
But look at the story of the testing of thalidomide, for instance. If
we had used something more closely related to us than we had, it is
much more likely we would have seen the same drawbacks that were seen
in human fetuses.
I don't know that story, but I agree that using something closer to human
would help. However, I thought you were suggesting that "evolution can be used
to make predictions about natural phenomena" to which I take acception.
Evolution isn't used. Similarity is. There's an important difference here I
think.
You may be right. But here's how I view it: Evolutionary theory
predicts the similarities which we find. It also predicts
similarities or differences between organisms yet to be discovered.
For instance: Evolution predicts that the most conserved genes (or
proteins) will be those which perform the most basic and indispensable
functions. So far, this predictions has been borne out. But most
importantly, evolution allows for the discovery of something that
would run exactly counter to evolutionary theory, thereby destroying
the theory as it is. I'm not sure if you could term this making
"predictions about natural phenomena," but it seems to be quite the
same thing.
Oh, I think evolution is making predictions. I don't deny that. And it really
does account for many things we observe. But there are other explanations of
the most basic functions being found any many organisms: they are important
for life to exist. I will try to find some more information on this from Ford
Doolittle, but I heard a talk by him last year at ISMB that was really
interesting. In it he basically made the point that what we see in the
phylogenetic tree is *not* pointing to a common ancestor, but to *different*
ancestors. The tree is more a graph if you will.
Further, similarity doesn't equate to ancestor. It's all much more
complicated.
Of course--but when there's genetic, biochemical, geopaleological,
phylogenetic, and who knows what other similarities, it certainly
points to a common ancestor, which is all I meant to say.
As far as genetic, biochemical and phylogeneic (those I am somewhat familiar
with) I don't think it necessarily does point to a common ancestor. Genetics -
we just don't know much at all. And there are so many cases where one single
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) can cause havoc - so even a tiny difference may
have radical phenotype implications. Biochemical - it's too low level and in
the end, based on the laws of physics. But we can't even simulate a protein
folding yet. Phylogenetic - it's based on (primarily) similarity associations.
Nice trees and good for quick analysis, but doesn't really say much else.
These are all truly useful techniques and disciplines. But they don't
necessarily support evolution.
Not individually, but when each clade generated by one technique looks
similar to the clades generated by other techniques, it does make the
argument for evolution that much stronger.
I don't think it necessarily does. There's alot of oversimplification going on
in the media. For example, you often hear we've sequenced the human genome,
but most people don't know that's based on about 5 people's genome, that it
isn't really 100% correct, and that we still don't know how many genes we
have - not to mention we hardly know a thing about how the central dogma of
molecular biology really works, how translation happens, how splice variants
occur, how many proteins there are, what they do, etc.
In reality, though, evolution is simply this: It is the best
scientific theory available to us. Years from now, it may be that
it's completely wrong. But based on the evidence we have, it is
pretty darn good.
Good, sure. But too many follow it without knowing the facts and draw
conclusions that it really doesn't support.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
13 Dec 2003 11:49:22 AM |
|
|
Richard Baverstock <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in
news:pan.2003.12.12.21.06.48.658435@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com:
There is no really good case against Darwin's basic insights.
It's not like we've never seen Evolution between species take place,
or found any of the thousands of intermediary fossils that MUST exist
for it to have happened. See the definition of "Science" below.
But it IS like that. Exactly like that. Unfortunately, creationist
apologists have gotten in the habit of lying a lot. There are plenty of
transitional sequences among the fossils we have found. Including a
growing collection of transitional fossils leading up to modern humans.
Moreover, we actually CAUSE evolution to happen these days. It's part of
the way we feed ourselves.
Whether they do or not, it is irrelevant to the actual scientific
observations.
mhmmm Scientific Observations -- note that, and see below.
Noted already that you have fallen for the lies of the liars.
This was never REALLY the case, though fundamentalists have
continually told this lie. The main reason evolution continues to be
upheld is because it is still the best scientific theory we have.
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group
of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly
tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions
about natural phenomena.
