Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[GostHacked]

Canadians are real.

Hmm almost 300 posts in just over a week. All with no substance to them at all.

I kindly as you to gtfo of this thread.

[ToadBrother]

After all is said....the fact is:

ID theory vs the theory of Evolution, both present their own arguments and rebuttals. Each one trying to refute the other. It's a matter similar to.... HE SAID - SHE SAID.

No, it's a matter of science vs. vacuous arguments from incredulity sexed up with pseudo-mathematical tripe. Even Michael Behe, who is one of the chief formulators of Intelligent Design, doesn't deny evolution or Common Descent.

Some of you said "oh betsy you're a creationist, so therefore you'll refuse to acknowledge and see what we're saying."

Well, I can say the same thing to you: You are Atheists, or more Atheists-than Agnostics....your belief lie solely on the premise that there is no God. So of course you'll refuse to acknowledge and see what ID theory is saying. More so, acknowledgement of ID means KABOOM to your faith!

Face it, you've got more....or should I say everything to lose.....by acknowledging the existence of Design. You're fighting for the survival of your faith!

Evolution is not atheism. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God. This is true of biology, chemistry, and every other science out there.

So let's not kid around. Be mature enough to at least acknowledge that using my belief as an argument smacks of....desperation....lack of any sensible rebuttals....and so childish.

You're a Creationist. By definition, you don't accept entire branches of science simply because of your literalistic interpretations of the Bible.

Anyway, just so to accomodate your silly argument that since I'm a believer of God therefore I cannot be objective about it.....I gave you the view of one who could be really objective about the whole thing regarding this: A PPHILOSOPHER (of course he'll use reason, logic and rational thinking)....and he's an ATHEIST to boot!

This is a false dichotomy. They are many rather well known religious people who accept evolution. It's not because you believe in God that you refuse to accept evolution, it's because of your particular theological leanings.

Now, unless you can provide some actual references in peer reviewed or primary literature where evolution is stated to disprove God, or somehow bolster atheism, I think you'd better consider very hard that you may in fact be spreading what is ultimately a falsehood.

[ToadBrother]

Observations are themselves based on mental representations.

Ah yes, the final defense of the Creationist, epistemological nihilism.

[benny]

Ah yes, the final defense of the Creationist, epistemological nihilism.

Idealism rather.

[ToadBrother]

Idealism rather.

Call it what you like, but if you're only defense of your world view, or final critique of someone else's, amounts to a solipsistic argument, then you're simply advocating epistemological nihilism; all knowledge becomes suspect, and ultimately worthless.

[DogOnPorch]

Call it what you like, but if you're only defense of your world view, or final critique of someone else's, amounts to a solipsistic argument, then you're simply advocating epistemological nihilism; all knowledge becomes suspect, and ultimately worthless.

I already asked benny if he'd let me shoot an arrow at him using the logic that an arrow goes halfway to its target...then halfway again...then halfway again...then halfway again...never quite reaching the target. He declined. Too bad as I was really looking forward... A nihilist by convenience.

[ToadBrother]

I already asked benny if he'd let me shoot an arrow at him using the logic that an arrow goes halfway to its target...then halfway again...then halfway again...then halfway again...never quite reaching the target. He declined. Too bad as I was really looking forward... A nihilist by convenience.

Most Creationists are. They aren't actually epistemological nihilists, it's just a final temper tantrum they throw when they've got nothing else left to say.

[M.Dancer]

Creationists are like 911 tr00thers. They ignore everything that doesn't support their beliefs, hammer square facts into round holes and declare victory.... personally I find discussing the subject to be a waste of time and energy.

[GostHacked]

Creationists are like 911 tr00thers. They ignore everything that doesn't support their beliefs, hammer square facts into round holes and declare victory.... personally I find discussing the subject to be a waste of time and energy.

Your post amuses me.

[benny]

Call it what you like, but if you're only defense of your world view, or final critique of someone else's, amounts to a solipsistic argument, then you're simply advocating epistemological nihilism; all knowledge becomes suspect, and ultimately worthless.

