betsy

Hey Benny, I'm a little lost with this fellow Cybercoma. Isn't he a hardcore Atheist? Detests religion and doesn't believe in God or a god? Yet twice now I've seen him refer to the word HAMURABI. He wields it about as an unquestionable one-word answer! Like this: Well, according to Wiki....

Are we extrapolating?

WIP....WIP.... That long rant about my faith won't do. I never denied what I am and what I believe. Although I am a Creationist - I don't think I ever did debate about it with anyone. The only times I mentioned about it or my belief, is when I was pointedly asked specifically about it. And usually in my reply I clarified that I was answering based on my faith. How many times did I clearly state that "my faith has nothing to do with this?" I think it was with a discussion somewhere with Gosthack. My conclusion is that, between the theory of Evolution and the theory of ID, the theory of ID is far more convincing. I've supported it with strong evidence. Now, that's the argument. Check out the three threads and see I am consistent in that. You've presented a "proof" from this podcast. And I've explained and shown you why that is not proof......it's just another extrapolation this guy's trying to pass for a fact. You are using my belief as a means to deflect ...because you know what I said is true. "SEEMS LIKE"....."MORE LIKELY"...."WHAT IFs".......and HYPOTHESES....are just speculations.

What can I say? You're a real fundamentalist....a true believer of your faith! I'm not interested in what you believe is true or not true. Heck, the last time I saw you....you were talking to yourself, trying to figure out how to understand.... And you were humming Twilight Zone!

At least it's out on the table what this guy's trying to advance! He is a perfect example of the article I'd given you regarding scientists who don't give you exactly what they know. Yes, your podcast article of WHAT IFs. Another fantasy - extrapolation - that's being advanced to be accepted as fact! And who's the target audience? Those who wouldn't know from squat! The easily-hoodwinked. The gullible. Evolution 1o1 my foot! This is BRAINWASH 101! "A little more complex".....yet so simply "explained." Then he goes... No kidding. SEEMS VERY LIKELY! Seems very likely is not a fact....but obviously, this is being advanced as a fact. WHAT IF????? What if????? But what if it's not? But what if it's not? A clear example of EXTRAPOLATION! And you're gobbling it up as a fact! You, my friend, are blinded by your faith! Guys, when reading a supposed "proof" by any evolutionist scientist....look for those key words! The excerpts were taken from: http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/...endogenous.html

Extrapolate - to arrive at (conclusions or results) by hypothesizing from known facts or observations. To speculate as to consequences on the basis of (known facts or observations). MANY OF US were taught these Darwinian extrapolatory links to the evolutionary narrative in high school, usually with photographs of the European peppered moth (Biston betularia), which became darker with environmental pollution and thus less conspicuous to bird predators in industrial areas. The same idea springs up in discussions of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or of the transformation of the beaks of finches under the pressure of drought. We were taught in high school that these observable biologic changes display evolution "in front of your eyes." But not everyone agreed with this conclusion. Many criticized the Darwinists for extrapolating too far, and now the Darwinists confess that actual, observable variation--whether in the barnyard or in nature--demonstrates only the capacity of a species population to vary within limits Scientists should tell what they actually know and how they know it, as distinct from what they believe and are trying to advance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Prot...7xndpp.asp?pg=2

WIP, So you love to point out the "creationist" site that I gave. But what about the link on this podcast you pin your hope on??? EVOLUTION 101! Not only is it an evolution site....but the argument of this "biologist" guy - at least that's what he claim he is - is so full of reference to TALKORIGIN! I have one word for you: E X T R A P O L A T I O N. Check out the article on DARWIN: Teaching Darwin in School. Click the link and read the whole article that explains about this. Btw, check the credentials of the author. Easily VERIFIABLE. He's not just someone who could quite easily claim to be a psychiatrist on his "profile".

How will he know an idea is "stupid" if he doesn't have the open-mindedness to at least take a look at it, listen to the arguments etc.., Yes, it might cause distraction from the theories - "they are trying to advance" ( a good way of putting it to describe evolutionists) - but if the goal is for the honest pursuit of scientific truth, the true scientist will not just determinedly tunnel his research on one aimed conclusion in mind! You're describing a fanatic. Not a true scientist. Boy does this sound so objective. See how you contradict yourself in one statement. We know that he'll never consider the evidence that goes against him....he doesn't have an "open-mind."

