Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[betsy]

The flaws in evolution is quite clear. Disciples of the so-called Darwin's evolution, led by the atheist self-proclaimed messiah Dawkins, do not follow their own theory-creator's advice.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Clearly Darwin himself questions his own theory.

Even now, after all these years....nothing solid! You'd think with all the new technology it would've been much more easier to find an unrefuted and undeniable proof that all species came from one!

But nada!

This theory still remains only a theory - a theory that's proven untrue!

Questioned and refuted by other equally qualified scientists!

But of course, fundamentalist evolutionists led by Dawkins could not...and will never... accept the other theories by equally-qualified scientists who have other theories. For these theories hint on the possibility of a Creator. Which contradicts their Atheistic belief of non-God.

Darwin, as stated in his comment, in his genuine quest for scientific proof and being a true man of science, clearly wished to hear arguments and welcomed challenges. He spelt this as a "commandment" for finding what he said was, "a fair result."

Dawkins goes against Darwin. Dawkin's focus is no longer in seeking the scientific truth of origin. His purpose is to use his pseudo-science to uphold his own atheistic view.

Edited May 3, 2009 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Forget the flaws in evolution, your thinking is entirely flawed. If you're going to continue to trot out that Darwin quote after the previous two posters took you to school on it, then don't expect to be taken seriously. Is this some kind of running joke you're trying to play on the forum? You put your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA like a child. It's entirely clear that you have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method or how science works, meanwhile the defenders of research show that they thoroughly understand and reject your position. Then you continue to repeat the same stupid garbage that has been thoroughly dismantled. Get a clue already.

[benny]

Whatever your origin, quit everything and follow Jesus.

[Oleg Bach]

Whatever your origin, quit everything and follow Jesus.

Jesus expects you to lead and not follow..nor does he expect you to bow to him like an idol..he handed you the keys to open the door...and to continue with the plan... those who utter the name Jesus over and over again are infidels and use the lords name in vanity.

[Molly]

This thread is devoted to the feeding of the troll, Cybercoma.

I have to admit to finding it interesting to see the way the dogma operates/ the thinking processes, the points at which the 'La la la.' begins and ends.

(We are, after all, currently infested with that ilk. We didn't stamp out smallpox, for instance, without first understanding smallpox, what causes it and how it works.)

[Oleg Bach]

This thread is devoted to the feeding of the troll, Cybercoma.

I have to admit to finding it interesting to see the way the dogma operates/ the thinking processes, the points at which the 'La la la.' begins and ends.

(We are, after all, currently infested with that ilk. We didn't stamp out smallpox, for instance, without first understanding smallpox, what causes it and how it works.)

Yes - we have to understand how it works...Then evolutionists and creationist will become one common body. Both sides really don't give it enough thought. Both behave like fanatics and parrot slogans..YOU have to make an effort to understand - but it takes courage to go beyond our social and religious programming.

[benny]

Jesus expects you to lead and not follow..nor does he expect you to bow to him like an idol..he handed you the keys to open the door...and to continue with the plan... those who utter the name Jesus over and over again are infidels and use the lords name in vanity.

"I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won’t be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life." (John 8:12)

[Oleg Bach]

"I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won’t be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life." (John 8:12)

Young men you are strong for you have mastered evil" John also...Yes you follow but you do not bow or worship him - you take the message and move forward. I really can not imagine the Christ expecting to be raised up at our expense as an idol. His message once you understood it was one of rebellion and authority - that we are all Kings and Queens and the individual is sacred...It's about grand and glorious power over the state..kind of like leading from the bottom up..the just servant rules the master.

[GostHacked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

When mainstream scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] and/or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]

[benny]

It's about grand and glorious power over the state..

What is more relevant for this thread is that it's about grand and glorious power over the animal inside of us.

[betsy]

Excerpt from Antony Flew interview:

Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

The interviewer is Dr. Gary Habermas, a prolific philosopher and historian from Liberty University who has debated Flew several times. They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on the existence of God.

In January 2004, Flew informed Habermas that he had indeed become a theist. While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flew’s words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.” (7)

HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?

FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. (10) That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

HABERMAS: You very kindly noted that our debates and discussions had influenced your move in the direction of theism. (11) You mentioned that this initial influence contributed in part to your comment that naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing “a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.” (12) Then in your recently rewritten introduction to the forthcoming edition of your classic volume God and Philosophy, you say that the original version of that book is now obsolete. You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did you find most persuasive?

FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm

Edited May 4, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

"In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source." He also restated that he was not a Christian theist."

I think that "integrated complexity" is a romantic view of what is negentropy or negative entropy is.

[GostHacked]

Betsy, you have made me watch some vids the last few days. Here is what I find. I wonder how much creationsist views differ between religions.

Ken Hovind - Creationist. LOL tastic

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-84...hl=en&dur=3

Wonderfull series about creationism versus evolution

Part 1

Part 2

There are about 20 in this series

Dover Trials

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-40...trial&hl=en

[WIP]

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design. [/i]

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm

As soon as talk shifts to intelligent design, we've reached a scientific dead-end where supernatural forces that can't be studied become the explanation for natural phenomena. No scientist is likely to just throw up his hands, say godditit and abandon the subject as an area of research. Darwin had no knowledge of any natural means to explain life's origins, and Richard Dawkins would be just as aware of that fact as anyone who read Origin of the Species. Darwin was not trying to develop a theory that explains the origins of life, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that Darwin would insert God into that gap!

Dawkins advocates leaving that gap open to the relatively new field of Abiogenesis, that is developing ideas for naturalistic mechanisms that would lead from organic chemistry to RNA-based and then DNA-based life. I never heard of Anthony Flew before the hubub about his conversion to deism, but in that interview by Gary Habermas, he doesn't seem to have kept up to date with research designing artificial lifeforms which may provide clues, or abiogenesis hypotheses like: RNA World, Metabolism first model, Clay Theory Model, Panspermia or the Deep hot-biosphere model. http://www.bio-medicine.org/Biology-Defini...Origin_of_life/ This old philosopher seems as unaware of these areas of research as he also appears to be about cosmological theories trying to explain the apparent fine tuning of the universe by natural theories. So, Anthony Flew has given up and wants to leave some explanations to an impersonal creative force -- it's not likely that many biologists or cosmologists will follow that line of thinking and stop trying to push scientific research into the questions of origins.

[WIP]

Even now, after all these years....nothing solid! You'd think with all the new technology it would've been much more easier to find an unrefuted and undeniable proof that all species came from one!

But nada!

This theory still remains only a theory - a theory that's proven untrue!

Questioned and refuted by other equally qualified scientists!

Since you don't believe there are any practical applications to evolutionary biology, I expect you to stick to prayer if this swine flu in Mexico becomes a pandemic. If Tamiflu is in short supply, the creationists should not be in line for flu shots, since they don't believe that viruses can use the principles of mutation and natural selection to beat the immune systems of their hosts.

Now, if you can fill these pages with cut and paste from creationist sites, I'll take my turn to present a lengthy article on how are lives are effected by biologists developing new research using evolutionary principles:

Examples of evolutionary biology

Its study is important to new medical technologies.

Most people are unaware of uses of evolutionary biology. Public non-appreciation of evolutionary biology may depend as much on its perceived irrelevance as anything else. Yet, evolution, especially microevolution, has been fundamental to some social improvements this century, and it promises to be profoundly important to biomedical technology in the next generation. For example:

Some agricultural methods depend on evolution.

* Evolution underlies many improvements in agriculture (e.g., the artificial selection of crop strains and livestock breeds).

* A less well-known fact is that evolutionary principles were used to produce many of our best vaccines and that evolution also causes problems with the use of some of those vaccines.

* Some of the most promising areas for the future use of evolutionary biology lie in drug development and the biotechnology industry; patents worth vast amounts of money are based on ways of creating evolution (or avoiding evolution) in test tubes.

Evolution mechanisms made possible the polio vaccine.

Polio vaccine is an old example but it is a good one.

* The vaccine now used to immunize against the disease poliomyelitis is a live poliovirus that we eat.

* This live virus does not give us the disease (except to about 1-2 in a million people vaccinated) because it is genetically weakened so that our body can defeat it.

* This process of weakening is called attenuation, and it is an evolutionary process. The attenuated vaccine strains came from wild, virulent strains of poliovirus, but they were evolved by Albert Sabin to become attenuated. Essentially, he grew the viruses outside of humans, and as the viruses became adapted to those non-human conditions, they lost their ability to cause disease in people.

This method of attenuation has been used to create many live vaccines. Evolution was the good guy here because it helped us make the vaccine. But the role of evolution and evolutionary biology does not end here — evolution becomes the bad guy too.