Scientific Theory: a theory derived from or used in science
Ok, so lets get this straight: according to the definition of Science,
all things science are observed (notice AND not OR). According to the
definition of theory, a theory is used to explain phenomena that have
been repeatedly tested or widely accepted AND can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
Yes, this is EXACTLY the case.
Therefore, scientific theory is an explanation of an _observed_
phenomena that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can
be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Yep!
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can
use it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having
wings).
Uh, first of all there is the BASIC fact of evolution. This is seen in
the fossil record's succession of ecologies over deep time and their
general phylogenetic sorting. This is what Darwin was trying to explain
with his theory of natural selection. He also predicted that a mechanism
of inheritance would be found. That has since occurred with the
discovery of DNA.
Creationists, at
best manage a blasphemous claim about the nature of God, at worst,
offer no theories whatever to explain the main evidence.
Show us the main evidence you speak of.
Today, the MAIN evidence is in the genes of extant species, which define
in rigorous mathematics a hierarchy of descent. When we see the same
mutated genes, no longer functional in humans and chimps, rendered that
way by viral insertions, not just once but hundreds of times, then we can
infer that these features are inherited from a common ancestor. The
alternative being proposed by creationists is a ludicrous blasphemy on
the very deity they claim they are defending.
Moreover, when you
examine THEIR motivation's roots, you find that it is the heresy of
sola scriptura ad litteram that is driving THEIR behaviour, not any
real love for God or truth.
Some people are like that yes. I am not one of them. I love God, and
truth. (btw, could you translate that uhhh latin I'm guessing?)
It means that these latter day heretics derive their doctrine entirely
from a literalist interpretation of scripture. Nobody actually does this
in the most pure sense of the term because it would be too much cognitive
dissonance for even the most rabid deniers of reality. But creationists
come close to that kind of purity with their reification of the first
part of Genesis.
They pretend to be talking science, but what they are
REALLY trying to do is establish their private, literalist
interpretation of holy writ and its supremacy over all others and by
inference, the supremacy of their sterile cults over all other
denominations. They have no gods but themselves.
Well, now that would kinda contradict what we believe eh? When Cassie
(sorry, can't think of her last name) died in Columbine, when they
asked who was a Christian, and she stood up, she didn't believe. In
the face of death, she lived a lie. Right. That makes _alot_ of sense.
(In case some people don't get it, that was sarcasm. She stood up for
who she put her faith in -- Jesus, the son of the most high God, not
in herself)
You have, like a great many people, confused Christianity and
bibliolatry. Christians worship and follow Jesus Christ, not any book
and not any private interpretation of scripture. Young-earth Creationism
is not taught in the Nicene creed and is not a condition of salvation,
yet many either claim that it is or SAY it is not while acting like they
believe it is.
It any case, there can be NO excuse for fibbing about science (or
anything else) as part of a Christian witness.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Baverstock" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
13 Dec 2003 09:50:59 PM |
|
|
But it IS like that. Exactly like that. Unfortunately, creationist
apologists have gotten in the habit of lying a lot. There are plenty of
transitional sequences among the fossils we have found. Including a
growing collection of transitional fossils leading up to modern humans.
Moreover, we actually CAUSE evolution to happen these days. It's part of
the way we feed ourselves.
Like Lucy, the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, etc? Or are there some new
ones that havn't been shown to be frauds yet?
Causing evolution isn't the same as it occuring naturally. That is in
effect saying that a 747 could evolve naturally. We made it. We are making
these "evolved" things that you refer to. If you are referring to
genetically altered vegetables, a corn stalk is still a corn stalk and a
bean is still a bean.
Maybe I should have been more precise with my definition of Evolution. By
Evolution, I refer to the transition between species, not within a
species. Obviously our genes change, that is why there is a huge diversity
in how everyone looks and why there are different types of dogs for
example. Dog is still a dog though, and a human is still a human.
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can
use it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having
wings).
Uh, first of all there is the BASIC fact of evolution. This is seen in
the fossil record's succession of ecologies over deep time and their
general phylogenetic sorting. This is what Darwin was trying to explain
with his theory of natural selection. He also predicted that a mechanism
of inheritance would be found. That has since occurred with the
discovery of DNA.
