NationStates Jolt Archive

Your words are harmless to me. My faith is in GOD allmighty.

No one is trying to shake your faith in God. No one has said anything at all disparaging about your faith in God. My faith is also in God almighty. Go figure! We have something in common!

I don't really think so, at least not how I was taught evolution anyway, it had nothing to do with God at all because science (and that is what evolution is) is in no position to comment on God at all because he is untestable by human means.

I wonder why so many creationists limit God, I mean really you say you believe in an "all mighty do whatever he wants because he can" God, but then when things are presented that are not how you assume they happened they are anti-God.

God is limitless, I am not going to be the one to say that he couldn't have guided evolution.
Exactly ... science is just a method to explain the observed facts (direct or indirect) thats IT
Creationists seem to be the ones trying to say what god did or did not do rather then study his wonder (if that is what it is)

You really think a loving god would try to trick humanity by providing false data? making it seem like evolution took place?
For what purpose could that serve?

I am not avoiding the question. I quoted what you said. It is apparent that you and all others that hold evolution to be fact as avoiding the question. My facts are based on Creationism and others here on Evolution. And both sides say: Prove me wrong! I also stated that if you wanted to be fair by removing speculation from the public classrooms, you should remove EVOLUTION THEORY as well. Did you somehow conviniently miss that. Scroll back a bit, I'm sure you will be able to find it. Please don't misquote, I can do the same. It's quite simple! And I have also stated what I BELIEVE as being FACT. Here, I'll say it again: CREATIONISM IS FACT! Now try and prove me wrong. IMPOSSIBLE!

Emphasis mine.

You're trolling at this point, telling others that creationism is fact, when in fact, neither creationism nor evolution have been ultimately 'proven'. You don't provide facts, you provide your opinion, and tell others that they are wrong for disagreeing with you. You are avoiding their questions about your beliefs; therefore, you've skirted close to the line of trolling, by providing your opinion with no facts or any sort of proof as to how Creationism is correct. Either you learn how to properly debate, by skillfully proving your point without resulting to tell others that they're wrong for not having the same belief as you, or I can guarantee that we'll meet again. Am I clear?

For what purpose could that serve?
it would serve no purpose at all, God is not a God of confusion.


for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the assemblies of the saints, 1 Corinthians 14:33

it would serve no purpose at all, God is not a God of confusion.
:fluffle: :fluffle: very good answer :) came up with that quote fast hehehe

:fluffle: :fluffle: very good answer :) came up with that quote fast hehehe
I have about half of the bible memorized. ;) It comes in handy.

I have about half of the bible memorized. ;) It comes in handy.
I used to have about the same but you know what happens when you don't use it ... you loose it lol

I used to have about the same but you know what happens when you don't use it ... you loose it lol
yeah. I know, I was finding that to be true earlier this week when I was trying to help the nieghbor's kid with his chemistry homework. :p

yeah. I know, I was finding that to be true earlier this week when I was trying to help the nieghbor's kid with his chemistry homework. :p
Yeah working on my second masters and slowly anything not relating to computers ... datacom or info security is leaving my mind

Emphasis mine.

You're trolling at this point, telling others that creationism is fact, when in fact, neither creationism nor evolution have been ultimately 'proven'. You don't provide facts, you provide your opinion, and tell others that they are wrong for disagreeing with you. You are avoiding their questions about your beliefs; therefore, you've skirted close to the line of trolling, by providing your opinion with no facts or any sort of proof as to how Creationism is correct. Either you learn how to properly debate, by skillfully proving your point without resulting to tell others that they're wrong for not having the same belief as you, or I can guarantee that we'll meet again. Am I clear?


Yes, you are clearly lost in space! I will work circles around you, mentally and physically my little grasshopper! Thank you miss troll # 666 for your ilogical logic!

And by the way, why should we meet again? Are you considering converting to Christianity? If so, by all means, if not, depart from me Satan! That is all, now be gone with you! Tsk, tsk.


Adds European Slave to ignore list.

Also, I repeat, if Creationism should not be taught in schools, because as you say, there are to many religious views, then Evolution should not be taught as well. Why do you keep bringing this up? Fair is fair, you can't have it both ways.
Why do you keep harping on this when it's already been explained that the two arguments are not comparable? One is a religious observation based on blind faith, and the other is an empirical observation based on study of the facts. Only one of of these belongs in a science class, and it isn't Creationism. Why are you incapable of grasping a distinction this basic?

Yes, you are clearly lost in space! I will work circles around you, mentally and physically my little grasshopper! Thank you miss troll # 666 for your ilogical logic!

And by the way, why should we meet again? Are you considering converting to Christianity? If so, by all means, if not, depart from me Satan! That is all, now be gone with you! Tsk, tsk.


Adds European Slave to ignore list.

Wow. Do you know what mods are and what they can do? If yes I can only assume you dont want to be posting here for much longer.

Firstly, if you would pay attention at all, you would realize that EuroSlavia is a mod and was referring to the fact that if you kept up your present attitude you would be in danger of being banned.

Secondly some sites to help you overcome your ignorance (sp?) about the theory of evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Yes, you are clearly lost in space! I will work circles around you, mentally and physically my little grasshopper! Thank you miss troll # 666 for your ilogical logic!

And by the way, why should we meet again? Are you considering converting to Christianity? If so, by all means, if not, depart from me Satan! That is all, now be gone with you! Tsk, tsk.


Adds European Slave to ignore list.
You might want to keep track of who is and who is not a mod around here lol
Edit: I re read through
Is this suposed to be some sort of bad joke? I cant tell

You might want to keep track of who is and who is not a mod around here lol
Edit: I re read through
Is this suposed to be some sort of bad joke? I cant tell
It probably isn't, It reads (to me anyways) the same as the rest of his posts in this thread

Hey, if you contradict yourself and I call you on it, don't start swearing at me. It's much simpler if you just don't contradict yourself in the first place.

I didn't contradict myself... Only be removing initial context, and then adding in your own presupposition, can contradiction even be implied.

You have a serious presuppositional problem...

As I stated before, as soon as you invoke the philosophical element "God did it", it is no longer to be taught within the empirical sciences... Included in that list were the Philosophical list of view which contained elements of the scientific processes of evolutionary theory...

Sans the philosophical elements, Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism and Progressive Creationism are merely evolutionary theory... They don't deny the "scientific process"... which differs them from the other two Theological views of Young and Old Earth Creationism [which do deny the process]...

Hense, someone adopting [philosophically] the first three, have no problems operating in science [since there is no contention within their philosophy], the latter two, however, opperate in opposition to established scientific processes, thus being unable to operate in science.

Your problem... In the first part, I established the category where the three belong [Theology], as well as establishing that such invocation negates their placement with the empirical sciences [PHysics, Biology, Chemistry, etc]... In the second part, you completely ignore the already established position of placement, mentally editing out of the context of the message, and then re-interpret the second based from your presupposition to imply, at first that I am now advocating they be taught as science, and now, as if it was contradictory. Neither being the case of the original post.... Sure, the second part can be intepreted the way you want to interpret it.... ASSUMING YOU REMOVE THE CONTEXT OF THE POST FIRST...

I'm not guilty of ripping the context out... You are...

You want to avoid mis-understanding? Fine, easy to do....

1. Actually Read the posts...
2. Stay in context...
3. Drop the damn presuppositions...

You might want to keep track of who is and who is not a mod around here lol
Edit: I re read through
Is this suposed to be some sort of bad joke? I cant tell
you know it isn't really hard to tell either, they are the ones with the pretty pictures under thier names you know right below where it says they are a mod;)

you know it isn't really hard to tell either, they are the ones with the pretty pictures under thier names you know right below where it says they are a mod;)
Obviously, Arnburg has faith that some people CAN'T POSSIBLY be mods...

You might want to keep track of who is and who is not a mod around here lol
Edit: I re read through
Is this suposed to be some sort of bad joke? I cant tell

Probably a desperate attempt to become a "martyr" by getting banned. He/she somehow has this tendency (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9871987&postcount=60) I guess.

Yes, you are clearly lost in space! I will work circles around you, mentally and physically my little grasshopper! Thank you miss troll # 666 for your ilogical logic!

And by the way, why should we meet again? Are you considering converting to Christianity? If so, by all means, if not, depart from me Satan! That is all, now be gone with you! Tsk, tsk.


Adds European Slave to ignore list.

Arnburg, it'll serve you well to listen to the advice of a moderator of this site. If you didn't notice, that is what I am.

Adds Arnburg to forumban list, for 3 days.

Oh, by the way, it's Mr. Troll, not Miss. Thanks.

*snip angriness*

You want to avoid mis-understanding? Fine, easy to do....

1. Actually Read the posts...
2. Stay in context...
3. Drop the damn presuppositions...

To be fair Tekania, the original post in question could be interpreted either way. In truth, you have to add presuppositions in order to get what you really meant. When I first read through it, I was thinking the same thing as Jocabia. However, having had conversations with you about this in the past, I realized that you were most likely talking about personal philosophical views, rather than views incorporated into the actual science, so I ignored it.

It is rather arrogant to assume that your points are always clear to your readers. Sometimes, even though you know exactly what you mean, others do not. It doesn't pay to get angry and snippy about it. A simple post like, "Yes, sorry that wasn't clear. That is exactly what I meant," would have been better than, "OHMYFUCKINGGOD YOU CAN'T READ!!!!!!"

To be fair Tekania, the original post in question could be interpreted either way. In truth, you have to add presuppositions in order to get what you really meant. When I first read through it, I was thinking the same thing as Jocabia. However, having had conversations with you about this in the past, I realized that you were most likely talking about personal philosophical views, rather than views incorporated into the actual science, so I ignored it.

It is rather arrogant to assume that your points are always clear to your readers. Sometimes, even though you know exactly what you mean, others do not. It doesn't pay to get angry and snippy about it. A simple post like, "Yes, sorry that wasn't clear. That is exactly what I meant," would have been better than, "OHMYFUCKINGGOD YOU CAN'T READ!!!!!!"

I don't have any background with him, and I do see how it could be read both ways. The way I read it seemed more consistent with the text, but mostly I was surprised by how angry the reply is. Anyway, thank you for explaining.

You might want to keep track of who is and who is not a mod around here lol
Edit: I re read through
Is this suposed to be some sort of bad joke? I cant tell

Honestly, I think the whole thing was a joke. It reads like HerPower. I just don't believe someone is this over-the-top.

Then EVOLUTION must be removed from public schools as well. For it is a theory and not fact. If Creationism is religious theory, then evolution is atheistic theory. No place for either according to your views. Teach children REALITY not SPECULATION/THEORIES from either side. Fair?

How is evolution 'atheistic'?

I think we have a new strawman messiah....

How is evolution 'atheistic'?

I think we have a new strawman messiah....

Evolution is atheistic, because it subscribes to the theory of there being no God.

How is evolution 'atheistic'?

I think we have a new strawman messiah....

What I want to know is what is so hard about this argument. This is like the fourth person banned while in this conversation with us. Some atheist, some theist, all unable to keep their cool. I knew I drove the ladies nuts, but apparently I have that effect on dissident posters as well.

Evolution is atheistic, because it subscribes to the theory of there being no God.

Where does the Theory of Evolution say that?

Suggest? Where? It assumes "ALL" power... Unless you have a specific limitation on what "All" can possibly be, you can't really suggest any limit outside of Himself.

"All" can possess, or not possess a limit....

A limited set, All whole integers between 0 and 4, is still "All" of the particular set.

A limited set, All whole integers greater than 0, is an "All" but of an infinite set.

A limited set, All real numbers between 0 and 1, is an "All" and also of a infinite set...

All neither requires nor necessitates that the set is limited, unless constrained by other external data... Since absolute "power" cannot be observed, no upper bound can be implied. Thus All power (none added, none removed) is a boundless power, and like the concept of infinity, it is only limited by itself...

Limiting infinity, still leaves you with the infinite... And it is only the infinite that is, in effect, self constrained... Effectively leaving the "limit" as no limit at all... No external bound.

Jocabia already fielded this post perfectly well, but I must make a comment.

There are limits defined in each case.... when you talk about 'infinite real numbers' between 0 and 1, however, what you are referring to are actually only infinite DEGREES between two finite points. The upper and lower points still actually determine the LIMITS of 'all'.

So - if 'god' is 'all-powerful', he has access to ALL the power... which, despite your attempt to divide into infinite degrees, still has an implicit limit.

Recommended reading: Jocabia's posts. :)

Jocabia already fielded this post perfectly well, but I must make a comment.

There are limits defined in each case.... when you talk about 'infinite real numbers' between 0 and 1, however, what you are referring to are actually only infinite DEGREES between two finite points. The upper and lower points still actually determine the LIMITS of 'all'.

So - if 'god' is 'all-powerful', he has access to ALL the power... which, despite your attempt to divide into infinite degrees, still has an implicit limit.

Recommended reading: Jocabia's posts. :)

Careful. Tekania is made at me. I apparently don't read very well and thus deserve to be attacked and sworn at.

What I want to know is what is so hard about this argument. This is like the fourth person banned while in this conversation with us. Some atheist, some theist, all unable to keep their cool. I knew I drove the ladies nuts, but apparently I have that effect on dissident posters as well.

Ah man... I'm still just catching up... you mean this new fellow got banned even BEFORE I got to it? :(

It must just be your animal magnetism.... or, wait... is animal magnetism allowed by Creationist 'theory'...?

It's going to be a looooooong class, since there are a LOT of creation theories, many of which you've never heard of and are still believed. The myths surrounding Sipapu appear to come much closer to abiogenesis and evolution than Creation does by a far sight. However, a theology class is better reserved for college where people have more ability to compare religions and more space in their curriculums.


Excellent point... to many people assume a binary situation... if 'evolution' is flawed, Christian Creationism MUST be true...

They ignore the fact that, if we want balance, there are THOUSANDS of theological explanations for 'creation'....

Ah man... I'm still just catching up... you mean this new fellow got banned even BEFORE I got to it? :(

It must just be your animal magnetism.... or, wait... is animal magnetism allowed by Creationist 'theory'...?

Yeah, actually, I was wondering where you were. He was a keeper. Apparently, keeping a calm, cool demeanor while nailing someone's feet to the ground really upsets some folks, because they keep resorting to either calling names or just shouting, "nuh-uh".

I actually feel a little bad. I can't even remember all of the names of the people who have freaked out over this argument and been banned in the last week. BAAWA, Arnburg and the dude that called GMC stupid whose name I can't remember, and one more. Why is everyone losing their minds?

They might have been your decendents and part of your family tree, but certainly not mine!

I just HAD to comment on this, it's one of my favourite arguments against evolution:

In it's simplest terms: "Evolution is wrong because: I don't WANT it to be true".

Yeah, actually, I was wondering where you were. He was a keeper. Apparently, keeping a calm, cool demeanor while nailing someone's feet to the ground really upsets some folks, because they keep resorting to either calling names or just shouting, "nuh-uh".

I actually feel a little bad. I can't even remember all of the names of the people who have freaked out over this argument and been banned in the last week. BAAWA, Arnburg and the dude that called GMC stupid whose name I can't remember, and one more. Why is everyone losing their minds?

It was "Brenchley", I believe, that got on the really wrong side of GMC.

I think the problem, is what you stated before.... people that want to preach (without dissent), rather than actually debate.

In other words, people who are SURE they are right, beyond all question. It's hard to debate with that.

Evolution is atheistic, because it subscribes to the theory of there being no God.

No, it doesn't subscribe to any such thing. Evolutionary theory describes a process. That process can proceed if there is a God, and if there is not a God. There is no assumption either way involved in the theory itself, or in its formulation. Interestingly enough, most of the people who have worked on the theory are/were not atheists *GASP*!

I just HAD to comment on this, it's one of my favourite arguments against evolution:

In it's simplest terms: "Evolution is wrong because: I don't WANT it to be true".

The name for the fallacy is "wishful thinking". One of the more obvious ones. Basically, that sums all of the arguments we've been fielding lately.

Evolution is atheistic, because it subscribes to the theory of there being no God.

I'll go a different route that my compatriots. Would you care to further explain this? How does evolution subscribe to the theory of there being no God?