Evolution can also destroy the effects of vaccine.

* When a person eats the attenuated virus, it infects his/her gut cells and starts doing what viruses do — making copies of itself.

* These viral progeny infect other cells in your gut, those in turn make other viral progeny, and so on, until you have a population of poliovirus growing inside your gut.

* Some of these viruses carry mutations, and some of those mutations (one or two in particular) restore most of the virulence to the virus.

* In your gut, these restored viruses may have a selective advantage over the weakened viruses, and in the course of a week or so after eating the vaccine, you begin shedding virus with restored virulence. In short, an evolutionary process inside your gut undoes Albert Sabin’s attenuation of the virus.

The harm in misunderstanding evolution

The evolution of drug resistance in bacteria is one of the simplest examples of evolution that we have. It is extremely relevant to medicine. And since it is a case of microevolution, it is an example that should be widely embraced. Yet many people profoundly misunderstand drug resistance. Even news reports from the BBC have gotten it wrong.

Bacteria evolve quickly to resist antibiotics.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an evolutionary phenomenon:

* heavy use of antibiotics selects bacteria that are genetically resistant to the drug

* with continued use of antibiotics, those resistant forms of the bacteria multiply and spread to other hosts

* eventually, resistant bacteria replace the population of once-sensitive bacteria.

In the minds of some people, however, the problem with misuse of antibiotics is that it can lead to a physiological tolerance in the person taking the drugs, so that antibiotics are no longer effective in that person. That is, they think that drugs become ineffective because of the person, not the bacterium. This erroneous, non-evolutionary view has serious ramifications, because it can lead to an unwarranted complacency about antibiotic misuse. Because drug resistance is evolutionary, your neighbor’s misuse of antibiotics can injure or kill you. The unregulated use of antibiotics in, say, Europe can bring strains for which we have no defense to the U.S. and our hospitals. It is not simply a matter of the proper use of antibiotics in each of us individually; it is a matter of everyone’s proper use of antibiotics.

It is tempting to speculate that the common, though not universal, public failure to understand the evolutionary basis of drug resistance reflects a widespread ignorance of evolutionary principles, even principles professed to be uncontroversial. The fact that this misunderstanding is not confined to the western side of the Atlantic suggests that political opposition to the teaching of evolution is not the only cause.

Evolution helps us track pathogens and improve medications.

Modern applications of evolutionary biology

There are numerous ways to apply evolutionary biology to our needs today, among them:

1. prolonging the life of drug/chemical resistant compounds

2. constructing evolutionary trees

3. pathogen tracking

4. industrial production of biochemicals and other agents

1. Drug resistance and chemical resistance in microbes, plants, and animals. In the latter half of this century, industry has been exceptionally good at providing compounds to kill viruses, bacteria, insects that eat crops and weeds that grow in crop fields. We even have an abundance of chemotherapy drugs to kill rogue cancer cells. Yet virtually without exception, our attempts to kill these organisms cause them to evolve resistance against the chemicals used to kill them. For example:

AIDS is an example of a virus that evolves to thwart its destruction.

Isolates of the AIDS virus with up to 15 different drug-resistance mutations are known, and the latest drugs are becoming ineffective.

Some strains of bacteria are resistant to all available antibiotics.

For multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, surgery is the only cure because antibiotics don’t work and only 50% of those infected survive.

Chemotherapy for cancer often fails because drug-resistant cells evolve during treatment.

Pesticide resistance and herbicide resistance is so common now that the financial incentive to make new pesticides and herbicides is break-even or worse.

Evolutionary biology suggests how best to prolong the useful life of drugs/chemicals. The amounts of chemicals used, what combinations of chemicals to use, and when to apply them are all questions that can be assessed from the perspective of preventing or slowing the evolution of resistance. In some cases now, the companies marketing the compounds have a financial interest in maintaining the longevity of their product, and they are funding studies by evolutionary biologists to develop wise use protocols. In other cases, however, economic and emotional forces dictate policies that speed up the evolution of resistance (e.g., patients demand and physicians write prescriptions for antibiotics for viral infections; antibiotics are used in animal feed).

Evolutionary trees help scientists track pathogens that cause disease.