With his Allegory of the Cave, Plato became the first idealist philosopher and the first philosopher of knowledge.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html

[ToadBrother]

With his Allegory of the Cave, Plato became the first idealist philosopher and the first philosopher of knowledge.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html

So are you gonna let him shoot the arrow at you or not?

[benny]

So are you gonna let him shoot the arrow at you or not?

It is science that has a problem with movement.

[ToadBrother]

It is science that has a problem with movement.

No, it's you who has a problem formulating coherent thoughts. Someone quoted that wonderful bit from A Fish Called Wanda where Wanda tears into Otto over Otto's frequent moronic statements about philosophy, and that seems to apply amply to you. I doubt very much you know anything about science, philosophy or anything else. You're just a crackpot on a newsgroup.

[M.Dancer]

I think we can all agree Benny is a half baked half wit.

[benny]

No, it's you who has a problem formulating coherent thoughts. Someone quoted that wonderful bit from A Fish Called Wanda where Wanda tears into Otto over Otto's frequent moronic statements about philosophy, and that seems to apply amply to you. I doubt very much you know anything about science, philosophy or anything else. You're just a crackpot on a newsgroup.

frustrated!

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I think we can all agree Benny is a half baked half wit.

Agreed

[benny]

You're just a crackpot on a newsgroup.

I'm on a forum which is a more intense gathering than a newsgroup.

[DogOnPorch]

I think we can all agree Benny is a half baked half wit.

Well...to be fair...he has smarts...just when it comes to this forum, he talks in rhyme...which is annoying anyway you cut it.

betsy is what I would call a zealot. She would have been a dangerous person in the witch burning era of the 1600s. Perhaps even a dangerous type of person in this age given the right tools. She's the very type I 'worry' about getting involved in school boards and such. A concerned parent (read: bully) with a reasonable suggestion of teaching both science and religion in the same class, for example. It's only fair...right?

Evolution vs. Creationism: Is Hearing Both Sides Fair?

I truely would like to hear a creationist's explanation of a trilobite...other than it being a random shape in the rocks as benny suggested. There are, of course, millions of trilobite fossils.

[benny]

So are you gonna let him shoot the arrow at you or not?

Paradoxes are puzzling for scientists, not for people who perform leaps of faith.

[DogOnPorch]

Paradoxes are puzzling for scientists, not for people who perform leaps of faith.

See what I mean??

[benny]

See what I mean??

Leap to avoid arrows!

[DogOnPorch]

Leap to avoid arrows!

Worked at Crecy.

[WIP]

Hijacked my foot! You mean because you cannot dictate and confine the discussion to how you want it to be played. That after all your "authoritative-sounding" extrapolations....the truth about the obviously failing theory of evolution just won't stay hidden in the closet!

If you're offended, too bad! Your "evidence" consists of anti-evolution claims from your creationist websites mixed in with attacks on the character of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. To you, this somehow constitutes as evidence for creation.

I asked you at least five times to explain the data from examinations of endogenous retroviruses and the ubiquitous protein - Cytochrome C, using creation or intelligent design theory, and you dodged the question each time with something totally unrelated. If you're going to advocate a hypothesis that claims major animal groups were designed and created separately, then you have to find a plausible explanation for those and other results that lead 99.9999999% of biologists to conclude that all life on Earth - including plants, animals, eukaryote and archaea bacteria, all came from a common origin.

The theory of evolution displaced creationism in the scientific world, over 150 years ago. Trying to return to the old creation theory means explaining how it could provide a better explanation for the data gathered by biologists, archaeologists and palenontologists over the years. The reason your sources don't bother trying to build a theory of creationism, and instead devote all of their attention to attacking the theory of evolution and by association - the scientific community, is because they are opposed to science and all learning that challenges the authenticity of their literal interpretations of ancient mythology. Your heroes want to lead the way back to a new dark age....just as they did after the fall of the Roman Empire.

[WIP]

yup, the Universe is complicated and difficult enough to comphrehend as it is without making it a biziillion times more complex by inventing a mythical sky fairy who created it all...where did the sky fairy come from? who created the sky fairy?