Evolution is atheistic, because it subscribes to the theory of there being no God.

No... it really doesn't.

I know a number of Christians who are quite happy to accept 'evolution' as a tool of 'God'.... not a replacement of 'God'.

Also - if you follow the Scientific Method, 'God' is neither proved OR disproved. The 'power behind the throne', so to speak, is irrelevent to science.... which is happy to just quantify and qualify the throne, itself.

I'll go a different route that my compatriots. Would you care to further explain this? How does evolution subscribe to the theory of there being no God?

Damn, I'm slow, today.... I was FOURTH to attack that point.... :(

Damn, I'm slow, today.... I was FOURTH to attack that point.... :(

You spelled irrelevant wrong, by the way. We really need to start encouraging people to explain their side instead of just pwning them from the start. Some of them have really interesting takes on the subject and it's far more likely they'll listen to us if we listen to them. I noticed my reply is the only one with a question mark in it (no, don't change it to "what are you, some kind of...????") As different as some of our beliefs our, I would guess that these topics where several of us come together GMC, you, me, Dem, UT, et al, must be really intimidating. I think it is in our best interest to make conversation more inviting. Perhaps then we won't have to keep having conversations cut of because the other poster freaks out and gets banned.

You spelled irrelevant wrong, by the way. We really need to start encouraging people to explain their side instead of just pwning them from the start. Some of them have really interesting takes on the subject and it's far more likely they'll listen to us if we listen to them. I noticed my reply is the only one with a question mark in it (no, don't change it to "what are you, some kind of...????") As different as some of our beliefs our, I would guess that these topics where several of us come together GMC, you, me, Dem, UT, et al, must be really intimidating. I think it is in our best interest to make conversation more inviting. Perhaps then we won't have to keep having conversations cut of because the other poster freaks out and gets banned.

Hmmm... I tried to reply to this a minute ago, and it wouldn't let me... :(

The thing is - perhaps it COULD be intimidating to someone to be suddenly refuted by a host of posters... but, then... shouldn't such a person make sure that their point is strong enough to weather debate, before posting an argument as 'fact'?

It's hardly our fault, if a number of us perceive equally, the flaws in an argument, and respond in kind.

Regarding the 'irrelevent' thing... I have had my four-week-old baby-boy sleeping on my left-arm.... so - I've been typing everything one handed. Pretty good excuse, no? :)

Hmmm... I tried to reply to this a minute ago, and it wouldn't let me... :(

The thing is - perhaps it COULD be intimidating to someone to be suddenly refuted by a host of posters... but, then... shouldn't such a person make sure that their point is strong enough to weather debate, before posting an argument as 'fact'?

It's hardly our fault, if a number of us perceive equally, the flaws in an argument, and respond in kind.

Regarding the 'irrelevent' thing... I have had my four-week-old baby-boy sleeping on my left-arm.... so - I've been typing everything one handed. Pretty good excuse, no? :)

Dang. I have nothing to say to that last bit.

I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't reply or make our points, but we would gain I think if we encourage more of a debate by asking questions and encouraging people to explain their opinion. Aren't you even a little curious as to how he reached that conclusion? I doubt any poster is going to post something that shakes the foundations of our understanding of science, but it will help to expose the errors in their logic if we allow them to explain how they reached their 'flawed' conclusions.

Regarding the 'irrelevent' thing... I have had my four-week-old baby-boy sleeping on my left-arm.... so - I've been typing everything one handed. Pretty good excuse, no? :)

From now on, this is my excuse for any misspellings or cases of bad grammar (much better than cases of Budweiser, I assure you).

Next time I drop an argument -
"Well, which would you prefer, I drop an argument or I drop this four-week-old baby boy sleeping on my left arm?"

From now on, this is my excuse for any misspellings or cases of bad grammar (much better than cases of Budweiser, I assure you).

Next time I drop an argument -
"Well, which would you prefer, I drop an argument or I drop this four-week-old baby boy sleeping on my left arm?"

lol. Hey, it's a good excuse. :) Especially since I don't like Bud... :)

Honestly, I think the whole thing was a joke. It reads like HerPower. I just don't believe someone is this over-the-top.
You've never seen Fred Phelps' website?
(Not that I'm equating all creationists with that obnoxious little cretin: I'd better make that clear.)

You've never seen Fred Phelps' website?
(Not that I'm equating all creationists with that obnoxious little cretin: I'd better make that clear.)
Yeah but the chances of a true one of them showing up on our site like this

More likely a parody

Yeah but the chances of a true one of them showing up on our site like this

More likely a parody
If it's a parody, shouldn't it be funny, rather than pathetic, though?

You spelled irrelevant wrong, by the way. We really need to start encouraging people to explain their side instead of just pwning them from the start. Some of them have really interesting takes on the subject and it's far more likely they'll listen to us if we listen to them. I noticed my reply is the only one with a question mark in it (no, don't change it to "what are you, some kind of...????") As different as some of our beliefs our, I would guess that these topics where several of us come together GMC, you, me, Dem, UT, et al, must be really intimidating. I think it is in our best interest to make conversation more inviting. Perhaps then we won't have to keep having conversations cut of because the other poster freaks out and gets banned.
I really tried with arnburg
lol though I think that is because I felt he would be unwilling to answer therefore in that case asking a question was the best method to pwnage lol

If it's a parody, shouldn't it be funny, rather than pathetic, though?
Not everyone is as good as DC was with jesussaves

I really tried with arnburg
lol though I think that is because I felt he would be unwilling to answer therefore in that case asking a question was the best method to pwnage lol

I have the problem that, when the second or third person throws up the same, tired argument... I start to wonder if I'm just fighting a series of clone trolls.

Not everyone is as good as DC was with jesussaves
True, but you'd think he would have stopped when he realised that nobody was very amused if it was supposed to be a wind up.

Jocabia, same here: it really pissed me off that the twerp refused point blank to try to justify a single one of his statements regardless of how ridiculous they were. I was expecting some of that drivel about gaps in the fossil record or no fossils of species in transition (which creationists keep trotting out no matter how many examples of intermediate creatures are mentioned), or even that "the Lord's creation is perfect from the off and evolution denies that by suggesting it has changed" bollocks, but not a single attempt was made. He did everything he could to avoid discussing that short of back pedalling on his position.
(Which is another reason why I think he was for real: if it was a wind up he'd have had some truly preposterous attacks on evolution ready for any request for proof.)

You spelled irrelevant wrong, by the way. We really need to start encouraging people to explain their side instead of just pwning them from the start. Some of them have really interesting takes on the subject and it's far more likely they'll listen to us if we listen to them. I noticed my reply is the only one with a question mark in it (no, don't change it to "what are you, some kind of...????") As different as some of our beliefs our, I would guess that these topics where several of us come together GMC, you, me, Dem, UT, et al, must be really intimidating. I think it is in our best interest to make conversation more inviting. Perhaps then we won't have to keep having conversations cut of because the other poster freaks out and gets banned.

If we were talking about something that is a matter of opinion, I would agree with you. However, as it is, we are basically talking about something logically no different from the following:

Someone: 2+3=10

Me, Grave, etc.: No, actually, based on mathematics, 2+3=5. It appears that you have a flawed understanding of mathematics. You see, this is how you do a sum.....

Jocabia: We really should be more inviting. This person is of the opinion that
2+3=10 and I am sure that they have an interesting viewpoint on the subject. We should ask them to explain how 2+3=10.

The only difference is that we are talking about an established theory, rather than an established sum.

If we were talking about something that is a matter of opinion, I would agree with you. However, as it is, we are basically talking about something logically no different from the following:

Someone: 2+3=10

Me, Grave, etc.: No, actually, based on mathematics, 2+3=5. It appears that you have a flawed understanding of mathematics. You see, this is how you do a sum.....

Jocabia: We really should be more inviting. This person is of the opinion that
2+3=10 and I am sure that they have an interesting viewpoint on the subject. We should ask them to explain how 2+3=10.

The only difference is that we are talking about an established theory, rather than an established sum.

I think where Jocabia is coming from here, is: it seems OBVIOUS that 2+3=5... so WHY do some people keep saying it's ten? What is their 'proof'?

If we were talking about something that is a matter of opinion, I would agree with you. However, as it is, we are basically talking about something logically no different from the following:

Someone: 2+3=10

Me, Grave, etc.: No, actually, based on mathematics, 2+3=5. It appears that you have a flawed understanding of mathematics. You see, this is how you do a sum.....

Jocabia: We really should be more inviting. This person is of the opinion that
2+3=10 and I am sure that they have an interesting viewpoint on the subject. We should ask them to explain how 2+3=10.

The only difference is that we are talking about an established theory, rather than an established sum.

If you read further, it's not because I suspected they would change our minds. I wanted to learn if there were any new arguments. What he said was more like:

Arn: Math doesn't work in RL.
You guys: You must be kidding. Math has been shown to work over and over again. You can't possibly back up that stance.
Me: Why do you think math doesn't work?
Arn (wait, let's make this someone else, because Arn wouldn't answer)
Random hates math poster: Well, because it tells us that 2+2 = 4 and it obviously equals 10. That's what it says in the Bible.
Me: Really? .... how many dots is that RHMP?
RHMP: Four
Me: .. How many dots?
RHMP: 2
Me: .. .. How many dots in each group?
RHMP: 2
Me: .. .. Now?
RHMP: 2
Me: .... Now?
RHMP: 4
Me: okay, we're done here

Everyone cheers and throws cookies.

EDIT: I initially screwed up the dots but that was because I had a four-week-old baby boy sleeping on my left arm.

It can be worth bringing the size of the ark into this: I forget the precise measurements, but it seems that if it's however many cubits by however many cubits, it can't possibly hold the volume for it that the bible suggests. This is, it seems, an example of God telling fibs.

I dont have time to make an uber long post

But I will say this

You will pay for your sins.

Arn: Math doesn't work in RL.
You guys: You must be kidding. Math has been shown to work over and over again. You can't possibly back up that stance.
Me: Why do you think math doesn't work?
Arn (wait, let's make this someone else, because Arn wouldn't answer)
Random hates math poster: Well, because it tells us that 2+2 = 4 and it obviously equals 10. That's what it says in the Bible.
Me: Really? .... how many dots is that RHMP?
RHMP: Four
Me: .. How many dots?
RHMP: 2
Me: .. .. How many dots in each group?
RHMP: 2
Me: .. .. Now?
RHMP: 2
Me: .... Now?
RHMP: 4
Me: okay, we're done here

Everyone cheers and throws cookies.



That is somewhat similar, except that the person in question didn't say science (or math) doesn't work, simply that evolution is based upon the assumption that there is no God. So we can jump straight to the, "2+2 obviously equals 10," part.

Now, how is going through the dots example any different from starting out by saying, "Evolutionary theory cannot be based upon the idea that there is no God, because science cannot make any judgement calls on the existence or nonexistence of God. Therefore, it cannot be atheistic."

In the case you described above, someone who doesn't listen to logic in the first place would still scream, "BUT IT EQUALS 10 ANYWAYS!" In the science case, someone willing to listen to logic will listen. Somenone unwilling will still yell, "BUT IT IS ATHEISTIC!"

If you read further, it's not because I suspected they would change our minds. I wanted to learn if there were any new arguments. What he said was more like:

Arn: Math doesn't work in RL.
You guys: You must be kidding. Math has been shown to work over and over again. You can't possibly back up that stance.
Me: Why do you think math doesn't work?
Arn (wait, let's make this someone else, because Arn wouldn't answer)
Random hates math poster: Well, because it tells us that 2+2 = 4 and it obviously equals 10. That's what it says in the Bible.
Me: Really? .... how many dots is that RHMP?
RHMP: Four
Me: .. How many dots?
RHMP: 2
Me: .. .. How many dots in each group?
RHMP: 2
Me: .. .. Now?
RHMP: 2
Me: .... Now?
RHMP: 4
Me: okay, we're done here

Everyone cheers and throws cookies.

EDIT: I initially screwed up the dots but that was because I had a four-week-old baby boy sleeping on my left arm.

lol. See? It works for everything.... :D

That is somewhat similar, except that the person in question didn't say science (or math) doesn't work, simply that evolution is based upon the assumption that there is no God. So we can jump straight to the, "2+2 obviously equals 10," part.

Now, how is going through the dots example any different from starting out by saying, "Evolutionary theory cannot be based upon the idea that there is no God, because science cannot make any judgement calls on the existence or nonexistence of God. Therefore, it cannot be atheistic."

In the case you described above, someone who doesn't listen to logic in the first place would still scream, "BUT IT EQUALS 10 ANYWAYS!" In the science case, someone willing to listen to logic will listen. Somenone unwilling will still yell, "BUT IT IS ATHEISTIC!"

The point is that we can expand our arguments and make them more inclusive (harder to refute) by knowing what brought him to that decision. Sometimes people just can't and won't hear but some people are just ignorant and you can get them to slowly modify their point as you educate them. Attacking someone who has been brainwashed just solidifies their position in their mind. The solution is to slowly teach them their folly. First, we have to specifically know what their folly is.

That is somewhat similar, except that the person in question didn't say science (or math) doesn't work, simply that evolution is based upon the assumption that there is no God. So we can jump straight to the, "2+2 obviously equals 10," part.

Now, how is going through the dots example any different from starting out by saying, "Evolutionary theory cannot be based upon the idea that there is no God, because science cannot make any judgement calls on the existence or nonexistence of God. Therefore, it cannot be atheistic."

In the case you described above, someone who doesn't listen to logic in the first place would still scream, "BUT IT EQUALS 10 ANYWAYS!" In the science case, someone willing to listen to logic will listen. Somenone unwilling will still yell, "BUT IT IS ATHEISTIC!"

Indeed... but why? Why do these people believe that science is somehow prejudiced AGAINST 'god'? What is their 'evidence'?

I dont have time to make an uber long post

But I will say this

You will pay for your sins.

That seems to be a very un-Christ-like thing to say. And here I was thinking that the point of the NT was to give us salvation - absolution of our sins, so that we don't have to pay the price for them......

First, we have to specifically know what their folly is.
This is true, but he did refuse point blank to discuss that.

That seems to be a very un-Christ-like thing to say. And here I was thinking that the point of the NT was to give us salvation - absolution of our sins, so that we don't have to pay the price for them......
Presumably it pleases God to see his creatures deny the virtues and faculties that he has given them.

I dont have time to make an uber long post

But I will say this

You will pay for your sins.

What about using whores?

Do I still have to pay for a sin I already paid for?

I dont have time to make an uber long post

But I will say this

You will pay for your sins.

I hope not. It would mean we were both wrong about Jesus.

Now what kind of loving Christian would wish something so mean on a person, that we pay for our sins? Here I was under the impression that Jesus would prefer that we were all saved. Yeah, but I also thought that PRIDE was one of the seven deadlies, but that doesn't seem to stop the hollier-than-thou attitudes. Why is that some many of the holier-than-thou crowd only read selected passages? Is it because if you read the whole thing that you have to admit you are not in a position to pass these kinds of judgements? Is it because if you actually read the words of Jesus Christ and followed them, you'd be forced to loving and kind, instead of bitter and judgemental?

Don't worry. I forgive you for your sins. I love you and I hope you find a way to draw the bitterness from your heart and offer love to others.

This is true, but he did refuse point blank to discuss that.

Arnburg did, but we hadn't asked God007, yet.

That seems to be a very un-Christ-like thing to say. And here I was thinking that the point of the NT was to give us salvation - absolution of our sins, so that we don't have to pay the price for them......

Ha, I said the same thing, but yours is shorter. I don't understand how one can put Christ and wishing damnation into the same heart. In fact, I question if it's possible at all.

Indeed... but why? Why do these people believe that science is somehow prejudiced AGAINST 'god'? What is their 'evidence'?

Yes, exactly.

I was going to make my other post shorter but I had a four-week-old baby boy on my left arm.

By the way, did you like how I proved 2 + 2 = 4 in my post. Man, if every argument was just that easy.