2. Evolutionary trees Perhaps the core of evolutionary theory is that all life forms are connected to each other through common ancestry. Molecular biology has reinforced this view to a far greater level than was deemed possible even 50 years ago. On a short time scale, of course, we observe that this is true — everything alive comes from something else that is both alive and similar. One of the big developments in evolutionary biology over the last 2 decades is a methodology to estimate the underlying patterns of ancestry among living things. These reconstructions of evolutionary history are known as phylogenies, or phylogenetic trees, because they are branched somewhat like trees when drawn from bottom to top. We can use molecular data to estimate the common ancestries of life as far back as we like — for example, between bacteria and our mitochondria (the energy-producing organelles in our cells). But we can also use these methods to estimate much more recent ancestries. And these methods have found many worthy uses in tracking infectious diseases.

3. Molecular epidemiology — pathogen tracking To an epidemiologist studying infectious diseases, it is very useful to know how or where a person became infected with the disease. This information is perhaps the most basic fact we can use in preventing the further spread of a disease. For over a decade now, epidemiologists have been using DNA sequences of viruses to make phylogenetic trees and thereby track the sources of infections. Some of these examples are spectacular.

Law: A case of intentional HIV injection?

In a highly publicized case in Lafayette, Louisiana in 1998, a woman claimed that her ex-lover (a physician) deliberately injected her with HIV-tainted blood (HIV is the virus that causes AIDS). There were no records of her injection and no witnesses. So how could her story be tested? Evolutionary trees provide the best scientific evidence in a case like this.

A woman’s claim to how she was infected with AIDS was supported by evolution.

*

HIV picks up mutations very fast — even within a single individual.

*

If one person gives the virus to another, there are few differences between the virus in the donor and the virus in the recipient.

*

As the virus goes from person to person, it keeps changing and gets more and more different over time.

*

Thus, the HIV sequences in two individuals who got the virus from two different people will be very different.

*

Thus, if the woman’s story were true, her virus should be very similar to the virus in the person whose blood was drawn but should be very different from viruses taken from other people in Lafayette.

*

That was exactly what the evolutionary trees showed; her virus appeared to have come from the patient’s virus but was unlike the virus taken from other people in town.

*

Since there was no way to explain how she would have gotten that patient’s virus on her own, the evolutionary analysis supported her story. (Incidentally, this case was the first use of phylogenetics in U.S. criminal court.)

Other cases Evolutionary trees have been used in many other cases of infectious disease transmission:

* the transmission of the AIDS virus by a dentist to his patients

* deer mice as the source of hantavirus infections in the Four-Corners area

* the source of rabies viruses in human cases, leading to the discovery of a case in which rabies virus took at least 7 years to kill a person

* whether recent cases of polio in North America were relict strains from the New World, were vaccine strains, or were introduced from Asia

4. Industrial production of biochemicals and other agents “Directed evolution”, i.e. artificially-induced evolution, has become part of the jargon in biotechnology:

Biotechnology allows us to give direction to evolution.

* Artificially evolved enzymes and other proteins are soon to become part of household and medical technologies.

* We will have protein-based drugs that, unlike the proteins inside our bodies, degrade slowly so that we don’t need to take so much of them.

* Enzymes are being evolved to work in detergents (which they don’t normally do).

* And as the stuff of futuristic novels, molecules are being developed to bind anthrax spores, ricin molecules, and other potential bioterrorism agents.

All of these developments take advantage of one or more forms of test-tube evolution. Armed with a knowledge of how natural selection works and combined with the right kinds of laboratory technology, people can create molecules to perform seemingly any kind of function. In some of the more spectacular cases, these test tube evolution methods have created enzymes from purely random pools of DNA (or RNA) sequences. Even 10 years ago, it was thought that a DNA enzyme was impossible, yet armed with only an understanding of how to apply test tube evolution, a DNA enzyme can now be created in days.

Conclusion: The public needs education about evolution to understand what is going on in biotechnology.

In conclusion

The pace of evolutionary biology and its ramifications has outstripped public awareness as well as expanded beyond the knowledge base of most classical evolutionary biologists. Even the textbooks have not kept up. It is thus difficult but important to recognize that evolutionary biology has implications to a new century of medicine, agriculture, biotechnology, and even law. Students educated with this knowledge will have an edge in the competitive job markets of the future, but at least in some areas of medicine, a basic public understanding of evolutionary principles may be essential in successfully waging the ongoing war with infectious diseases.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html?print

[betsy]

I stated before that I have nothing against science. And I'll say it again for the benefit of those who most likely, in their zealous effort to defend their own faith, had applied the same method of their master - who constantly overlooks the advice of and fact about Darwin:

I have nothing against true science!