OOO fossil record. Show me, please.
On the topic of similarities (inheritance). This, in my opinion shows a
common creator. For example: we have a wheelbarrow. One wheel. We have a
motorcycle: Two wheels. Tricycle: three wheels. These didn't "evolve" from
one another; they had a common creator (humans) who recognized that a
wheel works, and used it over and over again. I hope this was what you
were referreing to, if it wasn't, please correct me.
Today, the MAIN evidence is in the genes of extant species, which define
in rigorous mathematics a hierarchy of descent. When we see the same
mutated genes, no longer functional in humans and chimps, rendered that
way by viral insertions, not just once but hundreds of times, then we can
infer that these features are inherited from a common ancestor. The
alternative being proposed by creationists is a ludicrous blasphemy on
the very deity they claim they are defending.
What is this alternative?
It means that these latter day heretics derive their doctrine entirely
from a literalist interpretation of scripture. Nobody actually does this
in the most pure sense of the term because it would be too much cognitive
dissonance for even the most rabid deniers of reality. But creationists
come close to that kind of purity with their reification of the first
part of Genesis.
Thank you for the clarification.
You have, like a great many people, confused Christianity and
bibliolatry. Christians worship and follow Jesus Christ, not any book
and not any private interpretation of scripture. Young-earth Creationism
is not taught in the Nicene creed and is not a condition of salvation,
yet many either claim that it is or SAY it is not while acting like they
believe it is.
Well, seeing as how Jesus Christ references Genesis, does not the validity
of Genesis put the validity of Jesus Christ on the line? Someone can still
believe in an old earth, and Jesus Christ, however IMNSHO, I think that
this presents great problems to them.
It any case, there can be NO excuse for fibbing about science (or
anything else) as part of a Christian witness.
Fibbing would defeat the point.
--
With all of God's love,
Richard Baverstock
<baver@thebeever.com>
John 11:25-26: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the
life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou
this?" (KJV)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
14 Dec 2003 12:43:36 AM |
|
|
"Richard Baverstock" <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.14.03.50.56.221563@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com...
But it IS like that. Exactly like that. Unfortunately, creationist
apologists have gotten in the habit of lying a lot. There are plenty of
transitional sequences among the fossils we have found. Including a
growing collection of transitional fossils leading up to modern humans.
Moreover, we actually CAUSE evolution to happen these days. It's part
of
the way we feed ourselves.
Like Lucy, the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, etc? Or are there some new
ones that havn't been shown to be frauds yet?
I know of no reason to regard Lucy (a specimen of _Australopithecus
afarensis_) as a fraud. I am aware of creationist claims that the kneecap
of the fossil was found at a distant site, and added it to make it look as
though Lucy walked erect -- but if you look at actual photos of Lucy's
bones, you'll note that they don't include a kneecap at all. It is the
pelvis and the position of the foramen magnum (the opening for the spinal
cord) at the base, rather than rear, of the skull that support Lucy's
bipedality.
_Homo neanderthalensis_ is no longer regarded as a direct ancestor of
modern humans, but is clearly either a *very* strongly differentiated race
of our species (which has only one living race), or a different species
entirely. There are scores of Neanderthal specimens -- that's quite a
number of frauds, if you mean to suggest that the fossils themselves are
faked.
I suppose you regard _Homo erectus_ as a fraud, although I doubt you could
give a coherent reason for doing so. There are a number of skullcaps (and
other parts of the skull, and some fragments of postcranial anatomy) showing
clearly a hominid species with a brain intermediate in size between chimps
and modern humans, a very robust anatomy (we're talking musculature that
would make Schwartzenegger look puny), and erect posture.
There are several other fossil hominid species; you might wish to check out
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ for examples and discussion.
Causing evolution isn't the same as it occuring naturally. That is in
effect saying that a 747 could evolve naturally. We made it. We are making
these "evolved" things that you refer to. If you are referring to
genetically altered vegetables, a corn stalk is still a corn stalk and a
bean is still a bean.