It can be worth bringing the size of the ark into this: I forget the precise measurements, but it seems that if it's however many cubits by however many cubits, it can't possibly hold the volume for it that the bible suggests. This is, it seems, an example of God telling fibs.
but God doesn't lie, because lying is wrong. ;) I don't think we should get into the whole Noah's ark discussion in this thred though, it would be a major hijack.

Arnburg did, but we hadn't asked God007, yet.
Fair enough.

Jocabia: I'd have thought that it wasn't. A lot of fundamentalists get around that by ignoring the New Testament apart from Revelations, I've noticed. (They probably don't quote from Ecclesiasts or The Song Of Solomon, either.)

Indeed... but why? Why do these people believe that science is somehow prejudiced AGAINST 'god'? What is their 'evidence'?

There is no possible evidence for that conclusion. In the end, all they have is a flawed understanding of science.

They generally believe that science is prejudiced against God because someone told them that it is (often a parent or preacher) or because they think anything that contradicts what they've been told in church must be atheistic (thus the Jack Chick-esque claims that any other religion = atheists or devil-worshippers).

Maybe the difference is that I've been around enough people with these views to know where the views come from already. As with the view that any Creationism story is literally true, they are completely faith-based arguments, and they are generally blind-faith-based. You can't argue logic v. blind faith, because one with blind faith cares nothing for logic.

Then again, maybe because I have talked to so many who take this viewpoint, that I have become somewhat prejudiced against anyone who brings that viewpoint forth, and assume that one of these things must be the reason (never having heard any other...)

Indeed... but why? Why do these people believe that science is somehow prejudiced AGAINST 'god'? What is their 'evidence'?
they don't have any. I remember going to my grandma's church when I was young we were told on a regular basis
evolution says you came from apes
evolution says that the whole universe happened because of a random explosion yeah boom and there we all were
evolution says there isn't a God, in fact it is one of satan's lies to lead you from Jesus

I am not kidding they told us all that almost word for word. I was intelligent enough to go check it out for myself. you shouldn't ever just believe what you are told. that is how you end up making statements you can't back up.

but God doesn't lie, because lying is wrong. ;) I don't think we should get into the whole Noah's ark discussion in this thred though, it would be a major hijack.
True enough. I just thought that it might be relevant as an example of something in the Bible that's demonstrably untrue. (There's also the fact that some creationists blame the fossil record on the flood...)
Not entirely relevant though, you're right.

Ha, I said the same thing, but yours is shorter. I don't understand how one can put Christ and wishing damnation into the same heart. In fact, I question if it's possible at all.

You know.... the scary thing for me, is that I wish 'damnation' on nobody. I love my neighbour (in a platonic way, obviously.... you'd understand if you'd seen him), and I do not judge. etc.

And, yet... I'm a godless heathen...

they don't have any. I remember going to my grandma's church when I was young we were told on a regular basis
evolution says you came from apes
evolution says that the whole universe happened because of a random explosion yeah boom and there we all were
evolution says there isn't a God, in fact it is one of satan's lies to lead you from Jesus

I am not kidding they told us all that almost word for word. I was intelligent enough to go check it out for myself. you shouldn't ever just believe what you are told. that is how you end up making statements you can't back up.
I do wonder why they insist on equating the big bang with evolution: that's cosmology not biology.

True enough. I just thought that it might be relevant as an example of something in the Bible that's demonstrably untrue. (There's also the fact that some creationists blame the fossil record on the flood...)
Not entirely relevant though, you're right.
yeah. I do believe the flood story, and I have background as to why, maybe when I have more time I will start a thred on it.

I do wonder why they insist on equating the big bang with evolution: that's cosmology not biology.
because someone else told them they were the same? I don't know, after about 5 minutes in science class I figured out really quickly that none of them ever went to science class or if they did they probably didn't listen well.

There is no possible evidence for that conclusion. In the end, all they have is a flawed understanding of science.

They generally believe that science is prejudiced against God because someone told them that it is (often a parent or preacher) or because they think anything that contradicts what they've been told in church must be atheistic (thus the Jack Chick-esque claims that any other religion = atheists or devil-worshippers).

Maybe the difference is that I've been around enough people with these views to know where the views come from already. As with the view that any Creationism story is literally true, they are completely faith-based arguments, and they are generally blind-faith-based. You can't argue logic v. blind faith, because one with blind faith cares nothing for logic.

Then again, maybe because I have talked to so many who take this viewpoint, that I have become somewhat prejudiced against anyone who brings that viewpoint forth, and assume that one of these things must be the reason (never having heard any other...)

I agree with you... I can't think of a single GOOD reason to parallel science with godlessness, necessarily.

In fact, it has always seemed to me that the religious people are about as common in 'science', as they are in 'the real world'... so, I can't see that there CAN be a parallel.

And, that's the thing.... if you think about it for just a second, it is obvious that scientists are often religious persons.

If you think about it for a second longer (or if you know ANYTHING about how science 'works'), you can stumble across the fact that science isn't anti-god... so much as ambivalient.

Thus - I can SEE what Jocabia is driving at here... WHY have people not stopped for those two seconds, outlined above?

Surely, they MUST have a good reason.... please?

You know.... the scary thing for me, is that I wish 'damnation' on nobody. I love my neighbour (in a platonic way, obviously.... you'd understand if you'd seen him), and I do not judge. etc.

And, yet... I'm a godless heathen...
It is basic doctrine, I don't wish damnation on anyone, but we all deserve to pay the price for our sins, everyone, even me. Death is the price for sin, salvation is a gift from God, Jesus paid a debt he didn't owe, and we owed a debt that we didn't want to pay.

I don't judge either, it isn't my job, and I know I wouldn't want to stack my sin up against anyone elses because then my pile would be so much higher than thiers, and that is depressing. :(

It is true (in a Christian's mind) that everyone will pay for thier sins, only some of us are pardoned and we want to share the message with others so that they can be pardoned as well.

*sorry for the preachyness just trying to explain.

yeah. I do believe the flood story, and I have background as to why, maybe when I have more time I will start a thred on it.
Fair enough: I was thinking more of the measurements of the ark not matching its volume than anything else.

There is no possible evidence for that conclusion. In the end, all they have is a flawed understanding of science.

Then why bother be in a debate thread at all? Do unto others. If we want them to listen to our evidence and consider it, we must do the same with theirs, even if we're pretty sure of the outcome. I know and you know (as much as scientists can know) that your first paragraph is true, but that doesn't mean we should listen to what they have to say. It's not like we're in any danger of our brains falling out and suddenly accepting their proofs.

They generally believe that science is prejudiced against God because someone told them that it is (often a parent or preacher) or because they think anything that contradicts what they've been told in church must be atheistic (thus the Jack Chick-esque claims that any other religion = atheists or devil-worshippers).

Maybe the difference is that I've been around enough people with these views to know where the views come from already. As with the view that any Creationism story is literally true, they are completely faith-based arguments, and they are generally blind-faith-based. You can't argue logic v. blind faith, because one with blind faith cares nothing for logic.

Then again, maybe because I have talked to so many who take this viewpoint, that I have become somewhat prejudiced against anyone who brings that viewpoint forth, and assume that one of these things must be the reason (never having heard any other...)

Wow, I'm glad I reread this. It's far more reasonable than it sounded the first time I read it. Your last paragraph is pretty much my point. I don't want to slap people down based on assumption. That's what they are doing. I want to hear what they have to say and respond to it on point. It improves our understanding of them and improves our argument as well.

they don't have any. I remember going to my grandma's church when I was young we were told on a regular basis
evolution says you came from apes
evolution says that the whole universe happened because of a random explosion yeah boom and there we all were
evolution says there isn't a God, in fact it is one of satan's lies to lead you from Jesus

I am not kidding they told us all that almost word for word. I was intelligent enough to go check it out for myself. you shouldn't ever just believe what you are told. that is how you end up making statements you can't back up.

Wise words, my friend.

NEVER believe 'it' just because you are told it.

Fair enough: I was thinking more of the measurements of the ark not matching its volume than anything else.
yeah, things in the bible like measurements I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to, mainly because I know in the real world I can measure for a curtain rod and get to the hardware store and I think I remember what it was but when I get home the rod doesn't fit, now imagine if I was mistaken after a 3 minute drive how mistaken someone could get over hundreds of years. LOL

It is basic doctrine, I don't wish damnation on anyone, but we all deserve to pay the price for our sins, everyone, even me. Death is the price for sin, salvation is a gift from God, Jesus paid a debt he didn't owe, and we owed a debt that we didn't want to pay.

I don't judge either, it isn't my job, and I know I wouldn't want to stack my sin up against anyone elses because then my pile would be so much higher than thiers, and that is depressing. :(

It is true (in a Christian's mind) that everyone will pay for thier sins, only some of us are pardoned and we want to share the message with others so that they can be pardoned as well.

*sorry for the preachyness just trying to explain.

But, all this judging your fellow men, etc... (not you, the other poster), and the seeming glee with which they prophesise damnation and hellfire... doesn't sound all that Christian. In fact, it makes ME sound like a paragon, instead of a pagan.

It is basic doctrine, I don't wish damnation on anyone, but we all deserve to pay the price for our sins, everyone, even me. Death is the price for sin, salvation is a gift from God, Jesus paid a debt he didn't owe, and we owed a debt that we didn't want to pay.

I don't judge either, it isn't my job, and I know I wouldn't want to stack my sin up against anyone elses because then my pile would be so much higher than thiers, and that is depressing. :(

It is true (in a Christian's mind) that everyone will pay for thier sins, only some of us are pardoned and we want to share the message with others so that they can be pardoned as well.

*sorry for the preachyness just trying to explain.

That's the point. We are pardoned from paying. Our friend there just suggested that we weren't for one thing and pretty much jumped for joy for another. Like I said, PRIDE is not just the name for a group of lions.

Note: Cut me some slack, pride is harder to do than denial.

Wise words, my friend.

NEVER believe 'it' just because you are told it.

WHAT? There is no four-week-old baby boy.

But, all this judging your fellow men, etc... (not you, the other poster), and the seeming glee with which they prophesise damnation and hellfire... doesn't sound all that Christian. In fact, it makes ME sound like a paragon, instead of a pagan.
It isn't Christian, I don't know why people do that. The Bible says that ALL are sinners, even them. In Roman's it talks about the difference between being slaves to sin, and being rightous. It is not that now that we are Christains that we are free from sin, but that we are no longer controlled by it. We still sin, it sucks, but we do, I don't see how you can judge someone so harshly for something that you are doing yourself. The only time we are really to point out someone elses sin to them specifically is if they are already a Christian and you see that thier sin is holding up the church, and then you go to them privately.

I never saw the whole "you suck and are going to hell and I am not nya-nya" thing as a good evangelical tool to begin with.

WHAT? There is no four-week-old baby boy.

Ah... but, for that one, I actually have documentary proof. :)

It is basic doctrine, I don't wish damnation on anyone, but we all deserve to pay the price for our sins, everyone, even me. Death is the price for sin, salvation is a gift from God, Jesus paid a debt he didn't owe, and we owed a debt that we didn't want to pay.

I don't judge either, it isn't my job, and I know I wouldn't want to stack my sin up against anyone elses because then my pile would be so much higher than thiers, and that is depressing. :(

It is true (in a Christian's mind) that everyone will pay for thier sins, only some of us are pardoned and we want to share the message with others so that they can be pardoned as well.

*sorry for the preachyness just trying to explain.

This is sooo not the place for this, but I have to jump in and ask:

Have you ever read Abelard's theory of atonement? Everyone is very stuck on Anselm's view, which you have just described here. However, Anselm's view was based in a system of penance that the church had already devised, and that wasn't really based in Scripture. Essentially, the entire idea that Christ acheived salvation for our sins by "paying for" them came from the Catholic system of penance in which one person could do penance for another. Anselm argued that since Christ was God, and God is infinite, then Christ's death amounted to infinite penance, essentially paying for all of our sins....

Abelard wrote that the purpose of Christ was not to "pay for" our sins, but to ensure that we turned towards God in love, instead of in fear. If we turned to God in love, we would truly want to do what was right and truly intend to do what was right, instead of doing it only because we were afraid. If you ever do decide to read up on it, there is quite a bit of Scriptural backing to it, my favorite being the line in which Christ himself said, "No greater love hath man, than to lay down his life for his friends...."

Then why bother be in a debate thread at all?

This thread isn't here to debate whether or not science can posit the existence or non-existence of a God, any more than it is here to debate whether or not 2+2=4. One can only debate something which is opinion-based. Neither of these things are things that one can have an opinion about, because they are already set in stone by definition.

If we want them to listen to our evidence and consider it, we must do the same with theirs, even if we're pretty sure of the outcome. I know and you know (as much as scientists can know) that your first paragraph is true, but that doesn't mean we should listen to what they have to say. It's not like we're in any danger of our brains falling out and suddenly accepting their proofs.

I never suggested that we shouldn't listen to what they have to say. I just said we shouldn't refrain from correcting their errors and throw it up to, "Well, it's their opinion, so I can't argue it....." It is not, however, a debate at that point. It is a person who knows the facts correcting someone who doesn't.

Wow, I'm glad I reread this. It's far more reasonable than it sounded the first time I read it. Your last paragraph is pretty much my point. I don't want to slap people down based on assumption. That's what they are doing. I want to hear what they have to say and respond to it on point. It improves our understanding of them and improves our argument as well.

The thing is, I don't want to slap people down at all, and I don't believe I did in this case. I very calmly explained how they were wrong. I didn't start out with, "OHMIGOSH, YOU ARE TEH STUPID!" If God007 had wished to back up his point, he would have, unless calm, rational discussion scares him away...

yeah, things in the bible like measurements I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to, mainly because I know in the real world I can measure for a curtain rod and get to the hardware store and I think I remember what it was but when I get home the rod doesn't fit, now imagine if I was mistaken after a 3 minute drive how mistaken someone could get over hundreds of years. LOL
I hear you. Five minutes with that, a calculator and a geometry book probably works wonders on people who are convinced that the Bible is the word of God and so infallible, though.

Don't the methodists insist that they're excused hell and everybody else is going there? That elect business they're into?

It isn't Christian, I don't know why people do that. The Bible says that ALL are sinners, even them. In Roman's it talks about the difference between being slaves to sin, and being rightous. It is not that now that we are Christains that we are free from sin, but that we are no longer controlled by it. We still sin, it sucks, but we do, I don't see how you can judge someone so harshly for something that you are doing yourself. The only time we are really to point out someone elses sin to them specifically is if they are already a Christian and you see that thier sin is holding up the church, and then you go to them privately.


See - even then I have a problem. I don't KNOW what Jesus wrote in the sand, but I suspect it was the sins of those who judged. Then, when he said to cast the stone, no man could look into the face of his sin and deny it.

And so - no stones get thrown.

And, to me - THAT is how the Christian should be... I don't even buy the idea that you can adjudicate another Christian's sin, even IN the church. I mean - Jesus even found brotherhood in the company of TAX-COLLECTORS! :o


I never saw the whole "you suck and are going to hell and I am not nya-nya" thing as a good evangelical tool to begin with.

I don't know... hellfire and damnation are pretty persuasive, especially if you 'sell' a vision of how YOU can be spared it, while watching others getting fried.

Made me think of something actually.... I've talked to Christians about Salvation and Damnation... and I've been given (what I consider) a weird reply... there are 'Christians' who would feel cheated if EVERYONE got into 'Heaven', regardless of belief. There are some who feel they would be robbed of something, if there were no sizzling sinners in the pit of eternity.

Kind of like, there is no 'joy' in Heaven, unless there is pain in Hell.

I hear you. Five minutes with that, a calculator and a geometry book probably works wonders on people who are convinced that the Bible is the word of God and so infallible, though.

Don't the methodists insist that they're excused hell and everybody else is going there? That elect business they're into?

That's Calvinists, isn't it?

This is sooo not the place for this, but I have to jump in and ask:

Have you ever read Abelard's theory of atonement? Everyone is very stuck on Anselm's view, which you have just described here. However, Anselm's view was based in a system of penance that the church had already devised, and that wasn't really based in Scripture. Essentially, the entire idea that Christ acheived salvation for our sins by "paying for" them came from the Catholic system of penance in which one person could do penance for another. Anselm argued that since Christ was God, and God is infinite, then Christ's death amounted to infinite penance, essentially paying for all of our sins....