Quite an interesting read that explains about the extrapolations of Darwin. Long article. Excerpts from.... Teaching Darwin Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. by Paul McHugh 03/28/2005, Volume 010, Issue 26 "EIGHTY YEARS AGO THIS SUMMER, the Scopes trial upheld the effort of the state of Tennessee to exclude the teaching of Darwinian evolution from Tennessee classrooms. The state claimed Darwinism contradicted orthodox religion. But times change, and recently a federal judge ruled that a three-sentence sticker stating that "evolution is a theory not a fact" must be removed from Georgia high school biology texts because it contradicts orthodox science and represents an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Both legal mandates--no Darwin yesterday, nothing but Darwin today--look less like science than exercises in thought control. The leading Darwinist in America, Ernst Mayr, describes the method: Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science--the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain. After noting Mayr's fearless use of the words "tentative," "philosophy," and "theory," one surely is justified in responding: No wonder Darwinism, in contrast to other scientific theories, seems an argument without end! It's history--indeed, history captured by that creative-writing-class concept narrative. If historical narrative--and the "philosophy" it propounds--are what justify the Darwinian opinions, the textbook writers of Georgia can legitimately claim that Darwin's "tentative reconstruction" is not only a theory but a special kind of theory, one lacking the telling and persuasive power that theories built on hypothesis-generated experiment and public prediction can garner. DARWIN HIMSELF UNDERSTOOD that questions raised about his narrative had substance. In Chapter IX of On the Origin of Species, he noted that the fossil record had failed to "reveal any . . . finely graduated organic chain" linking, as he proposed, existing species to predecessors. He called the record "imperfect" and went so far as to say, "This, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Darwin presumed that the problem rested on the "poorness of our palaeontological collections" and would be answered when more of "the surface of the earth has been geologically explored." In the same Chapter IX, Darwin also acknowledged that the fossil record does suggest the "sudden appearance of whole groups of allied species all at once." He noted that if this fact were to stand, and "numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, . . . [it] would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." He forestalled that fatal blow to his theory by asking his readers not to "over-rate the perfection of the geological record." MANY OF US were taught these Darwinian extrapolatory links to the evolutionary narrative in high school, usually with photographs of the European peppered moth (Biston betularia), which became darker with environmental pollution and thus less conspicuous to bird predators in industrial areas. The same idea springs up in discussions of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or of the transformation of the beaks of finches under the pressure of drought. We were taught in high school that these observable biologic changes display evolution "in front of your eyes." But not everyone agreed with this conclusion. Many criticized the Darwinists for extrapolating too far, and now the Darwinists confess that actual, observable variation--whether in the barnyard or in nature--demonstrates only the capacity of a species population to vary within limits. The original species picture reappears when either the farmer's selective enterprise or the natural environmental pressure on the species population stops and crossbreeding recurs. The finches' beaks never turn into pelican pouches but revert to their original shape when the rains arrive. No farmer or experimental scientist has ever produced a new species by cultivating variations. The peppered moth didn't become a butterfly, and the closely and repeatedly studied fruit fly, despite gazillions of generations producing varieties in the laboratory, always remains a fruit fly. Again, Darwin himself was more honest than his followers have been. He knew the distinction between variations that could be observed and those posited according to the theoretical extrapolation that was key to his narrative. For this reason he repeatedly notes, as in Chapter IV of On the Origin of Species, that "natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a few of the inhabitants." In this way he puts the process of species generation outside the reach of experimental demonstration. Perhaps it's enough for the friendly guardian of the Darwinian narrative to propose that the genes that control the switching on and off of other genes simply changed in some random way, allowing humans to branch off the primate line. And maybe they did. But again, notice, this is a molecular narrative, not a proposition demonstrable by experiment. It's a story that fits the facts--but so might another. If Michael J. Behe, the cellular biochemist who wrote Darwin's Black Box, proposes that the complicated molecular mechanisms sustaining the integrity of the cell seem impossible to explain as the result of random variations, the president of the National Academy of Sciences counters by pronouncing, "Modern scientific views of the molecular organization of life are entirely consistent with spontaneous variation and natural selection driving a powerful evolutionary process." That is, he affirms the Darwinian narrative by restating it, not by offering compelling proof that it is true. Lots of views are consistent with the cell's complexity--including the view Behe explores, that an intelligent creator designed the cell to work. But cellular formation needs identified generative mechanisms, not simply a consistent narrative, to explain it--a problem both for those who call on Darwin and those who call on an "intelligent designer." Official science is too much at ease with the Darwinian narrative--primarily because it can't come up with anything better. As a result, many scientists are driven by an ideological bias and by fear--the thought that any challenge to the narrative will plunge the republic back into some dark age. Richard Dawkins and his associate Niall Shanks predict that, as Shanks wrote, "discriminatory, conservative Christian values [will be imposed] on our educational, legal, social and political institutions" should the public schools permit any airing of questions about the Darwinian narrative. This fear is way over the top, but it's of long standing, and in the past has provoked some loss of judgment among scientists. Scientists as they engage in dialogue with others should abhor attempts to close off the conversation by excessive claims for any privileged access to truth. Scientists should tell what they actually know and how they know it, as distinct from what they believe and are trying to advance. If all of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, accepted that guiding principle, the 80-year history of attempts to use law to stifle the teaching of science--stretching as it does from the courtrooms of Dayton, Tennessee, to those of Cobb County, Georgia--could perhaps finally be brought to a close." Paul McHugh is a university distinguished service professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and former psychiatrist in chief of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Prot...7xndpp.asp?pg=2