But I do have a lot against the hypocritical fraud, Dawkins.

Right now I am debating whether I should continue on this thread....or perhaps start another thread solely....and lovingly dedicated to Mr. So-full-of-himself: The Jesus-wanna-be. The mini-god.....in the guise of "science," of course.

I want to learn and maybe discuss more about your god.

Edited May 4, 2009 by betsy

[Molly]

To whom are you addressing that?

[GostHacked]

I want to learn and maybe discuss more about your god.

There is your first problem. Atheists think there is no god. Agnostics are not sure of a god. So .... don't equate true science with religion. They are simply not the same.

[benny]

Darwin was not trying to develop a theory that explains the origins of life, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that Darwin would insert God into that gap!

Dawkins advocates leaving that gap open to the relatively new field of Abiogenesis, that is developing ideas for naturalistic mechanisms that would lead from organic chemistry to RNA-based and then DNA-based life.

Science assumes this gap can be filled and try to do it, persons of faith believe humans should not attempt to fill it.

[segnosaur]

The flaws in evolution is quite clear. Disciples of the so-called Darwin's evolution, led by the atheist self-proclaimed messiah Dawkins, do not follow their own theory-creator's advice.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Clearly Darwin himself questions his own theory.

What Betsy is doing is engaging in a long-standing dishonest process known as 'Quote Mining'... quote mining happens when a creationist searches through evolutionary literature and picks up some phrase and takes it out of context.

You see, Darwin never actually questioned his own theory. He was very confident that he had determined the proper mechanism for the change in species. The particular phrase that Betsy likes to repeat came at the start of Origin of Species, and the purpose was not to suggest evolution was 'wrong', but as a preamble preemptivley indicating that all possible objections to his theory would be dealt with. The Origin of Species was not designed to be a comprehensive, self-contained work, but to refer to and be referenced by other material that had been published.

In fact, the introduction of Origin of Species ends with the following statement:

I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species..

http://books.google.ca/books?id=PvkRAAAAYA...esnum=9#PPA4,M1 (See: Page 4)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/revised-quote.html

Strange how Betsy keeps repeating Darwin's quotes suggesting he doubted his own theory, while totally ignoring the above quote which stated quite strongly that he has 'no doubt' about evolution.

I guess its easier to keep repeating quotes out of context rather than actually reading up on what Darwin ACTUALLY said.

Does anyone else notice the irony? Betsy claims to be a christian. One of the commandments in the Bible that she thinks she follows is "Thou shalt not lie". Yet in order to try to prove her point, she engages in practices that are quite deceptive (namely quote mining.)

Even now, after all these years....nothing solid!

Except for the fossil record, and genetic analysis, and actual observed cases of speciation and natural selection... But when would you let actual science get in the way of the Bible, a book that things Bats are a type of bird?

You'd think with all the new technology it would've been much more easier to find an unrefuted and undeniable proof that all species came from one!

But nada!

This theory still remains only a theory - a theory that's proven untrue!

Well, this rather illustrates a complete ignorance of science on the part of Betsy. You see, I've pointed this out before... The scientific definition of the word 'theory' has a specific meaning. It does not mean 'guess', or 'belief'; it means some explaination/principle which has withstood tremendous scrutiny. And evolution has.

Questioned and refuted by other equally qualified scientists!

Ummm... no.

Please point out this mass of 'equally qualified scientists' who refute evolution. Point to all their peer reviewed publications on the subject.

But of course, fundamentalist evolutionists led by Dawkins could not...and will never... accept the other theories by equally-qualified scientists who have other theories. For these theories hint on the possibility of a Creator. Which contradicts their Atheistic belief of non-God.

You know, this has been pointed out to you before, but I guess its against the nature of a creationist to, you know, actually deal with stuff honestly... there are religious groups who also accept evolution as the correct explaination of how species are created. Somehow, others are able to assume that the existance of god is not contradicted by, you know, actually understanding science.

Edited May 4, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

In that case, what is your position on the Raelians? Should their theories of creation be "examined" as well? Do you think their particular "theories" should be given weight? Or is it just the beliefs that you have that you feel are credible alternatives.