Abelard wrote that the purpose of Christ was not to "pay for" our sins, but to ensure that we turned towards God in love, instead of in fear. If we turned to God in love, we would truly want to do what was right and truly intend to do what was right, instead of doing it only because we were afraid. If you ever do decide to read up on it, there is quite a bit of Scriptural backing to it, my favorite being the line in which Christ himself said, "No greater love hath man, than to lay down his life for his friends...."

most of what I believe about salvation is from the new testament, and most of that was written by Paul. and I know most of the people around here don't really like Paul. (I think he says a lot of stuff that upsets them) so anyway I could back up everything I said with scripture (always can or I don't say it)
but since this isn't the place, and I feel like I would be retaliated agianst because of who said it. I will leave you with just a few scriptures and then I promise to try to stay on topic.

Romans 3
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.


Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5
6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

That's Calvinists, isn't it?
I'm not sure. Probably.

No! The question should be: How will we save the world from Evolutionists? I've already signed up. Join me!

most of what I believe about salvation is from the new testament, and most of that was written by Paul. and I know most of the people around here don't really like Paul. (I think he says a lot of stuff that upsets them) so anyway I could back up everything I said with scripture (always can or I don't say it)
but since this isn't the place, and I feel like I would be retaliated agianst because of who said it. I will leave you with just a few scriptures and then I promise to try to stay on topic.

Romans 3
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.


Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5
6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

It's not a matter of 'not liking' Paul... it's a matter of how much authority to accord.

Paul is a commentator. And yet, his words are taken as 'Gospel', literally.

That's Calvinists, isn't it?
It is a lot of different denomintations calvinists, methodists, church of Christ, primitive baptist, mormons, jehovahs witness, even some catholics.


*I don't believe that the mormons or JW's are Christian denominations but that is a whole other thred too.

It's not a matter of 'not liking' Paul... it's a matter of how much authority to accord.

Paul is a commentator. And yet, his words are taken as 'Gospel', literally.
He is an apostle though, people forget that.

It is a lot of different denomintations calvinists, methodists, church of Christ, primitive baptist, mormons, jehovahs witness, even some catholics.

*I don't believe that the mormons or JW's are Christian denominations but that is a whole other thred too.

I think the intended group was Calvinists, because I think we are talking the difference between Elect and Reprobate, and how the two are predetermined.

As far as I can tell, that doesn't fit with most Baptists, and certainly doesn't fit with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Mormons, I'm not so sure about. I've read the Book, and I've talked to ex-Mormons, but I've not had much interactions with practising ones.

If you want to start another thread, I'd be interested how you disclude Jehovah's Witnesses from being 'Christian'.

I say nothing should be done at all. It's their right to believe what they want, as long as they don't force that view on others. I personally don't believe in evolution (with exception to the Lancer Evolution IV. Sorry, bad joke.), but I'm not going to presume it my job to go about changing the entire world's view of anything. As long as we can all respect each other's opinions and beliefs, I don't see why there has to be any debate about it at all.

Besides, it's a better option than the theory that life started with Jacques Cousteau (spelling) travelling back in time and ejactulating into the primordial ooze, isn't it?

most of what I believe about salvation is from the new testament, and most of that was written by Paul. and I know most of the people around here don't really like Paul. (I think he says a lot of stuff that upsets them) so anyway I could back up everything I said with scripture (always can or I don't say it)

Abelard used Paul as well. Like I said before, Anselm (whom pretty much every church teaches) used the Catholic system of penance.

but since this isn't the place, and I feel like I would be retaliated agianst because of who said it. I will leave you with just a few scriptures and then I promise to try to stay on topic.

Stay on topic? In an NS forum??

*snip*

The thing is, not a single one of those is inconsistent with Abelard's idea of atonement. You see them as evidence of Anselm's idea because they are not inconsistent with Anselm's idea either.

For example, the first from an Abelardian POV: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but if we accept redemption by loving Christ for the sacrifice he made, we can be justified.

As long as we can all respect each other's opinions and beliefs, I don't see why there has to be any debate about it at all.
We can, but would creationists be trying to get creationism equal time to the theory of evolution in school science classes if they were willing to do that? I'm inclined to suspect not.

I have a better name for this topic -- "How will we save the world from all these damn threads about creationism?"

He is an apostle though, people forget that.

But, he wasn't an apostle to Jesus... he didn't even become an Apostle until after the death and resurrection.

So - he was not among the twelve who actually KNEW Jesus... anything we get from Paul MUST be commentary on what he had heard OF Jesus.

We can, but would creationists be trying to get creationism equal time to the theory of evolution in school science classes if they were willing to do that? I'm inclined to suspect not.

The lack of equal time isn't exactly a sign of mutual respect between the two, but I can see your point. I poersonally think that's why there are Catholic school boards. Pick and choose what you want. I know if I had to sit through classes droning on about evolution and all that I'd probably fall asleep (although the same could be said for the creationist style classes too. Sleeping in class is too easy.), but mostly I'd just be irritated.

However, for non-Catholics (like myself) who don't want the Catholic schools, but aren't exactly thrilled with evolution teaching either, maybe a middle ground should be offered, hmm? What's wrong with equal time, anyways? It's like saying only Democrats can have TV ads, or only Republicans can advertise on the radio. Inequity isn't exactly balanced, is it?

I have a better name for this topic -- "How will we save the world from all these damn threads about creationism?"

Cute =)

I have a better name for this topic -- "How will we save the world from all these damn threads about creationism?"
Do away with the internet?

This is sooo not the place for this, but I have to jump in and ask:

Have you ever read Abelard's theory of atonement? Everyone is very stuck on Anselm's view, which you have just described here. However, Anselm's view was based in a system of penance that the church had already devised, and that wasn't really based in Scripture. Essentially, the entire idea that Christ acheived salvation for our sins by "paying for" them came from the Catholic system of penance in which one person could do penance for another. Anselm argued that since Christ was God, and God is infinite, then Christ's death amounted to infinite penance, essentially paying for all of our sins....

Abelard wrote that the purpose of Christ was not to "pay for" our sins, but to ensure that we turned towards God in love, instead of in fear. If we turned to God in love, we would truly want to do what was right and truly intend to do what was right, instead of doing it only because we were afraid. If you ever do decide to read up on it, there is quite a bit of Scriptural backing to it, my favorite being the line in which Christ himself said, "No greater love hath man, than to lay down his life for his friends...."



This thread isn't here to debate whether or not science can posit the existence or non-existence of a God, any more than it is here to debate whether or not 2+2=4. One can only debate something which is opinion-based. Neither of these things are things that one can have an opinion about, because they are already set in stone by definition.



I never suggested that we shouldn't listen to what they have to say. I just said we shouldn't refrain from correcting their errors and throw it up to, "Well, it's their opinion, so I can't argue it....." It is not, however, a debate at that point. It is a person who knows the facts correcting someone who doesn't.



The thing is, I don't want to slap people down at all, and I don't believe I did in this case. I very calmly explained how they were wrong. I didn't start out with, "OHMIGOSH, YOU ARE TEH STUPID!" If God007 had wished to back up his point, he would have, unless calm, rational discussion scares him away...

You're not addressing my point. I'm not saying that we shouldn't reply to him and give whatever we think. But all of us, myself included, were doing nothing to encourage more information. We were making assumptions, as you admitted, on how he got to where he was instead of addressing the reasons for his beliefs, point by point. You can't change someone's views without changing what led them to those views, you're attacking the results, I'm suggesting we address the causes.

I have a better name for this topic -- "How will we save the world from all these damn threads about creationism?"

Those who wish to be 'saved' need only not open the thread. How about taking some responsibility for your own actions?

The lack of equal time isn't exactly a sign of mutual respect between the two, but I can see your point. I poersonally think that's why there are Catholic school boards. Pick and choose what you want. I know if I had to sit through classes droning on about evolution and all that I'd probably fall asleep (although the same could be said for the creationist style classes too. Sleeping in class is too easy.), but mostly I'd just be irritated.

However, for non-Catholics (like myself) who don't want the Catholic schools, but aren't exactly thrilled with evolution teaching either, maybe a middle ground should be offered, hmm? What's wrong with equal time, anyways? It's like saying only Democrats can have TV ads, or only Republicans can advertise on the radio. Inequity isn't exactly balanced, is it?

Wouldn't the problem be, that you are asking about Democrats and Republicans, and IGNORING the 8,000 OTHER candidates?

Wouldn't the problem be, that you are asking about Democrats and Republicans, and IGNORING the 8,000 OTHER candidates?

Ah, again another good point. I was simply trying to give an example, that's all. You can't possibly represent EVERYBODY. There isn't a school big enough for that one. However, offering some kind of choice (like evolution vs. non-denominational creationism, ex: the concept of creationism without certain religious references such as God, Allah, Adam and Eve, etc.) is still better than completely restricting choice altogether.

The lack of equal time isn't exactly a sign of mutual respect between the two, but I can see your point. I poersonally think that's why there are Catholic school boards. Pick and choose what you want. I know if I had to sit through classes droning on about evolution and all that I'd probably fall asleep (although the same could be said for the creationist style classes too. Sleeping in class is too easy.), but mostly I'd just be irritated.

However, for non-Catholics (like myself) who don't want the Catholic schools, but aren't exactly thrilled with evolution teaching either, maybe a middle ground should be offered, hmm? What's wrong with equal time, anyways? It's like saying only Democrats can have TV ads, or only Republicans can advertise on the radio. Inequity isn't exactly balanced, is it?

Equal time is a great idea. I'm all for it. Would you please list for me every theory for the origin of man please? If I were you I'd go eat first though cuz it's gonna take a while to list them all.

Also, you're going to have to walk me through how Creation is scientific, because I'm not seeing it.

Ah, again another good point. I was simply trying to give an example, that's all. You can't possibly represent EVERYBODY. There isn't a school big enough for that one. However, offering some kind of choice (like evolution vs. non-denominational creationism, ex: the concept of creationism without certain religious references such as God, Allah, Adam and Eve, etc.) is still better than completely restricting choice altogether.

Okay - if we accept that model.... 'where' do we teach that class?

Do we teach it in the Religious Studies (or whatever it is called) class?

"God made the world in seven days.... but strong evidence suggests... blah blah blah evolution"?

Personally, I don't think the Religious curriculum would happily allow equal time for abiogenesis and evolution, as it will for 'creation stories', do you?


So - we are left with the choice of teaching a Christian-ised creation myth in Science classes.... and yet, such a creation story has NO 'scientific' merit... it doesn't even follow the Scientific Method.

And - if we DID stretch the definition of 'science' to allow Creationism, why are we looking at 'god-made' stories? There ARE other versions, with no 'gods' or 'intelligent designers'.... and there are versions WITH gods, that have no 'intent' to design.

Equal time is a great idea. I'm all for it. Would you please list for me every theory for the origin of man please? If I were you I'd go eat first though cuz it's gonna take a while to list them all.

Also, you're going to have to walk me through how Creation is scientific, because I'm not seeing it.

:rolleyes: See above post, my friend. It isn't possible to teach EVERY SINGLE THEORY on the origin of man or life, but one could try to condense them into the most popular theories. Hell, maybe one could just create a whole class related to the topic: Origin of Life 101 or something like that.

:rolleyes: See above post, my friend. It isn't possible to teach EVERY SINGLE THEORY on the origin of man or life, but one could try to condense them into the most popular theories. Hell, maybe one could just create a whole class related to the topic: Origin of Life 101 or something like that.

Or we could just teach a class called science and eliminate any theories that are not scientific, no? And you do realize that freedom of religion is not a popularity contest, yes? You are asking that we violate first amendment rights and implement tyranny by oligopoly.

Okay - if we accept that model.... 'where' do we teach that class?

Do we teach it in the Religious Studies (or whatever it is called) class?

"God made the world in seven days.... but strong evidence suggests... blah blah blah evolution"?

Personally, I don't think the Religious curriculum would happily allow equal time for abiogenesis and evolution, as it will for 'creation stories', do you?


So - we are left with the choice of teaching a Christian-ised creation myth in Science classes.... and yet, such a creation story has NO 'scientific' merit... it doesn't even follow the Scientific Method.

And - if we DID stretch the definition of 'science' to allow Creationism, why are we looking at 'god-made' stories? There ARE other versions, with no 'gods' or 'intelligent designers'.... and there are versions WITH gods, that have no 'intent' to design.

Now wait just a moment. The Religious curriculum DOES teach all that stuff, pal. I know, I'm currently in a Catholic school. However, they try to combine the two a bit in a somewhat more progressive approach than others. "God created man USING evolution" and so forth.

Also, science doesn't have to clash with religion. There can be an equilibreum between the two if narrow-minded individuals on both sides can open up just a little. It can't be all give on just one side, both have to give a little.

Ah, again another good point. I was simply trying to give an example, that's all. You can't possibly represent EVERYBODY. There isn't a school big enough for that one. However, offering some kind of choice (like evolution vs. non-denominational creationism, ex: the concept of creationism without certain religious references such as God, Allah, Adam and Eve, etc.) is still better than completely restricting choice altogether.

It's not a choice. They aren't equal or remotely equal theories. There is no scientific evidence for one of them and thus a class including it is teaching religion. And you make obvious your ignorance of how divergent the theories are. You can't represent most them as equal just by removing the specific religious references. Let's see, tell me how Greek mythology fits into the creation stories of Christianity? Creationism is denominational by definition. And teaching it is rejecting the very foundation of science. Philosophies are already taught in philosophy classes, religion is already taugh in religious studies, science will be taught in the science classroom.

Have you seen recent studies that show a large portion of people believe the sun revolves around the earth. Does that also deserve equal time?

Or we could just teach a class called science and eliminate any theories that are not scientific, no? And you do realize that freedom of religion is not a popularity contest, yes? You are asking that we violate first amendment rights and implement tyranny by oligopoly.

You ask that we violate the first amendment too, my friend. By eliminating all choice in these matters, you eliminate the freedom of others to voice their views on these issues in a class setting. What if someone who doesn't ascribe to evolution decides to turn in a paper with their views and gets a big fat 0 for it?

Also, not all matters are of a scientific nature. Life is more than matter and energy. Explain the concept of thought in scientific terms that have been completely and incontrovertably proven, and you'll win me over. But it can't be simple "theory", it has to be something definitive that actually has a reasonable basis. If you don't want to, then leave people alone to think what they will. Not everyone perceives the world in purely scientific terms (ex: artists, entertainers, philosophers).

Now wait just a moment. The Religious curriculum DOES teach all that stuff, pal. I know, I'm currently in a Catholic school. However, they try to combine the two a bit in a somewhat more progressive approach than others. "God created man USING evolution" and so forth.

Also, science doesn't have to clash with religion. There can be an equilibreum between the two if narrow-minded individuals on both sides can open up just a little. It can't be all give on just one side, both have to give a little.

You're missing the point. I actually agree that God created man using evolution. However, public schools CANNOT teach you about God. It is not their role and to do so is an insult to religious freedom. I believe the theory you're suggesting and I still don't want it taught to my children at school. You know why? Because I don't the government deciding what to teach and not to teach my children about religion. My children and I will work that out together, thank you. Without anyone else. I'm a stickler for the first amendment that way.

Indeed... but why? Why do these people believe that science is somehow prejudiced AGAINST 'god'? What is their 'evidence'?

Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since.
quoted from an interview with Richard Dawkins (http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/dawkinsquestions022303.htm). "The evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi in 1941. A graduate of Oxford University, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford, since 1970; he became the first Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the university in 1995. His first book, The Selfish Gene, a radical updating of Darwinian theory, was an immediate bestseller in 1976. He is a confirmed atheist."

If I had time, I could probably find many more evolutionary scientists making similar statements about God and/or gods. That is why we think evolutionary scientists are against god.

Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since.
quoted from an interview with Richard Dawkins (http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/dawkinsquestions022303.htm). "The evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi in 1941. A graduate of Oxford University, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford, since 1970; he became the first Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the university in 1995. His first book, The Selfish Gene, a radical updating of Darwinian theory, was an immediate bestseller in 1976. He is a confirmed atheist."