A 747, in the biological sense, cannot evolve at all. Aircraft do not have
genes, do not reproduce, and do not compete for resources (aircraft
companies do, but that's not quite the same). Evolution is the change in
frequency of inheritable traits in populations over time, regardless of the
mechanism.
-- [snip of remarks clarified in a different post]
Evolution is _not_ observed, has _not_ been repeatedly tested, and can
_not_ be used to make predictions about natural phenomena (if you can
use it to make a prediction, let me know, I wouldn't mind having
wings).
Uh, first of all there is the BASIC fact of evolution. This is seen in
the fossil record's succession of ecologies over deep time and their
general phylogenetic sorting. This is what Darwin was trying to explain
with his theory of natural selection. He also predicted that a
mechanism
of inheritance would be found. That has since occurred with the
discovery of DNA.
OOO fossil record. Show me, please.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
On the topic of similarities (inheritance). This, in my opinion shows a
common creator. For example: we have a wheelbarrow. One wheel. We have a
motorcycle: Two wheels. Tricycle: three wheels. These didn't "evolve" from
one another; they had a common creator (humans) who recognized that a
wheel works, and used it over and over again. I hope this was what you
were referreing to, if it wasn't, please correct me.
By that argument, we ought to expect that if life had a common Designer,
that we should encounter similar structures wherever similar problems exist
to be solved. In many respects, this is not what we find in biology. We
see, e.g. that birds have a common wing design, whether they use those wings
as hovering hummingbirds, or soaring condors, or flapping insect-eating
swallows, or swimming, flightless penguins. Yet bats -- whether large
fruit-eaters or small, flapping insect-eaters, use a different design. It's
as though the Designer didn't think to install a common design on the small
insectivorous flyers, or the larger fruit-eating fliers.
Now, the function of cytochrome-c (an enzyme involved in energy production
in the cell) is served by a similar design in virtually every species. But
given that the function itself is identical, in humans, pine trees,
bacteria, etc., it's not clear why any variations in cytochrome-c should
exist at all. It's even less clear why they should be greatest between
species that differ most in other aspects of morphology (remember, none of
these differences is relevant to the chemistry of this enzyme) -- why, e.g.
human cytochrome-c should be identical to chimpanzee cytochrome-c, slightly
different from baboon cytochrome-c, and so forth.
These differences can be explained, in terms of evolution, by attributing
the greatest similarities to the most recent common ancestors, and the
greatest differences to more ancient common ancestors of more distantly
related groups. The wings of all birds share similarities, despite
differences of function, because they inherited wings from a winged
ancestor. The wings of bats are different, because the last common ancestor
of bats and birds did not have wings; bats had to, as it were, "reinvent the
wheel" using a different set of mutations from a different starting point.
Evolution couldn't just recognize a working design and copy it to a new
group of fliers, as a designer specially creating each "kind" could.
Today, the MAIN evidence is in the genes of extant species, which define
in rigorous mathematics a hierarchy of descent. When we see the same
mutated genes, no longer functional in humans and chimps, rendered that
way by viral insertions, not just once but hundreds of times, then we
can
infer that these features are inherited from a common ancestor. The
alternative being proposed by creationists is a ludicrous blasphemy on
the very deity they claim they are defending.
What is this alternative?
That the Designer put near-identical (just different enough to support a
tree of descent) stretches of DNA in unrelated creations, even though these
stretches of DNA serve no discernable purpose, certainly aren't necessary
(since other species do fine without them), and look *exactly* like the sort
of results we would expect from common descent of humans and other primates.
You could posit some subtle, unknown purpose of such a design -- except that
an all-knowing Creator could have achieved just about any purpose without
creating the exact appearance of common ancestry -- unless tricking us into
believing that common ancestry was true *was* the subtle, unknown purpose.
It means that these latter day heretics derive their doctrine entirely
from a literalist interpretation of scripture. Nobody actually does
this
in the most pure sense of the term because it would be too much
cognitive
dissonance for even the most rabid deniers of reality. But creationists
come close to that kind of purity with their reification of the first
part of Genesis.