I had asked that question before, but as expected, you ran away from it. Certainly not unexpected... after all, the creationist mindset is so full of irrationality, ignorance and faulty logic that, when presented with an actual dilemma they can't handle it.

Heh! Stop nagging me about Raelians. I'm not into science fiction....that's more up your alley!

You're the one who keeps suggesting that we explore all options... And if we're going to explore all options, you should be prepared to explain why your little pet idea should be given credibility while others aren't.

The Raelians certainly don't believe their beliefs are 'science fiction'. They are just as committed, and believe their is just as much scientific evidence to support their ideas as you think supports your ideas.

If you don't want to deal with the Raeliens, explain why we shouldn't give cretibility to the Norse creation myths. Or the ancient Egyptian myths.

[DogOnPorch]

Heh! Stop nagging me about Raelians. I'm not into science fiction....that's more up your alley!

You're the one who keeps suggesting that we explore all options... And if we're going to explore all options, you should be prepared to explain why your little pet idea should be given credibility while others aren't.

The Raelians certainly don't believe their beliefs are 'science fiction'. They are just as committed, and believe their is just as much scientific evidence to support their ideas as you think supports your ideas.

If you don't want to deal with the Raeliens, explain why we shouldn't give cretibility to the Norse creation myths. Or the ancient Egyptian myths.

Meet you at the goat sacrifice to Zeus later? I hear there's beer.

[WIP]

I stated before that I have nothing against science.

But what about evolutionary science? How do you explain away all of the science based on evolutionary principles? If creationism and intelligent design have the real theories of genetics, their principles should be the basis of new research.

Scientists, such as the molecular biology professor I quoted from, felt the need to briefly outline some of the ways that research in evolutionary biology is being used to advance medicine. The irony is that so many of the same people who don't believe in evolution, are themselves dependent on medical treatments and genetic research that is based on evolutionary principles. No surprise that a professor way down in Texas, the buckle of the bible belt, feels the need to speak out, when his state's governor is cutting research funding and trying to stop the teaching of evolution in Texas schools!

And I'll say it again for the benefit of those who most likely, in their zealous effort to defend their own faith, had applied the same method of their master - who constantly overlooks the advice of and fact about Darwin:

Another baseless empty charge since the scientific method is the only way to develop new understanding that has self-correcting mechanisms, like a peer review process that makes it possible to revise or even scrap existing theories if better explanatory models become available. Your rants taken from creationist sites dredging up Piltdown Man and other hoaxes, miss the point that the Piltdown hoax was uncovered by scientists, not creationists, and not the religious authorities in the Church of England! On the other hand, creationists offer no self-correction and their hoaxes, like the Paluxy Footprints that were added to streambeds that contained three-toed dinosaur fossils that resembled footprints, had to be unmasked by paleontologists, not the Creation Research Institute or other faux creation science groups.

I have nothing against true science!

I heard that once before! I think it came from Commander Zaius in the original Planet of the Apes movie.

But I do have a lot against the hypocritical fraud, Dawkins.

Then prove he's a fraud!

Right now I am debating whether I should continue on this thread....or perhaps start another thread solely....and lovingly dedicated to Mr. So-full-of-himself: The Jesus-wanna-be. The mini-god.....in the guise of "science," of course.

I want to learn and maybe discuss more about your god.

Go ahead! It should be easy since your creationist sites can quote-mine lots of Dawkins critics in the field of biology who have alternative theories of evolution, such as Punctuated Equilibrium, Symbiogenesis or Multi-level evolution. The people proposing these alternative mechanisms for evolutionary change claim that Dawkins is one of the chief gate-keepers keeping their ideas from being taken seriously. Maybe, maybe not -- but, in the end, if they have the goods, they should be able to make their cases heard. If not, then maybe their models are wrong or have too many things that they cannot explain. But they will provide a rich source for quote-mining nasty comments about Richard Dawkins.

[benny]

Another baseless empty charge since the scientific method is the only way to develop new understanding that has self-correcting mechanisms, like a peer review process that makes it possible to revise or even scrap existing theories if better explanatory models become available.

Since the scientific method fundamentally jeopardizes nature's self-correcting mechanisms, what we have to understand is the effects of scientists' subjectivity on their research's objects.

[DogOnPorch]

Since the scientific method fundamentally jeopardizes nature's self-correcting mechanisms, what we have to understand is the effects of scientists' subjectivity on their research's objects.

Let 'em know that if you ever need to have open heart surgery.