If I had time, I could probably find many more evolutionary scientists making similar statements about God and/or gods. That is why we think evolutionary scientists are against god.

That's how Dawkins interprets the Theory, not the Theory itself.

Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since.
quoted from an interview with Richard Dawkins (http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/dawkinsquestions022303.htm). "The evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi in 1941. A graduate of Oxford University, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford, since 1970; he became the first Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the university in 1995. His first book, The Selfish Gene, a radical updating of Darwinian theory, was an immediate bestseller in 1976. He is a confirmed atheist."

If I had time, I could probably find many more evolutionary scientists making similar statements about God and/or gods. That is why we think evolutionary scientists are against god.

And yet, since the demographics are about equal... real world:lab world... it is fairly safe to assume that MOST Western evolutionary scientists are ALSO Christians.

So - Richard Dawkins had an epiphany when he discovered DNA, it doesn't mean SCIENCE is anti-god... it just means that Dawkins was ONLY believing in god because he had no OTHER answers. Once another possible answer presented itself, he realise he had a CHOICE.

Is it 'choice' that you argue against?

Personally, I am a Scientist by trade. I accept the theory of evolution as the most plausible current theory. I am also an Atheist. However, I am an Atheist through lack of faith, not BECAUSE I am a Scientist, or BECAUSE I studied evolution.

That's how Dawkins interprets the Theory, not the Theory itself.

Crap. Yes - that's what I MEANT... I just needed another 10 lines.... :)

There is no scientific evidence for one of them and thus a class including it is teaching religion. -snip-

That's what I have thought about evolution for the longest time...;)

And from everything I have read so far, faith in evolution requires denial of falsifying evidence, moreso than faith in God...:p

I can refer you to very long articles if you wish...

That's what I have thought about evolution for the longest time...;)

And from everything I have read so far, faith in evolution requires denial of falsifying evidence, moreso than faith in God...:p

I can refer you to very long articles if you wish...
Please do ... nothing that we have not debated before

Though we usualy spend the time disecting thoes long articles and dont have the favor returned

For some reson the opposition is usualy lazy bout that

You ask that we violate the first amendment too, my friend. By eliminating all choice in these matters, you eliminate the freedom of others to voice their views on these issues in a class setting. What if someone who doesn't ascribe to evolution decides to turn in a paper with their views and gets a big fat 0 for it?

They have freedom to voice their views, elsewhere. There is not time to give equal time to all religions and thus they must leave religion completely out of it. Choice isn't eliminated. Somehow even with no Christianity in my school, I managed to grow up Christian. I wonder how I managed that. You seem to think atheism is being taught in school so theism has to be taught to balance the ship, but that's not happening. Teachers are not allowed to teach that there is no God or that God had no involvement in creation. They don't teach that and won't teach that.

They get a big fat 0 because Creation is not science and thus has no place in science. You may be surprised by this, but science classes are not about personal philosophies. They teach the scientific method and how to study and learn about science. The 0 doesn't say their view is wrong, the 0 says their view is not science, and it isn't.

You know what other paper I would get a big, fat 0 on. The paper that says black people are monkeys. There are lots of people who believe but it's not allowed. It seems like the reason it's not allowed is obvious, but it really isn't. Many people would get it wrong. The reason it's not allowed is because it's not science. And stifling that view, as you see it, is not a violation of the first amendment. Restricting science to *gasp* science is not a violation of any sort.

Also, not all matters are of a scientific nature. Life is more than matter and energy. Explain the concept of thought in scientific terms that have been completely and incontrovertably proven, and you'll win me over. But it can't be simple "theory", it has to be something definitive that actually has a reasonable basis. If you don't want to, then leave people alone to think what they will. Not everyone perceives the world in purely scientific terms (ex: artists, entertainers, philosophers).

You're correct, but school doesn't teach us religion. PERIOD. It's there to teach us the hows and the whats and our parents can teach us the whys and about morality and how to be a good person, etc. That's the role of parents and, to be quite frank, I'll be pissed if someone tries to take that sacred role from me. Science is all 'theory'. Your problem is you don't understand the process of science. It is based on evidence. It's an inherent limit that prevent science from ever KNOWING or PROVING anything in the way you describe.

People don't have to perceive the world in purely scientific terms, or mathematical, or linguistic, or artistic. It is the role of the school to give them the foundation in all things secular. Religious instruction is better taught elsewhere because to try and teach ever religion equally would be impossible if we started actually teaching religion in school and to not do so is a violation of the first amendment.

You ask that we violate the first amendment too, my friend. By eliminating all choice in these matters, you eliminate the freedom of others to voice their views on these issues in a class setting. What if someone who doesn't ascribe to evolution decides to turn in a paper with their views and gets a big fat 0 for it?


Strawman - nobody has suggested eliminating any choices. All they have said is: Creationism is RELIGION, not Science. So - it has NO PLACE in the SCience classroom.

And, if someone wantonly hands in a paper about a different subject, to the one the test is on, they should get a big fat zero. It's what they deserve.

Seriously... if I had handed in a paper about the Babylonian Flood Epic, in my Religious Education classes about the New Testament, I'd have deserved a zero, wouldn't I?


Also, not all matters are of a scientific nature. Life is more than matter and energy. Explain the concept of thought in scientific terms that have been completely and incontrovertably proven, and you'll win me over. But it can't be simple "theory", it has to be something definitive that actually has a reasonable basis. If you don't want to, then leave people alone to think what they will. Not everyone perceives the world in purely scientific terms (ex: artists, entertainers, philosophers).

You are correct.

Not ALL matters are of a scientific nature.

But, the Science syllabus is about those things that ARE of a scientific nature.... and thus, Intelligent Design and Creationism (which are NOT scientific) deserve no place in THAT syllabus.

That's what I have thought about evolution for the longest time...;)

And from everything I have read so far, faith in evolution requires denial of falsifying evidence, moreso than faith in God...:p

I can refer you to very long articles if you wish...

If you have a PEER-REVIEWED article that can throw doubt on evolution, to the extent that it can be considered a 'matter of faith', I'd be interested to see it.

Some televangelist saying 'rePENT, JAY-sus says evil-ution is the DAY-vil' is just not going to cut it, though.

Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since.
quoted from an interview with Richard Dawkins (http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/dawkinsquestions022303.htm). "The evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi in 1941. A graduate of Oxford University, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford, since 1970; he became the first Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the university in 1995. His first book, The Selfish Gene, a radical updating of Darwinian theory, was an immediate bestseller in 1976. He is a confirmed atheist."

If I had time, I could probably find many more evolutionary scientists making similar statements about God and/or gods. That is why we think evolutionary scientists are against god.

So if we found a bunch of people who studied evolution and contributed to current theory who worshipped God would it suddenly become the God-theory? I didn't realize the personal beliefs of a scientist decided what religion the theory belongs to. That's a new one to me. Now where could we find a couple of Christians that believe in evolution? Where, oh, where?
Oh, hey, Dem... wait, don't you follow the scientific method and thus find evolution to be the best explanation and aren't you Christian? Oh, wait, me too. Odd, since apparently evolution believes there is no God. I guess we missed the memo.

And wasn't Darwin... yes, yes, he was. He was a Christian.

That's what I have thought about evolution for the longest time...;)

And from everything I have read so far, faith in evolution requires denial of falsifying evidence, moreso than faith in God...:p

I can refer you to very long articles if you wish...

Can't wait. I'd be thoroughly interested in find a single peer-reviewed scientific article refuting evolution. Because understand that whenever at any time evidence arises that falsifies a theory that theory is either discarded or adjusted to better represent the evidence. That's how science works, but then you knew that.

Please, post your articles along with the scientific journals in which they appeared.

Can't wait. I'd be thoroughly interested in find a single peer-reviewed scientific article refuting evolution. Because understand that whenever at any time evidence arises that falsifies a theory that theory is either discarded or adjusted to better represent the evidence. That's how science works, but then you knew that.

Please, post your articles along with the scientific journals in which they appeared.

How about articles consisting of dialogs between evolutionary scientists and their opponents, each side citing evidence to support their views? (And, interestingly, the opposing side normally cites pro-evolutionary scientists to prove its points)

Especially since there is no peer review allowed in the evolutionary/neo-Darwinian scientific community of anything espousing an opposing viewpoint.

How about articles consisting of dialogs between evolutionary scientists and their opponents, each side citing evidence to support their views? (And, interestingly, the opposing side normally cites pro-evolutionary scientists to prove its points)

Especially since there is no peer review allowed in the evolutionary/neo-Darwinian scientific community of anything espousing an opposing viewpoint.

That's false. There have been dissenting opinions posted. This is how the view evolved to its current state. Someone experimented or more evidence was uncovered and the theory was modified to fit the evidence. That's the essence of science. In fact, Dawkins was a dissenting opinion. He did not agree with Darwin. And he showed the science and now his view more closely represents the currently held view. Your claim has been proven wrong.

But sure, post your articles. So long as they propose a better theory that can be reached from the evidence and only from the evidence, I'm all for it.

How about articles consisting of dialogs between evolutionary scientists and their opponents, each side citing evidence to support their views? (And, interestingly, the opposing side normally cites pro-evolutionary scientists to prove its points)

Especially since there is no peer review allowed in the evolutionary/neo-Darwinian scientific community of anything espousing an opposing viewpoint.

Also, could you show the experiments that were done that were not permitted into a scientific journal? Could you post a rejection letter? I'd be interested in any evidence other than "they hate us".

That's interesting--when I tried to paste the first link, firefox froze! Wow, firefox may be anti-opposition to evolution...:rolleyes:

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)
This first one is about the following topic:
"The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his “Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, “If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.” He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:
* Evolution has never been observed.

* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

* There are no transitional fossils.

* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Below are explanations of why each of these five statements is quite correct—and much more scientifically accurate than Mr. Isaak’s responses to the same. For the objective reader, these explanations should help to put to rest the popular myth that the domination of evolutionary thought in modern thinking is based on scientific knowledge. In reality, and in spite of the much-parroted claims of evolutionists, the facts of science (i.e., the empirical data and natural laws known to man), when examined without the prejudice of a naturalistic, mechanistic philosophy/belief system, do not support evolutionary theory."

I found it kind of fun reading for my bus ride home. If beauty points to truth, this is a beautiful article.

And this next one is a critique requested by a proponent of evolution of a pro-evolution essay:
A Scientific Critique of Evolution
Dr. Lee Spetner
in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp)
"Dr. Edward E. Max posted an essay entitled The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation Plus Selection on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html. He asked me for my comments and, as a result, I wrote a critique of his essay (of his version updated 12 July 1999) and sent it to him on 2 August 2000. He promised me he would have it posted on the talkorigins website with a link from his essay. He responded to my critique on 22 August and I replied to his response on 29 August. I received a reply from him on 25 September that he was “looking forward to responding”, but was busy at the time. At the time of this writing (27 November 2000) I have not received any further substantive reply from him, and my comments have so far not appeared on the above website. I have therefore decided to post here a unified version of the present status of our debate. I have merged my original critique, his response, and my reply to his response to present our debate in an understandable flow."

One of my favorite quotes from this article:
"I have exposed his argument as being nothing more that offering possible scenarios—it is argument by just-so-stories. But the argument against NDT does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it. The telling blow against NDT is that examples of information addition have never been exhibited. The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution. It is actually evidence against evolution because if NDT were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many."

In my personal exploration of evolution/Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism, back when I believed that it was true cause people said it was, I noticed that books that I expected to contain logical explanations of evidence actually contained science fictional scenarios, like when I first encountered an article on nano-technology back in the 1970's, long before any of it had been done, that was full of speculation spoken of as though it were accomplished fact. And so it is with evolution. Opinion and speculation spoken of as accomplished fact.

More to come, as I get a chance to read more...:)

That's interesting--when I tried to paste the first link, firefox froze! Wow, firefox may be anti-opposition to evolution...:rolleyes:

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)
This first one is about the following topic:
"The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his “Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, “If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.” He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:
* Evolution has never been observed.

* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

* There are no transitional fossils.

* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Below are explanations of why each of these five statements is quite correct—and much more scientifically accurate than Mr. Isaak’s responses to the same. For the objective reader, these explanations should help to put to rest the popular myth that the domination of evolutionary thought in modern thinking is based on scientific knowledge. In reality, and in spite of the much-parroted claims of evolutionists, the facts of science (i.e., the empirical data and natural laws known to man), when examined without the prejudice of a naturalistic, mechanistic philosophy/belief system, do not support evolutionary theory."

I found it kind of fun reading for my bus ride home. If beauty points to truth, this is a beautiful article.

And this next one is a critique requested by a proponent of evolution of a pro-evolution essay:
A Scientific Critique of Evolution
Dr. Lee Spetner
in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp)
"Dr. Edward E. Max posted an essay entitled The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation Plus Selection on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html. He asked me for my comments and, as a result, I wrote a critique of his essay (of his version updated 12 July 1999) and sent it to him on 2 August 2000. He promised me he would have it posted on the talkorigins website with a link from his essay. He responded to my critique on 22 August and I replied to his response on 29 August. I received a reply from him on 25 September that he was “looking forward to responding”, but was busy at the time. At the time of this writing (27 November 2000) I have not received any further substantive reply from him, and my comments have so far not appeared on the above website. I have therefore decided to post here a unified version of the present status of our debate. I have merged my original critique, his response, and my reply to his response to present our debate in an understandable flow."

One of my favorite quotes from this article:
"I have exposed his argument as being nothing more that offering possible scenarios—it is argument by just-so-stories. But the argument against NDT does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it. The telling blow against NDT is that examples of information addition have never been exhibited. The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution. It is actually evidence against evolution because if NDT were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many."

In my personal exploration of evolution/Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism, back when I believed that it was true cause people said it was, I noticed that books that I expected to contain logical explanations of evidence actually contained science fictional scenarios, like when I first encountered an article on nano-technology back in the 1970's, long before any of it had been done, that was full of speculation spoken of as though it were accomplished fact. And so it is with evolution. Opinion and speculation spoken of as accomplished fact.

More to come, as I get a chance to read more...:)

Ok, well, let's just look at the first one for now. Would you like to explain the second law of thermodynamics? Can you address how a forest violates the second law of thermodynamics according to the same criteria used in the article?

In fact, the reason the first article will never be put in a scientific journal is because it doesn't understand the scientific method.

Gravity is a theory, it has never been proved. Did you know that? However, I'm guessing that if you want to figure out the accelleration of an object that you drop then you use the theory of Gravity. In fact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a THEORY and has never been proved. Interesting that some theories are good enough to use and not others that fall under the same criteria.

That's interesting--when I tried to paste the first link, firefox froze! Wow, firefox may be anti-opposition to evolution...:rolleyes:

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)
This first one is about the following topic:
"The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his “Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, “If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.” He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:
* Evolution has never been observed.

* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

* There are no transitional fossils.

* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Below are explanations of why each of these five statements is quite correct—and much more scientifically accurate than Mr. Isaak’s responses to the same. For the objective reader, these explanations should help to put to rest the popular myth that the domination of evolutionary thought in modern thinking is based on scientific knowledge. In reality, and in spite of the much-parroted claims of evolutionists, the facts of science (i.e., the empirical data and natural laws known to man), when examined without the prejudice of a naturalistic, mechanistic philosophy/belief system, do not support evolutionary theory."

I found it kind of fun reading for my bus ride home. If beauty points to truth, this is a beautiful article.

And this next one is a critique requested by a proponent of evolution of a pro-evolution essay:
A Scientific Critique of Evolution
Dr. Lee Spetner
in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp)
"Dr. Edward E. Max posted an essay entitled The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation Plus Selection on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html. He asked me for my comments and, as a result, I wrote a critique of his essay (of his version updated 12 July 1999) and sent it to him on 2 August 2000. He promised me he would have it posted on the talkorigins website with a link from his essay. He responded to my critique on 22 August and I replied to his response on 29 August. I received a reply from him on 25 September that he was “looking forward to responding”, but was busy at the time. At the time of this writing (27 November 2000) I have not received any further substantive reply from him, and my comments have so far not appeared on the above website. I have therefore decided to post here a unified version of the present status of our debate. I have merged my original critique, his response, and my reply to his response to present our debate in an understandable flow."