Oh boy, here comes the archeologist in you...dig, dig,dig, dig all those dirt! You sound like a broken record already. So the "Christian settlers" had some blemish. Did that have anything to do with our discussion??? We're still stuck with the same law, aren't we? It's still a crime to kill, to steal, commit perjury, and to swindle your neighbor!

Hah! I'll put my response where it's appropriate.....if I'll respond at all. :angry: You're losing your coooooool.

Well, you're figuring out your own understanding...your rational thinking. Don't involve me. Heck, what do I know how your mind works. That's your problem. Cop-out! Translation: Darn! Betsy is right!

I hate to think that you're taking this out of context....so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood. That quote: ... was an answer to your statement. And yes, he's no longer open-minded - as a scientist should. Dawkins' focus is in his faith - Atheism, and in his vicious attack on Faith in God! "In the roiling debate between science and religion, it would be hard to exaggerate the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins. The British scientist is religion’s chief prosecutor -- “Darwin’s rottweiler,” as one magazine called him – and quite likely the world’s most famous atheist. Speaking to the American Humanist Association, Dawkins once said, “I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.” Not surprisingly, these kinds of comments have made Dawkins a lightning rod in the debate over evolution. While he’s a hero to those who can’t stomach superstition or irrationality, his efforts to link Darwinism to atheism have upset the scientists and philosophers who are trying to bridge the gap between science and religion." http://www.wpr.org/book/dawkins.html His fundamentalist Atheistic belief had turned him into a.....loose cannon.

It's not irrelevant if he's talking about his theory. And in the letters to Asa Gray, definitely they were talking about his theory, Design and Teleology. They were debating about it, for crying out loud! And at some point Darwin capitulated and agreed with Gray! "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design" http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html There, the letter exchanges between the two are on that site. See for yourself.... Yes. That's why he was being honest and gave this advice in the introduction of his book, Origin of Species: And apparently he wrote something in the last chapter of his other book about Orchids, which pleased Asa Gray: Obviously, present day scientists who veered away from the theory of evolution, and instead pursued the theory of ID were, most likely, only following the clues and advice of Darwin. The conflict is in Darwin! He kept waivering and see-sawing between his theory and the possibility of Design! His public stature is not irrelevant to the influence he wields! See? Darwinism is still very much around inspite of its flaws. How many among the present-day scientists who support the theory of ID were inspired or influenced by Darwin's admission to its possibility? That intro of Darwin from Origin is on the website of ID, btw. See the highly possible influence and effect of Darwin's "see-sawing" between the two theories? Evolution and Intelligent Design....duking it out.