Thank you for the clarification.
You have, like a great many people, confused Christianity and
bibliolatry. Christians worship and follow Jesus Christ, not any book
and not any private interpretation of scripture. Young-earth
Creationism
is not taught in the Nicene creed and is not a condition of salvation,
yet many either claim that it is or SAY it is not while acting like they
believe it is.
Well, seeing as how Jesus Christ references Genesis, does not the validity
of Genesis put the validity of Jesus Christ on the line? Someone can still
believe in an old earth, and Jesus Christ, however IMNSHO, I think that
this presents great problems to them.
It any case, there can be NO excuse for fibbing about science (or
anything else) as part of a Christian witness.
Fibbing would defeat the point.
--
With all of God's love,
Richard Baverstock
<baver@thebeever.com>
John 11:25-26: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the
life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou
this?" (KJV)
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
14 Dec 2003 06:58:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:43:36 -0600, "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
"Richard Baverstock" <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.14.03.50.56.221563@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com...
But it IS like that. Exactly like that. Unfortunately, creationist
apologists have gotten in the habit of lying a lot. There are plenty of
transitional sequences among the fossils we have found. Including a
growing collection of transitional fossils leading up to modern humans.
Moreover, we actually CAUSE evolution to happen these days. It's part
of
the way we feed ourselves.
Like Lucy, the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, etc? Or are there some new
ones that havn't been shown to be frauds yet?
I know of no reason to regard Lucy (a specimen of _Australopithecus
afarensis_) as a fraud.
It is a fraud to say that Lucy is man's ancestor. Lucy
was a three foot high, tree dwelling monkey.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said
He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
15 Dec 2003 10:02:13 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in
news:ep1qtv84sn2em9joggfar26g2dmr1c3bmr@4ax.com:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:43:36 -0600, "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
"Richard Baverstock" <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.14.03.50.56.221563@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com...
But it IS like that. Exactly like that. Unfortunately,
creationist apologists have gotten in the habit of lying a lot.
There are plenty of transitional sequences among the fossils we
have found. Including a growing collection of transitional
fossils leading up to modern humans. Moreover, we actually CAUSE
evolution to happen these days. It's part
of
the way we feed ourselves.
Like Lucy, the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, etc? Or are there some
new ones that havn't been shown to be frauds yet?
I know of no reason to regard Lucy (a specimen of _Australopithecus
afarensis_) as a fraud.
It is a fraud to say that Lucy is man's ancestor. Lucy
was a three foot high, tree dwelling monkey.
Lucy was NOT a monkey and is very clearly a hominid. Telling fibs won't
make that skeleton change into something it's not. Nor is Lucy the only
fossil of her species. There are quite a number of them now.
But then creationists, when confronted with unpleasant (for their heresy)
facts, often tend to try to lie their way out of the difficulty rather
than confront it. It's because their heretical belief system causes them
to utter false prophecies and they cannot bring themselves to admit
error.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution -Why Some Scientists Accept It |
15 Dec 2003 12:54:46 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<ep1qtv84sn2em9joggfar26g2dmr1c3bmr@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:43:36 -0600, "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
"Richard Baverstock" <baver@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.14.03.50.56.221563@the_NO_SPAM_beever.com...
But it IS like that. Exactly like that. Unfortunately, creationist
apologists have gotten in the habit of lying a lot. There are plenty of
transitional sequences among the fossils we have found. Including a
growing collection of transitional fossils leading up to modern humans.
Moreover, we actually CAUSE evolution to happen these days. It's part
of
the way we feed ourselves.
Like Lucy, the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, etc? Or are there some new
ones that havn't been shown to be frauds yet?
I know of no reason to regard Lucy (a specimen of _Australopithecus
afarensis_) as a fraud.
It is a fraud to say that Lucy is man's ancestor. Lucy
was a three foot high, tree dwelling monkey.
You forgot the most important conclusion about Lucy. Unlike monkeys, she
was bipedal.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