One of my favorite quotes from this article:
"I have exposed his argument as being nothing more that offering possible scenarios—it is argument by just-so-stories. But the argument against NDT does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it. The telling blow against NDT is that examples of information addition have never been exhibited. The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution. It is actually evidence against evolution because if NDT were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many."

In my personal exploration of evolution/Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism, back when I believed that it was true cause people said it was, I noticed that books that I expected to contain logical explanations of evidence actually contained science fictional scenarios, like when I first encountered an article on nano-technology back in the 1970's, long before any of it had been done, that was full of speculation spoken of as though it were accomplished fact. And so it is with evolution. Opinion and speculation spoken of as accomplished fact.

More to come, as I get a chance to read more...:)

I'll tell you what. I'll buy into your theory. Right now, I will denounce evolution. If you show me one scientific article written by someone who does not hold any religious creation myth to be true, including ID or any type of creation that requires and untestable entity (which makes it unscientific). Show me an article that is questioning evolution on purely scientific grounds, and BEING SCIENTIFIC, proposing a better scientific theory based on the evidence rather that simply suggesting that pretending there are holes in a CONTRARY theory to prove ID or Creation.

Just a little term lesson, is evolution contrary to ID/Creation or contradictory to it?

Yeah, because we all know how society would just fall apart if more people believed that the earth was young and that cataclysmal geology worked...

Seriously though, I've just gotta say, my ROFFLE STATUS was most definitely WAFFLED by that first post.

I'll tell you what. I'll buy into your theory. Right now, I will denounce evolution. If you show me one scientific article written by someone who does not hold any religious creation myth to be true, including ID or any type of creation that requires and untestable entity (which makes it unscientific). Show me an article that is questioning evolution on purely scientific grounds, and BEING SCIENTIFIC, proposing a better scientific theory based on the evidence rather that simply suggesting that pretending there are holes in a CONTRARY theory to prove ID or Creation.

Just a little term lesson, is evolution contrary to ID/Creation or contradictory to it?

Neither unless you're A. being a ***** about it, or B. mucking around with Abiogenesis.

Or you have no sense of humor and are a stick in the mud when it comes to your moral/life philosophy.

But, he wasn't an apostle to Jesus... he didn't even become an Apostle until after the death and resurrection.

So - he was not among the twelve who actually KNEW Jesus... anything we get from Paul MUST be commentary on what he had heard OF Jesus.
apostle- From the Greek word 'apostolos', which means 'one who is sent.' In the Bible this is the title given particularly to the twelve disciples of Jesus and to St. Paul who were commissioned by Jesus to spread the message of Christianity... but it was also given to others who were sent out by the church to do foundational work.

Paul did meet Jesus, though, you remember the whole story about how he was struck blind and all that, you know the big turn around.

Neither unless you're A. being a ***** about it, or B. mucking around with Abiogenesis.

Or you have no sense of humor and are a stick in the mud when it comes to your moral/life philosophy.

Actually, it's contrary, but then you weren't actually trying to contribute. Spamming is not the same as having a sense of humor. You weren't even funny. Spammers really should try harder.

apostle- From the Greek word 'apostolos', which means 'one who is sent.' In the Bible this is the title given particularly to the twelve disciples of Jesus and to St. Paul who were commissioned by Jesus to spread the message of Christianity... but it was also given to others who were sent out by the church to do foundational work.

Paul did meet Jesus, though, you remember the whole story about how he was struck blind and all that, you know the big turn around.

Really? Dang, Paul sure lived to be pretty old. Do you know when his letters were most likely written?

Actually, it's contrary, but then you weren't actually trying to contribute. Spamming is not the same as having a sense of humor. You weren't even funny. Spammers really should try harder.

I dunno... There seem to be people who disagree with you about macroevolution and speciation being completely diametrically opposed to having faith in a creator.

Besides, there's a difference between spamming and three short, fairly inoculous (at least by the standards by the sort of long-winded, relatively pointless discussion going on in here).

Really? Dang, Paul sure lived to be pretty old. Do you know when his letters were most likely written?
you do know that I am speaking about Paul meeting Jesus was after the ascension

Acts 9:1-6

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

I dunno... There seem to be people who disagree with you about macroevolution and speciation being completely diametrically opposed to having faith in a creator.

Besides, there's a difference between spamming and three short, fairly inoculous (at least by the standards by the sort of long-winded, relatively pointless discussion going on in here).

Yes, there are people who think that it's true, but do you know unless proving one wrong proves the other one true they are contrary. Would proving evolution wrong mean that ID/Creation would be the ONLY possible explanation? Unless the answer is yes, and it simply can't be contradictory. But you knew that, right? So give me an example of something that can prove evolution wrong and I'll give a dozen possible theories (unscientific) for what could have happened, none of them being ID or Creation.

That's interesting--when I tried to paste the first link, firefox froze! Wow, firefox may be anti-opposition to evolution...:rolleyes:

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)

Failure to understand science #1:
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.

People who want to counter the theory of evolution often try to make this false distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". However, it is like making a distinction between 2 changes in a document and 800 changes in a document and saying that one set is different from the other - they vary only in how many changes there must be.

If I have many, many increments of 0.1, I will eventually end up with a huge total change. For instance, if I have 3 million increments of 0.1, I will end up with a total change of 300,000. What people who don't understand the theory label "macroevolution" is nothing more than the accumulation of a great deal of "microevolution," just as 300,000 is an accumulation of 3 million 0.1 increments.

Another point on which this guy obviously doesn't understand the theory:
Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

Absolutely untrue. Evolution is change - that is all it is. Over time, little changes can make big ones. It can go from simple to complex, or even from complex to simple. It can create a new species, or remain within the same species.

Flawed understanding of science yet again:
Isaak’s impressive confidence seems to be based in part on his inability to differentiate between “observing” an event and “interpreting evidence” to support a hypothesized event.

Everything that we "observe" is actually "interpreting evidence". I think I am observing this computer. In fact, my brain is interpreting the evidence that is there. Observing and interpreting evidence are inseparable concepts.

Incredibly obvious lack of understanding of science:
And in fact, using Isaak’s own logic in fairness to the Creationists whom he wishes to discredit, one can just as easily (and much more accurately) state: “It would be wrong to say that creation hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Creationism makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting Creationism is overwhelming.”

Creationists invoke God, and untestable principle. Evolution requires no such invocation.

It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in order

Two major problems here:

(a) A decrease in entropy does not always equate to a decrease in order. See any high-level thermodynamics class for an in-depth explanation why, but what it basically comes down to is that entropy has several components, of which order is only one. In most cases, order is the most important component. However, there are cases (polymerization, for example), in which entropy is increased while order is increased as well.

(b) This guy keeps talking about a natural process or system, left to itself - in other words, in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. There is no process "left to itself" on Earth, as there is no such thing as a closed system on Earth. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, even with the references this guy uses, is clear that a process that decreases entropy is possible, so long as entropy is increased elsewhere in the overall system (in this case, the universe). So unless he can demonstrate that it is impossible for overall univeral entropy to be increasing as evolution occurs, he has no argument.

This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory.


Incorrect. Everything in science is a theory. By making this claim, this guy is claiming that we can simultaneously observe (and know that our observations are infallible) every single process in the entire universe and determine that overall entropy is decreasing. I'd like him to show me that trick....

So we can see that living things do not in fact “violate” the 2nd law, nor are they excepted from or “irrelevant to” the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the 2nd law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

Wow! He says something true! Of course, it doesn't in any way support his argument, but at least he got something right.

each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going.

Wow, that's a claim no biologist would ever make. There are so very many things that go "wrong" in the system every day....

Meanwhile, this guy doesn't like the snowflake-type examples. That is fine. However, anyone who has studied chemistry knows that order - in very complex forms - comes from disorder - in just about every chemical equation. And guess what life is? A series of chemical equations! Now, that doesn't mean for a second that all chemical reactions decrease entropy - only some of them do. Those types of reactions need an energy input. So what input might there be? Hmmmm, nutrients? Heat in the surroundings?

More flawed understanding:
In the first place, not all evolutionists continue to subscribe to the “small changes between generations” theories (e.g., Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism). There is a substantial number who now advocate the “punctuated equilibria,” “quantum speciation,” or “hopeful monster” scenarios, in which major morphological changes are believed to take place in rare, infrequent, and highly isolated events, separated by long periods of little or no change.

"Punctuated equilibria" still refers to many small changes adding up to larger ones. It simply places that occurrence in a smaller amount of time...

Secondly, such changes as Isaak’s example of “four or six fingers instead of five” are due to genetic errors (mutations), and contrary to Isaak’s claim, differential reproductive success serves better to weed-out these errors, rather than perpetuate them, which is good, because they are almost invariably harmful, or at the very least neutral, in effect.

Illogical. This essentially says, "Usually they are harmful, therefore they can never be helpful."

The transitional fossil secion essentially says, "Scientists can't agree on these things, therefore they must be wrong." Scientists can't agree on a complete theory of gravity either - does that mean that gravity doesn't exist? OF COURSE there is debate and a constant reexamination of where things go. If there wasn't, it wouldn't be science!

“The Theory of Evolution Says That Life Originated, and Evolution Proceeds, by Random Chance”

Two problems here:

(a) He doesn't address the fact that the theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life. That is a separate idea altogether - the one he addresses being known as abiogenesis.

(b) He basically argues from a strawman position. He tries to make it sound as though anyone is claiming that there is no randomness involved in evolution, which, of course, would be incorrect. However, the actual claim made in the above statement is that evolution proceeds entirely by random chance - which is also incorrect. He does nothing to support this statement.

a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.

This guy's definition of evolutionary theory is inherently incorrect, as it includes the origins of life.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact.

Ah, so now he wants to use the lay-definition of theory instead of the scientific one, which is actually more like:

"An explanation of phenomenon which has stood the test of time and testing, and for which there is no contradictory evidence."

Evolutionary theory (as well as gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of relativity, etc.) all meet this definition - which is the one used by science.

A little less generality is in order here, however, as the term “law” in science refers to a description of invariable, observable, results or phenomena under like conditions, whereas the term “theory” refers to a proposed description or explanation, usually based at least in part on repeatability and observation (i.e., the scientific process). The difference is hardly that one “can be expressed more tersely” than the other.


Again, the guy doesn't use actual scientific definitions. A law, in science (and you can check even a middle school textbook on this one - you don't have to go up into higher science), is simply a theory that has stood up to so much time and testing that it seems to be invariable. However, even laws are still up to being disproven, as are all theories. Newton's laws were disproven when we realized that there were other factors - namely those of relativity - that needed to be taken into account. Before that, they seemed to work invariably. However, when we found that they did not, we needed a new theory....
paragraphs:

I found it kind of fun reading for my bus ride home. If beauty points to truth, this is a beautiful article.

Unfortunately, there is no truth in this article. There are strawmen, incorrect definitions, and interpretations of quotes that we can all be sure were not uttered in the context in which he uses them. This guy can't tell the difference between the hypothesis known as abiogenesis (not yet a theory, as it has not been tested enough) and the theory of evolution. He makes the common, but still incorrect, assumption that entropy = loss of order - something that anyone who has studied higher-level chemistry can easily refute. He claims to know some theories as facts - even though knowing them as a fact would require observing (and knowing that your observation was infallible) the entire universe and every process in it at the same time.

Basically, the article uses big words so (a) people who respond to technical terms with awe and (b) people who already believe as he does will think it is a great argument. Unfortunately, it really isn't.

you do know that I am speaking about Paul meeting Jesus was after the ascension

Acts 9:1-6

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.


I saw jesus in a dream. Does that mean I met jesus?

I'll tell you what. I'll buy into your theory. Right now, I will denounce evolution. If you show me one scientific article written by someone who does not hold any religious creation myth to be true, including ID or any type of creation that requires and untestable entity (which makes it unscientific). Show me an article that is questioning evolution on purely scientific grounds, and BEING SCIENTIFIC, proposing a better scientific theory based on the evidence rather that simply suggesting that pretending there are holes in a CONTRARY theory to prove ID or Creation.

Just a little term lesson, is evolution contrary to ID/Creation or contradictory to it?

If you read more than the quotes from the article, you will see that only scientific arguments are used, including quotes from leading evolutionists that intentionally or not falsify various aspects of the theory of evolution.

That is why I said, the articles that I post are very long, and will require lots of reading before replying.

Responses given so far indicate that the responders have not read through the entire article, because the answers are given there. If I have to reproduce more of the article to answer, the answers are many pages long (10-12 pages), so that is why I posted links, with only a single quote from 50+ pages on each link.

Please read, otherwise you will be responding from ignorance.

I am not trying to inflame, but to inform.:cool:

Failure to understand science #1:


People who want to counter the theory of evolution often try to make this false distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". However, it is like making a distinction between 2 changes in a document and 800 changes in a document and saying that one set is different from the other - they vary only in how many changes there must be.

If I have many, many increments of 0.1, I will eventually end up with a huge total change. For instance, if I have 3 million increments of 0.1, I will end up with a total change of 300,000. What people who don't understand the theory label "macroevolution" is nothing more than the accumulation of a great deal of "microevolution," just as 300,000 is an accumulation of 3 million 0.1 increments.


my words are in italics
quotes from the article I linked to are in bold

from the article
Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak apparently wants us to join him in simplistically believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not science, and the facts of genetic science simply don’t corroborate Isaak’s story

Another point on which this guy obviously doesn't understand the theory:


Absolutely untrue. Evolution is change - that is all it is. Over time, little changes can make big ones. It can go from simple to complex, or even from complex to simple. It can create a new species, or remain within the same species.

everyone acknowledges the variations within species---what is unproven is changes that create new species. It is more than just reshuffling the existing genetic material---new material must be added, which was never before present in the biological universe! This is more than just an extra finger, or a bacteria surviving a particular antibiotic, it is much much more.

Flawed understanding of science yet again:


Everything that we "observe" is actually "interpreting evidence". I think I am observing this computer. In fact, my brain is interpreting the evidence that is there. Observing and interpreting evidence are inseparable concepts.

Incredibly obvious lack of understanding of science:


Creationists invoke God, and untestable principle. Evolution requires no such invocation.



Two major problems here:

(a) A decrease in entropy does not always equate to a decrease in order. See any high-level thermodynamics class for an in-depth explanation why, but what it basically comes down to is that entropy has several components, of which order is only one. In most cases, order is the most important component. However, there are cases (polymerization, for example), in which entropy is increased while order is increased as well.

(b) This guy keeps talking about a natural process or system, left to itself - in other words, in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. There is no process "left to itself" on Earth, as there is no such thing as a closed system on Earth. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, even with the references this guy uses, is clear that a process that decreases entropy is possible, so long as entropy is increased elsewhere in the overall system (in this case, the universe). So unless he can demonstrate that it is impossible for overall univeral entropy to be increasing as evolution occurs, he has no argument.

from the article
Consider what Isaac Asimov (a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to say:

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”

and again from the article
Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics?




Incorrect. [i]Everything in science is a theory. By making this claim, this guy is claiming that we can simultaneously observe (and know that our observations are infallible) every single process in the entire universe and determine that overall entropy is decreasing. I'd like him to show me that trick....



Wow! He says something true! Of course, it doesn't in any way support his argument, but at least he got something right.



Wow, that's a claim no biologist would ever make. There are so very many things that go "wrong" in the system every day....

Meanwhile, this guy doesn't like the snowflake-type examples. That is fine. However, anyone who has studied chemistry knows that order - in very complex forms - comes from disorder - in just about every chemical equation. And guess what life is? A series of chemical equations! Now, that doesn't mean for a second that all chemical reactions decrease entropy - only some of them do. Those types of reactions need an energy input. So what input might there be? Hmmmm, nutrients? Heat in the surroundings?

On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.

Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.


More flawed understanding:


"Punctuated equilibria" still refers to many small changes adding up to larger ones. It simply places that occurrence in a smaller amount of time...