Oh! You mean the debates with scientists? Darwin's pal, Asa Gray? But aren't questions, arguments and rebuttals a big part of science? If these don't serve any purpose at all....why would scientists waste their time indulging? If these scientists ended up getting influenced by their debate opponents, some of whom ended up converting to Christianity or abandoning atheism for deism.....then the arguments of their opponents must be overwhelmingly convincing to have them act upon life-changing decisions. I cannot agree with you that creationism is only a possibility. But I can assure you that Darwinism isn't a possibility.

Holy Molly....if this is an example of an outright dismissal, I'm curious to see the length of your post when you actually have something to say. That very sounds like you're supporting ID....or theo-evolution. Darwin, Dawkins and Flew....admitted to the possibility of Design. So what problem are you talking about? And what unrelated questions are those? Darn, all I did was show some evidence that these three men admitted to the possibility of ID. I know, I know, this is bad news. Well... Rant at Darwin for his admission ...and for leaving a long trail of evidence through his letters. Curse at Antony Flew for his damning criticism of evolution, for turning his back on atheism and for his traitorous public endorsement of ID. Burn the effigy of Dawkins for that blasted debate blooper....and public admission in a recorded interview. But please....don't lynch the poor messenger. Hey Moll, who do you think is more credible.....you? Or Antony Flew?

But we're not talking about Christian religion. We're talking about the theory of ID vs the theory of evolution. It is indeed sort of hilarious, I must say....the way you use the word "attack" in this particular discussion....and the way you try to bring in Christianity - and all its sub groups - into this. This gives an image of a drowning man. All I did was state some facts about Darwin, Dawkins and Flew....all backed by sources, which I've provided. And that's where the blind faith I was talking about comes in: the evidence is right there in front of you. You refuse to look at it in an objective way. You refuse to look at it and study how come these men came up to the point of admission. Aren't you at least curious??? These three men - key players in evolution - all admitted to the possibility of ID! Several scientists have abandoned atheism and offered other theories. Flew abandoned atheism, criticized evolution, embraced deism and endorsed the theory of ID! So therefore, the theory of ID is far more convincing.

What's this got to do with the discussion????

If you don't believe in ID, then come up with another theory. Blind faith is keeping you clinging to an ancient theory that is proved to be wrong. Otherwise why don't you see the clear evidence?

What if. So far, the evidence is moving in the direction that shows the possibility of "Design." Enough evidence to make notable people of science to consider and become convinced of that possibility. From Darwin (from a century ago)....to the present! And the present had brought forth even more robust and compelling argument and evidence that support the ID theory...so much more so that made a hardcore long-time legendary atheist to renounce evolution and endorse ID. Assuming - and I stress the word, assuming - that the theory of evolution is proved to be true, why should that affect my faith? Will it prove that there is no God? No. However, the proof of the existence of Intelligent Design (which is being proven and not just an assumption - but in fact, shows compelling evidence), that suggest the existence of God....will surely put into dilemma the faith of those who want to insist to believe that there is no God. Anyway, let's not get into these assumptions. Let's focus on what's really happening. ID theory - Intelligent Design or Designer or a god or God - is giving insurmountable evidence to prove itself convincing. You see, no offense but here is where you don't get it. What is the point for me - a regular joe, not even a "layman" in the realm of science - to consider and weigh all the arguments of the fundametalist evolutionists? Just imagine how I will have to wade through all that....sorting out through all the muck. As DogonPorch said in one of the threads here, children build sandcastles and others will always want to knock it down. Even if I attempt to follow and understand all the various arguments and rebuttals by evolutionist-scientists (and there are many and on-going)....how do I surely know that fundamentalist evolutionists - also meaning, atheists - are not distorting facts to support their arguments and discredit the other theory? Some of the arguments here by some non-religious people are already attempting to distort the discussion by throwing in arguments that really have nothing to do with what we're trying to discuss. Some resort to downright insults, some don't even contribute any to the discussion but just simply throw insults. They seem to act more like "sore-losers" than try to engage in honest and lively debate. Which only lend support to my reason below. The way I see it, fundamentalist evolutionists are fighting to keep their FAITH - not scientific truth - alive! That alone, is reason enough to question the credibility of their arguments since they have a very real motive: they're fighting for the survival of their faith. Why do I need to "consider" evolution....again, what's the point? Darwin himself, questioned this theory....AND lent support to the ID theory! His letters confirmed that. EVEN NEAR THE TIME OF HIS DEATH! The present-day scientists who not only broke off from the theory of evolution, but also abandoned atheism and set out to prove the theory of ID to be true. Just the fact that they renounced their faith in atheism is a strong proof how compelling the evidence for ID is! Then, there's the Philosopher Antony Flew....being a philosopher, I imagine he weighed all reasons and evidence and made his decision based on rational thinking. Again, his renouncement of atheism and conversion to deism, criticism of evolution, and endorsement of ID...all together, present strong proof how convincing ID theory is compared to evolution. And now, Dawkins himself....admits to considering the possibility of Design! That these men of science - who play key roles in the theory of evolution - should admit to the possibility of ID is definite proof that ID is far more convincing. Spanning a century. The key players in evolution - the movers and shakers - they all admitted to that possibility. What more evidence do I need? Perhaps you should consider and take a long hard look at ID. After all the onus is on you to find out what made leading men from your side of the fence to find it convincing enough that they considered and admitted to its possibility.