I'm not sure if any theologians have taken a look at the metaverse theories that cosmologists are moving towards. If God created a metaverse with a near infinite number of universes being born, ageing and dying, that would make this God even more remote from the creation. On the other hand, if each universe has its own separate and unique God, it bears an eerie similarity to the Biocosm Theory of James Gardner -- that advanced, intelligent life forms could be creating bio-friendly universes.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that a sufficiently advanced civilization would appear to be godlike to us. One catch though -- the advanced alien creators of universes would be deistic gods, since they would not be able to enter the new universes that they seeded, and instead would be permanently cut off from interacting or learing about their new creations. Any intelligent creatures that evolved in the new universes would be left wondering about the hiddeness of God.

[betsy]

I asked you at least five times to explain the data from examinations of endogenous retroviruses and the ubiquitous protein - Cytochrome C, using creation or intelligent design theory, and you dodged the question each time with something totally unrelated.

I must admit that you seem to be very dedicated in following scientific developments...especially scientific "discoveries" that can be used to prop up the theory of evolution. I must admit that my interest in this topic is hardly anything compared to yours. But of course that's simply understandable.

You need proof. Whereas I, don't.

And with theory of ID, your own faith of Atheism is undeniably under siege.

So you are in defense-mode.

Very much in defense-mode. Desperately in defense-mode.

You have to.

Anyway, just to accomodate you....here's an excerpt that may or may not give the answer you are looking for.

It's a long read....but since its an important matter to you, I guess that wouldn't matter. Enjoy.

Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

Part 3 by Ashby Camp

Part 4

“Molecular Evidence” Part 5

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.

OUTLINE

PREDICTION 17: FUNCTIONAL MOLECULAR

EVIDENCE—PROTEIN FUNCTIONAL REDUNDANCY

Evolution can accommodate this phenomenon, but it can also accommodate its absence. If the amino acid sequence in such a protein was not the same or “similar” in two or more species, evolutionists simply would vary the time of divergence and/or the mutation rate, which is claimed to vary for different proteins, to account for the differences. Since neither universal common ancestry nor Neo-Darwinism predicts this phenomenon, they cannot be falsified by its absence or confirmed by its presence.

The real argument being made here is theological, not scientific. The claim is that, since allegation that God could employ countless arrangements of amino acids in the God could make cytochrome c with countless arrangements of amino acids, he would not have used an identical or similar series of amino acids in the cytochrome c of separately created species. Of course, even if that were true, it would not establish the claim of universal common ancestry (because, as pointed out above, divine creation is not the only theoretical alternative to universal common ancestry). But more importantly, the claim combines an uncertain factual premise with an unprovable theological assertion.

The construction of cytochrome c (or other proteins) ignores the possibility that the gene coding for cytochrome c may also be involved in the production of numerous other proteins. As noted previously, this possibility was discovered through the recent sequencing of the human genome. Though humans may have as many as 300,000 proteins, they have only about 30,000 genes (see footnote 17 under Prediction 7 [Part 2]). As J. Craig Venter of Celera Genomics explained in the press conference announcing the sequencing of the human genome:

[O]ur understanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The small number of genes—some 30,000—supports the notion that we are not hard wired. We now know the notion that one gene leads to one protein, and perhaps one disease, is false.

One gene leads to many different protein products that can change dramatically once they are produced. We know that some of the regions that are not genes may be some of the keys to the complexity that we see in ourselves. We now know that the environment acting on our biological steps may be as important in making us what we are as our genetic code. (Bethell, 52.)

When asked immediately after the press conference about Venter’s suggestion that one gene could give rise to ten proteins, James Watson (of DNA fame) said, “Some genes can give rise to 50 different proteins.” (Bethell, 56.) As summed up by the Washington Post, “The way these genes work must therefore be far more complicated than the mechanism long taught.” (Bethell, 52.)

If the gene for cytochrome c, for example, does more than code for that particular protein, then its other functions may influence the order of its codons and thus influence the order of amino acids in cytochrome c. Without knowing all that a gene does within an organism and how it accomplishes those functions, one cannot know the gene’s design constraints and therefore cannot know the corresponding constraints on amino acid sequences.