In the first place, not all evolutionists continue to subscribe to the “small changes between generations” theories (e.g., Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism). There is a substantial number who now advocate the “punctuated equilibria,” “quantum speciation,” or “hopeful monster” scenarios, in which major morphological changes are believed to take place in rare, infrequent, and highly isolated events, separated by long periods of little or no change.
The whole point of puncuated equilibrium is that changes are major and infrequent, not just re-stating the original Darwinian hypothesis...




Illogical. This essentially says, "Usually they are harmful, therefore they can never be helpful."

The transitional fossil secion essentially says, "Scientists can't agree on these things, therefore they must be wrong." Scientists can't agree on a complete theory of gravity either - does that mean that gravity doesn't exist? OF COURSE there is debate and a constant reexamination of where things go. If there wasn't, it wouldn't be science!

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]



Two problems here:

(a) He doesn't address the fact that the theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life. That is a separate idea altogether - the one he addresses being known as abiogenesis.

(b) He basically argues from a strawman position. He tries to make it sound as though anyone is claiming that there is no randomness involved in evolution, which, of course, would be incorrect. However, the actual claim made in the above statement is that evolution proceeds entirely by random chance - which is also incorrect. He does nothing to support this statement.

in the article, the writer is responding to an article by a proponent of evolution, who brought up abiogenesis in the first place! The "strawman" is of the pro-evolutionist's making! First, I will quote the article's quote of the pro-evolutionist
“Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance,” Isaak insists. “Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. ...Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

and then some of the article writer's response, via quoting another evolutionist

“It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.” [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]


This guy's definition of evolutionary theory is inherently incorrect, as it includes the origins of life.

once again, evolutionist scientists bring this up first
“Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative.” [Dr. Leslie Orgel (evolutionist biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), “Darwinism at the very beginning of life,” New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p. 150]

Ah, so now he wants to use the lay-definition of theory instead of the scientific one, which is actually more like:

"An explanation of phenomenon which has stood the test of time and testing, and for which there is no contradictory evidence."

Evolutionary theory (as well as gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of relativity, etc.) all meet this definition - which is the one used by science.

Other definitions notwithstanding (including the redefinition of genetic variation as “microevolution”—often used in a bait-and-switch argument), the general biological meaning of “evolution” to most evolutionists is

a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.

Leaving alone the area of cosmogony, the “big bang” and its competing hypotheses, as well as some of the other details, this definition is usually adequate as a reference point from which the majority of evolutionists work.


Again, the guy doesn't use actual scientific definitions. A law, in science (and you can check even a middle school textbook on this one - you don't have to go up into higher science), is simply a theory that has stood up to so much time and testing that it seems to be invariable. However, even laws are still up to being disproven, as are all theories. Newton's laws were disproven when we realized that there were other factors - namely those of relativity - that needed to be taken into account. Before that, they seemed to work invariably. However, when we found that they did not, we needed a new theory....
paragraphs:

again, the author of the article is responding to the original article which was in support of evolution, and the original article defined evolutionary theory. The article to which I referred everyone was merely responding to this
To date, evolutionary theory has not explained any observed phenomenon—rather, it serves up speculation and conjecture that unobserved (and unobservable) phenomena are responsible for life as we know it. This does not qualify evolutionism as a theory according to the definition offered by Isaak.

A better definition (no. 2 from the same dictionary used by Isaak) would be

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact.

Thus, evolutionary theory provides a conjectural, proposed explanation in reporting on the origin and diversity (matters) of life as we know it—life as we know it being actual fact.



Unfortunately, there is no truth in this article. There are strawmen, incorrect definitions, and interpretations of quotes that we can all be sure were not uttered in the context in which he uses them. This guy can't tell the difference between the hypothesis known as abiogenesis (not yet a theory, as it has not been tested enough) and the theory of evolution. He makes the common, but still incorrect, assumption that entropy = loss of order - something that anyone who has studied higher-level chemistry can easily refute. He claims to know some theories as facts - even though knowing them as a fact would require observing (and knowing that your observation was infallible) the entire universe and every process in it at the same time.

Basically, the article uses big words so (a) people who respond to technical terms with awe and (b) people who already believe as he does will think it is a great argument. Unfortunately, it really isn't.

Yet thus far, our analysis of Isaak’s own claims concerning evolution reveal it to fail even as a theory, by this auxiliary definition:

* Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent
1. by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment
2. in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.
* Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in
1. the fossil record
2. geology
3. genetics
4. molecular biology
5. thermodynamics
6. dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)
7. probability mathematics
* Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced
1. no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology
2. no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs
3. no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences”—having served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and other societal/ideological ills.


I hope that people will actually read the entire article, rather than skimming for points to try to pick out and refute.

I saw jesus in a dream. Does that mean I met jesus?
Paul physically met Jesus............but I am really not going to get into that because I promised like 4 pages ago to stay on topic I really need to try......

That's interesting--when I tried to paste the first link, firefox froze! Wow, firefox may be anti-opposition to evolution...:rolleyes:

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)
*snip*

I wonder why most quoted passages in your article are more than 20 years old. A great deal seems to be from the 70ies. Hardly up to date.

To be fair Tekania, the original post in question could be interpreted either way. In truth, you have to add presuppositions in order to get what you really meant. When I first read through it, I was thinking the same thing as Jocabia. However, having had conversations with you about this in the past, I realized that you were most likely talking about personal philosophical views, rather than views incorporated into the actual science, so I ignored it.

It is rather arrogant to assume that your points are always clear to your readers. Sometimes, even though you know exactly what you mean, others do not. It doesn't pay to get angry and snippy about it. A simple post like, "Yes, sorry that wasn't clear. That is exactly what I meant," would have been better than, "OHMYFUCKINGGOD YOU CAN'T READ!!!!!!"

The very first part of the post, established the form, context and placement.

I said where it belonged (Theology) and where it didn't (Empirical Science)...

There was absolutely no need to go anywhere else. And in light of context, there is no other valid interpretation... Other than the context it was left it...

Sure, the second part may be interpreted differently, in absense of the context of the first... But since the first was there... Any other interpretation is wrong... because the context is already set.

No one needs to "assume" what I mean in the second, because it's context is set in the first... The only way to make assumptions in the second, is to ignore the first.

There is no way either of you can get out of it.... You failed to keep the context of my post in mind, as you read through it... And even you admit your own guilt in this... There was no need for you to think back to my known position... It was stated in the first part of the post, defining the placement of those various philosophical theories... The only way you interpret the metaphor in the second part to meaning that is be taught AS SCIENCE, is to ignore the first part of the post.

You all intepreted it wrong, because you all failed to read the post in context...

The only way there are different interpretations, is if context is not set.... Context was set... so there are not different interpretations. There is only one, the one that matches the initial context.

Careful. Tekania is made at me. I apparently don't read very well and thus deserve to be attacked and sworn at.

Right on all counts...

1. You read one part of my post, ignoring context of the other. Something which demonstrates a lack of compitency in reading comprehension.
2. You then proceed, when pointed to the context, to insist I then must be contradicting myself...

The only way you can interpret my meaning to mean that I was advocating for it to be included as science, is to IGNORE THE BEGINNING OF THE DAMN POST!!!! YOU DO NOT IGNORE PART OF POSTS AND INTEPRET SINGULAR STATEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE!!!!!! WHAT PART OF THESE BASIC READING COMPREHENSION RULES DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!!!

apostle- From the Greek word 'apostolos', which means 'one who is sent.' In the Bible this is the title given particularly to the twelve disciples of Jesus and to St. Paul who were commissioned by Jesus to spread the message of Christianity... but it was also given to others who were sent out by the church to do foundational work.

Paul did meet Jesus, though, you remember the whole story about how he was struck blind and all that, you know the big turn around.

Yes, and Saul wasn't struck-blind until AFTER the death of Jesus.... so, whether you believe Jesus was resurrected OR you don't, there is still no point at which Paul met the living Jesus.

Therefore, ANYTHING Paul says about Jesus, or about Jesus' teachings, MUST be commentary based on experiences that happened to OTHER people.

Also - depending on which version, Paul is the only person to notice the mysterious visitation... his friends nearby saw and heard nothing.

So - we have ONE guy, who 'claims' he met Jesus... and we are just going to accept that?

Personally, if I read the Bible, and I want to know what Jesus taught, I'll go to the source, not some post-Christian Pharisee.

Yes, and Saul wasn't struck-blind until AFTER the death of Jesus.... so, whether you believe Jesus was resurrected OR you don't, there is still no point at which Paul met the living Jesus.

Therefore, ANYTHING Paul says about Jesus, or about Jesus' teachings, MUST be commentary based on experiences that happened to OTHER people.

Also - depending on which version, Paul is the only person to notice the mysterious visitation... his friends nearby saw and heard nothing.

So - we have ONE guy, who 'claims' he met Jesus... and we are just going to accept that?

Personally, if I read the Bible, and I want to know what Jesus taught, I'll go to the source, not some post-Christian Pharisee.
fair enough. I think Paul has a lot of good things to say, you do have to seperate his opinion from the fact, which some people have trouble doing.
I met someone once who said 'I don't read the old testament because I am not Jewish, and I don't read anything Paul wrote because he is against marriage" that is a whole lot of really good stuff they threw out because they couldn't seperate what applied to them and what didn't, and what was opinion and what was fact.

fair enough. I think Paul has a lot of good things to say, you do have to seperate his opinion from the fact, which some people have trouble doing.
I met someone once who said 'I don't read the old testament because I am not Jewish, and I don't read anything Paul wrote because he is against marriage" that is a whole lot of really good stuff they threw out because they couldn't seperate what applied to them and what didn't, and what was opinion and what was fact.
Yeah but most people find that a lot of their faith is based on the infallibility of the bible

If parts of it are misleading and they have to pick and choose some, a lot question how much of that they take for truth really should be filtered out with the misleading stuff

If you read more than the quotes from the article, you will see that only scientific arguments are used, including quotes from leading evolutionists that intentionally or not falsify various aspects of the theory of evolution.

The very basis of the article is unscientific. Post a source that understands science instead of an editor with a bone to pick. You suggested that scientific articles are not being published in scientific journals, and you have yet to post a scientific article. That person is no scientist for the reasons I posted. Those reasons are basic to the scientific method.

That is why I said, the articles that I post are very long, and will require lots of reading before replying.

I read the entire thing. The basis was flawed so I didn't feel the need to go into the details. If I tell you I'm a mathematician and want to make an argument about mathematics, would you need to go any further once I demonstrated that I don't understand what adding is?

Responses given so far indicate that the responders have not read through the entire article, because the answers are given there. If I have to reproduce more of the article to answer, the answers are many pages long (10-12 pages), so that is why I posted links, with only a single quote from 50+ pages on each link.

Please read, otherwise you will be responding from ignorance.

Address the points I've posted so far and I'll be happy to go into more detail. Or are you admitting you can't? Dem, showed more patience than I have.

I am not trying to inflame, but to inform.:cool:

Again, when you find someone who demonstrates they understand the scientific method and the theory of evolution then I will be happy to address their argument in more detail. For the record, one could write up a paper on an experiment they did that was groundbreaking and no scientific journal would publish it if they demonstrated at the beginning that they don't understand the scientific method or the subject they were speaking on.

I suspect that you don't understand the points made so far and this is why you can't address them. You didn't even address one of them.

Right on all counts...

1. You read one part of my post, ignoring context of the other. Something which demonstrates a lack of compitency in reading comprehension.
2. You then proceed, when pointed to the context, to insist I then must be contradicting myself...

The only way you can interpret my meaning to mean that I was advocating for it to be included as science, is to IGNORE THE BEGINNING OF THE DAMN POST!!!! YOU DO NOT IGNORE PART OF POSTS AND INTEPRET SINGULAR STATEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE!!!!!! WHAT PART OF THESE BASIC READING COMPREHENSION RULES DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!!!

Ha. Wow, someone needs to take their pill. DId you happen to notice that other people read it the same way? Now you have to educated people who saw the same thing in your post and you an educated person (I suspect) who posted. Now Dem and I have little in common, but both understandings of your post have one thing in common, your post. Take a little responsibility for your actions. "IT WASN'T ME! I SWEAR IT WASN'T ME! IT WAS ALL OF YOU! YOU DID THIS TO ME! blah, blah, blah." You caught us. We set out to victimize you, you poor soul. Use a few more caps and swear a little more and perhaps that will help your position.

Second, if you can't calm down, then don't post. No one needs to see that. Nobody respects a poster that can't control themselves.

Yeah but most people find that a lot of their faith is based on the infallibility of the bible

If parts of it are misleading and they have to pick and choose some, a lot question how much of that they take for truth really should be filtered out with the misleading stuff
yeah, the message is pretty straight forward, it takes a basic understanding of it to seperate the useful from the non-useful.

and as far as taking things out of context (picking one thing and focusing on it) I find many athiests are just as bad as Christians at it, but I get a whole lot more frustrated with the Christians, because if they were really studying thier Bible they should know better.

I don't agree with the Bible as pick and choose really, only because there is a lot of stuff that you have to keep, it isn't like if you don't like something that is said you can just discard it(I know that isn't what you meant) I just think you have to pay attention to the
who-who is saying it? to whom are they talking?
what- what did they say?
when- what is going on at this time?
where- where are the people being spoken to? what is the culture there?
why- why is this in the Bible? why is what is said important?
how- how can I use this? is it cautionary? does it teach a lesson?

yeah, the message is pretty straight forward, it takes a basic understanding of it to seperate the useful from the non-useful.

and as far as taking things out of context (picking one thing and focusing on it) I find many athiests are just as bad as Christians at it, but I get a whole lot more frustrated with the Christians, because if they were really studying thier Bible they should know better.

I don't agree with the Bible as pick and choose really, only because there is a lot of stuff that you have to keep, it isn't like if you don't like something that is said you can just discard it(I know that isn't what you meant) I just think you have to pay attention to the
who-who is saying it? to whom are they talking?
what- what did they say?
when- what is going on at this time?
where- where are the people being spoken to? what is the culture there?
why- why is this in the Bible? why is what is said important?
how- how can I use this? is it cautionary? does it teach a lesson?


Yeah but all that would take more thought and effort then most (that I personally know) are willing to put in.
Hell most of my “catholic” friends (even the ones that went to catholic elementary school with me) have not even spent the time to read their own holy book

Something I have managed to do many times over even after I lost my faith

I wonder why most quoted passages in your article are more than 20 years old. A great deal seems to be from the 70ies. Hardly up to date.

Since when is there a date on science?

So we should disregard any quotes from scientists that are more than 20 years old? 10 years?

Just what is the cut-off date for science?:(

Since when is there a date on science?

So we should disregard any quotes from scientists that are more than 20 years old? 10 years?

Just what is the cut-off date for science?:(

Still not going to address my points, huh?

Yeah but all that would take more thought and effort then most (that I personally know) are willing to put in.
Hell most of my “catholic” friends (even the ones that went to catholic elementary school with me) have not even spent the time to read their own holy book

Something I have managed to do many times over even after I lost my faith
My dad always said "if you can't do something right then don't do it at all"
sure it takes me like a month to get through a book of the Bible (sometimes longer) but at least I understand what I am reading ;)

It used to annoy me when I was a sunday school teacher and the kids would read it really fast and not even pay attention to what it said

Bobby- "forgodsolovedtheworldthathegavehisonlybegottenson"
me- "stop, tell me what that means"
Bobby- "I dunno, can I have my koolaid and animal cracker now?"

and then the parents would get mad because "Bobby has trouble reading and you embarrassed him"

"maybe he reads to fast", I said, "and everyone in the class reads out loud, there are kids who don't read as well as he does and I make them do it too, they are in 3rd grade!!!!!!! they should be able to read 4 words and understand it, otherwise we need to work on it and that is what I was doing."

I swear I don't get parents sometimes.

Since when is there a date on science?

So we should disregard any quotes from scientists that are more than 20 years old? 10 years?

Just what is the cut-off date for science?:(
When the data used driving the theory has been superseded with more , or more correct data

The older the theory or argument the more likely that new data has come to light to make modification to the theory.

So it does make a difference in reflecting the likelihood of it being a quality up to date theory (or argument about theory)

Since when is there a date on science?