Since Darwin and Dawkins both suggested to the possibility of Design or God ....which supports the ID theory, and Antony Flew fully endorsed ID theory... You're suggesting Darwin, Antony Flew and Dawkins were not really Atheists. That all along they had faith. And that Darwin and Dawkins "willingly forgot about science altogether." They're fraud. So, the conclusion: The theory of evolution is nothing but a sham!

Sir Bandelot has a good reply to that. Besides, what about the other quotes? The other quotes given erases any doubt or confusion as to what Darwin was referring to. The title alone of that article I'd given from where these quotes were taken clearly says it all!

Forget the religious! They are driven by Faith! They believe and are confident that they are right! And by the looks of it, they are going to be proven right by science! Science is on its way to reconcile with religion. Darwin obviously looked at the theories. Darwin was in a long letter-exchanges with Asa Gray. I'm sure Darwin was not influenced by Gray without him (Darwin) really taking a good long and serious look at what was being discussed. Antony Flew was involved in a long debate with another (forgot his name but he's mentioned in that article I gave). Being a Philosopher to boot, and apparently a hard-core "legend" among atheists, I'm pretty sure he didn't just suddenly abandoned atheism, criticized evolution, and endorsed the ID theory without giving this a thorough study and weighing of evidence! Dawkins - in a debate - admitted to the possibility....although he back-tracked later on. BUT, in a personal interview, he did admit to considering the possibility of design or God. I'm sure he didn't just spout off twice without having thought of it at sometime. And for him to give an inch in that interview must mean that he gave it a good amount of thought - considering that his statement is a blow to his own theory! Given the stature of these men in the scientific field and philosophy....not to mention their particular role in the theory of evolution.....it only proved what we've been saying all along: Evolution is not a fact. It's only a theory. Between the two, ID is far more convincing.... What more clearer evidence do we need than that?

Let me explain...I am not forbidden to ask questions. The New testament had shown the apostles asking questions, doubting and their faith wavered - Christ patiently, although at times sounding exasperated, explained repeatedly. What I mean is that I've always taken it that GOD has no beginning and has no end. It comes with the faith. That's why to me, it was never a question. I understand that this is something difficult for atheists to comprehend. I think one has to know and understand the concept of God - from a believer's point of view - for it to be understood.

Guilty or not, I predict Dhalla will be pressured to resign....and the immense pressure will come from the Liberals. If this scandal happened during the time of Chretien, she would've survive it intact....they'd just let it die down. Ignatieff is determined to win in the next election. The Liberal Party is determined to get back into power. Having Dhalla around will only remind Canadians that the Liberal Party is synonymous with corruptions, abuse of power and sense of entitlement.