So we should disregard any quotes from scientists that are more than 20 years old? 10 years?

Just what is the cut-off date for science?:(

There isn't 'a' date... but, if we were discussing the internal structure of the atom, and I pulled out a text book that was 100 years old... it really wouldn't help, very much.

Similarly, if we were talking about quarks, and you pulled out a Chemistry text from the 50's, you can appreciate it wouldn't be THAT helpful.

What about if we were discussing what is known about the Human Genome, and my text book was only ten years old?

fair enough. I think Paul has a lot of good things to say, you do have to seperate his opinion from the fact, which some people have trouble doing.
I met someone once who said 'I don't read the old testament because I am not Jewish, and I don't read anything Paul wrote because he is against marriage" that is a whole lot of really good stuff they threw out because they couldn't seperate what applied to them and what didn't, and what was opinion and what was fact.

So long as one accepts that Paul just WAS NOT THERE, at all, during Jesus' ministry, and weighs their understanding of what Paul CAN legitimately say, based on that, then I have no problem.

The problem I have, is when people accept Paul as 'gospel'. In fact, MANY Christians seem to treat it as the paramount text... which, in my opinion, makes them Pauline, not Christian.

There isn't 'a' date... but, if we were discussing the internal structure of the atom, and I pulled out a text book that was 100 years old... it really wouldn't help, very much.

Similarly, if we were talking about quarks, and you pulled out a Chemistry text from the 50's, you can appreciate it wouldn't be THAT helpful.

What about if we were discussing what is known about the Human Genome, and my text book was only ten years old?

Well, now I feel like I have to concede Dem's points about asking questions. I don't understand how someone can't notice that the articles they are posting start with premises that are COMPLETELY ignorant of science. Like the ol' "it's only a theory" argument that ignores that all science is based on theories. I have to admit the second article was better. It made an attempt to at least sound scientific and not blow itself out of the water in the first paragraph, but one has to wonder why the guy would associate with the first guy. The answer is the same reason the articles were posted here, I suspect, they all are subject to wishful thinking. They want this to be true so the listen to anyone that agrees.

When the data used driving the theory has been superseded with more , or more correct data

The older the theory or argument the more likely that new data has come to light to make modification to the theory.

So it does make a difference in reflecting the likelihood of it being a quality up to date theory (or argument about theory)

Especially when dealing with topics like "Transitional Fossils" and citing "evolutionist" articles from 1968, 1986, 1979, 1953, 1979, 1981, 1977, 1977 and so on - but citing creationists from 1995.

But I have to admit, that I haven't read it.

The very basis of the article is unscientific. Post a source that understands science instead of an editor with a bone to pick. You suggested that scientific articles are not being published in scientific journals, and you have yet to post a scientific article. That person is no scientist for the reasons I posted. Those reasons are basic to the scientific method.



I read the entire thing. The basis was flawed so I didn't feel the need to go into the details. If I tell you I'm a mathematician and want to make an argument about mathematics, would you need to go any further once I demonstrated that I don't understand what adding is?



Address the points I've posted so far and I'll be happy to go into more detail. Or are you admitting you can't? Dem, showed more patience than I have.



Again, when you find someone who demonstrates they understand the scientific method and the theory of evolution then I will be happy to address their argument in more detail. For the record, one could write up a paper on an experiment they did that was groundbreaking and no scientific journal would publish it if they demonstrated at the beginning that they don't understand the scientific method or the subject they were speaking on.

I suspect that you don't understand the points made so far and this is why you can't address them. You didn't even address one of them.

First of all, you may have noticed that I was OFF-LINE! So there was no way for me to address anything. I made my original post while at work. Then, after a 2+ hour bus ride home, time spent taking care of my wife and my two new kittens, making dinner, helping my wife to get ready for work (she works at night), etc, I finally got on around mid-night, posted a reply to Dem, then went to bed. Now I am back at work, and in between assignments, I will respond as I have time.

Plus, I want the responses to be correct, rather than speedy.

Unscientific basis for the article? Well, it was written in response to an article at talkorigins.com, and questions the points made in that article.

Yep, sounds real unscientific, if your premise is that you treat science like a religion that must not be questioned! And only its high priests, scientists, are qualified to speak about the topic, having been initiated into the sacred mysteries by the secret rites...

If on the other hand, science is all about knowledge, gathering and ordering of same, and questioning everything, well, maybe the article's premise is not so unscientific.

Now, since the writer of the article was responding to an article promoting evolution, maybe you need to criticise the author of the talkorigins article for having defined the subject as he did, having defined terms as he did.

Your criticism sounds as if you are criticizing the person who wrote the article, rather than addressing any of the points he made, simply because you don't respect him, because he is not a member of the sacred order of scientists.

Following that logic, as a man I cannot comment on anything having to do with women, as an American I cannot comment on anything having to do with any other country, as a black I cannot comment on any other culture, as a non-executive I cannot comment on anything done by the executives where I work, etc.

If a non-scientist is not allowed to question science or scientists, then it becomes a matter of dogma and faith, and we can have no further discussion.

If logic and science don't go together, then we have no further basis for discussion.

Not being angry, just stating cold hard fact. I am not a member of the priesthood of science, so I guess whatever a scientist says must be true, and is beyond questioning by the likes of me.

Having been properly chastised, I will now go off to my corner, tail between my legs, secure in the knowledge that the quotes of scientists used in the article must be true, especially the quotes which refute evolution, and therefore, cannot be questioned.

This is why any area of life in which people have a "circle the wagons, shoot before you see the whites of their eyes" mentality loses me as an adherent. That is why I am no longer many of the things I was when I was young, including a believer in evolution. If I can't ask questions, or get logical answers, you don't get to have me just sit and be talked at, or talked down to.

Must rest brain now...:(

My dad always said "if you can't do something right then don't do it at all"
sure it takes me like a month to get through a book of the Bible (sometimes longer) but at least I understand what I am reading ;)


I don't see how anyone can even pretend to 'understand' the Bible, until they've read the scripture in the original languages.

Unscientific basis for the article? Well, it was written in response to an article at talkorigins.com, and questions the points made in that article.


It may come as a surprise, but the simple fact of being a 'reply to something scientific', makes NO promises about how 'scientific' that reply is going to be.

Ok, well, let's just look at the first one for now. Would you like to explain the second law of thermodynamics? Can you address how a forest violates the second law of thermodynamics according to the same criteria used in the article?

In fact, the reason the first article will never be put in a scientific journal is because it doesn't understand the scientific method.

Gravity is a theory, it has never been proved. Did you know that? However, I'm guessing that if you want to figure out the accelleration of an object that you drop then you use the theory of Gravity. In fact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a THEORY and has never been proved. Interesting that some theories are good enough to use and not others that fall under the same criteria.

I'll post again. My points are simple. It's not circling the wagons. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers or to deal in facts. It proposes to deal with what we have evidence for in our world. It analyzes such evidence and addresses it with theories. Creationists are attempting to argue that evolution is unscientific. That means the basis of their argument must be scientific, otherwise they are just saying they don't like it. Now you listed the five points the article sets out to make and three of them are unscientific. So again, how about addressing the above post instead of using strawmen and ad hominems?

my words are in italics
quotes from the article I linked to are in bold

from the article
Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak apparently wants us to join him in simplistically believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not science, and the facts of genetic science simply don’t corroborate Isaak’s story

Yes, my dear, I read the article. I know what he says. That doesn't actually make it any more logical. He is essentially trying to say that lots of small changes can't add up to larger changes. That is *all* that macroevolution is. His use of the words "unequivocally new and meaningful content" just demonstrates his lack of understanding, as he is essentially saying, "If a new gene doesn't pop out of the blue, it doesn't work," which is patently untrue.

everyone acknowledges the variations within species---what is unproven is changes that create new species. It is more than just reshuffling the existing genetic material---new material must be added, which was never before present in the biological universe! This is more than just an extra finger, or a bacteria surviving a particular antibiotic, it is much much more.

Now, this guy demonstrates how very little he knows of genetics. New material is added *all the time*. In bacteria, it can occur through DNA transfer between two cells. There are mechanisms within cells (even mammalian ones) in which entire RNA copies of genes are made, and then reinserted in a different section of the DNA. Mutations occur in which part or all of a gene is copied. Viruses insert into the DNA. All of this amounts to additions in information which can often mutate with no adverse effects to the organism, as a functional copy of the same gene is already found elsewhere.

from the article
Consider what Isaac Asimov (a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to say:

Yeah, a highly respected evolutionist, you know, because Asimov is a biologist.....Oh wait! He isn't!

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”

A simplification of the law - useful to the layman. It doesn't change the fact that entropy and order are not directly correlated.


“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

A quote taken out of context. We know, in as much as we can know anything for a fact, that there are processes which decrease the amount of entropy in a given system. They do so by increasing it in another system. The second law states that a spontaneous process will always either increase the entropy of the overall universe, or leave it the same. It applies everywhere, as this guy says, but that does not mean that you can go, "OHMIGOSH! THIS PROCESS DECREASES ENTROPY SO IT MUST NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN!"

So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

There is no violation. The reason Isaak used "irrelevant" is specifically because there is no violation. Evolutionary theory follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

In the first place, not all evolutionists continue to subscribe to the “small changes between generations” theories (e.g., Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism). There is a substantial number who now advocate the “punctuated equilibria,” “quantum speciation,” or “hopeful monster” scenarios, in which major morphological changes are believed to take place in rare, infrequent, and highly isolated events, separated by long periods of little or no change.
The whole point of puncuated equilibrium is that changes are major and infrequent, not just re-stating the original Darwinian hypothesis...

I addressed this already. *I* quoted this and showed how it was in error. Did you even bother to read my post?

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

More quotations taken out of context that don't actually support someone trying to say, "Therefore evolution is incorrect...."

in the article, the writer is responding to an article by a proponent of evolution, who brought up abiogenesis in the first place! The "strawman" is of the pro-evolutionist's making! First, I will quote the article's quote of the pro-evolutionist

Continuing a strawman doesn't make you a proper debator, however. If the guy writing the article actually understands that abiogenesis is not a component of the theory of evolution, he should have pointed that out. Since he did not, we can only assume that he is not aware of that fact....

once again, evolutionist scientists bring this up first

No, scientists bring it up first. Abiogenesis is, however, a separate theory. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't need to be a part of the discussion of evolutionary theory.

“Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative.” [Dr. Leslie Orgel (evolutionist biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), “Darwinism at the very beginning of life,” New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p. 150]

Now you are taking quotes out of context. This is clearly a quote about abiogenesis (which can be described as an "evolutionary process", but is not part of the "theory of evolution"). This person was talking about abiogenesis, and doesn't mention the theory of evolution even once.

Other definitions notwithstanding (including the redefinition of genetic variation as “microevolution”—often used in a bait-and-switch argument), the general biological meaning of “evolution” to most evolutionists is

a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.

Which, as I already pointed out, is patently incorrect. Is there a reason that you are attempting to use the quotes I already countered as some sort of argument against me?

again, the author of the article is [b]responding to the original article which was in support of evolution, and the original article defined evolutionary theory. The article to which I referred everyone was merely responding to this

You apparently didn't read your own article. The definition above was made up in this article. He tries to claim that it is the "correct" definition, and that the definition in Isaak's article was incorrect. However, Isaak's definition was much closer to the actual theory than the definition quoted above. In other words, your guy made up a false definition so that he could argue against it.

better definition (no. 2 from the same dictionary used by Isaak) would be

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact.[/quote]

As I ALREADY POINTED OUT, this is a lay-definition, not a scientific one. Isaak's definition was actually closer to the scientific one. Again, this guy is trying to use non-scientific definitions so that he can argue a straw-man.

Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent
1. by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment

Of course, it doesn't. So this is not a proper argument against it.

2. in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.
* Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in
1. the fossil record
2. geology
3. genetics
4. molecular biology
5. thermodynamics
6. dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)
7. probability mathematics

None of this is actually true.

* Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced
1. no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology
2. no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs
3. no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences”—having served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and other societal/ideological ills.


And this is the most idiotic claim of all. Yeah, we haven't studied, you know, viruses and worked on therapies for them. We haven't studied bacteria and realized that they can develop resistant strains -and that we need to avoid that happening.

And how exactly has evolution, in any way, served as justification for racism, nazism, or communism? This guy is just making things up!

I hope that people will actually read the entire article, rather than skimming for points to try to pick out and refute.

I hope that you will stop being patronizing. I did read the entire article. Most of the bullshit you quoted here I ALREADY REFUTED. You may not like that this guy is full of it, but that doesn't mean I didn't read the whole thing. I'm sorry if I didn't want to quote the entire article and go paragraph by paragraphy pointing out how silly it all is, but that would make quite a monstrous post.

It may come as a surprise, but the simple fact of being a 'reply to something scientific', makes NO promises about how 'scientific' that reply is going to be.
OMG I need to save that

And how exactly has evolution, in any way, served as justification for racism, nazism, or communism? This guy is just making things up!


Ah.... THIS one, I can explain.

What we have here is 'homo stipulus'.... a man of straw.

I believe the article writer is referring to Herbert Spenser's bizarre idea that evolution explains why we have rich and poor people, for example.

This peculiar artifact (called "Social Darwinism") WAS used as a justification for the 'eugenics' of the Third Reich... but it IS a strawman, because Spenser completely mis-applied scientific theory to suit his own perception that the White, Anglo-Saxon was the pinnacle of 'human' evolution.

Since when is there a date on science?

So we should disregard any quotes from scientists that are more than 20 years old? 10 years?

Just what is the cut-off date for science?:(

In biology, we have to be pretty skeptical of anything more than 3 or 4 years old. Why? Because we are constantly discovering new things! Biology is a fast-moving field. The theory of evolution is not the same as it was 4 years ago, much less 20 years ago. Very little of any theory in biology is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Biology and Biotech are very hot fields right now - and they move quickly.

Note: I said skeptical, not disregard altogether.

Unscientific basis for the article? Well, it was written in response to an article at talkorigins.com, and questions the points made in that article.

Yeah, that makes sense. "It was in response to someone trying to talk about science, therefore it must be scientific!"

By that logic, if someone said, "Matter is made of atoms," and I said, "No it isn't! It is made of hguqoheuoipqwois," my response would be scientific.

Yep, sounds real unscientific, if your premise is that you treat science like a religion that must not be questioned!

Strawman. No one is suggesting that science cannot be questioned. We are simply expecting the questions to come from a scientific perspective and to be consistent with the scientific method....

Now, since the writer of the article was responding to an article promoting evolution, maybe you need to criticise the author of the talkorigins article for having defined the subject as he did, having defined terms as he did.

You demonstrate once again that you didn't even bother to read your own article. For the most part (although they are often simplified), the talkorigins definitions are correct. This guy's attempt to argue them was to create false definitions, or pick definitions that are not used within science, and then go "Nuh uh! My definition is better!" Of course, his definition is not the one science uses, but that doesn't matter in a scientific discussion, right?

If a non-scientist is not allowed to question science or scientists, then it becomes a matter of dogma and faith, and we can have no further discussion.

Anyone studying science should question science and scientists, but it must be done with a scientific basis. You cannot ask logical questions if you don't understand the premises upon which the system is based. You cannot bring up any logical contradictions if you don't use the definitions used by science.

No one is asking for dogma or faith in science. We are asking that you work within the system, just as anyone who wishes to discuss mathematics must work within the system. Science entails a logical method - the scientific method - and anything which does not follow it is, by definition, not science. Science entails certain agreed-upon definitions, which must be used in order to debate science. You can't just bring in another defintion for the word that happens to be an English definition but is not the science one. You can't make up a definition for a theory that does not describe what the theory actually is. And that, my dear, is what this guy has done.

OMG I need to save that

:)

I only do it so you'll imortalise me. :D

:)

I only do it so you'll imortalise me. :D
Keep em coming :)

I don't see how anyone can even pretend to 'understand' the Bible, until they've read the scripture in the original languages.
I go back to original languages as much as possible, but unless my husband is around to help, it gets really hard sometimes (he knows greek and hebrew and some arameic)

First of all, you may have noticed that I was OFF-LINE! So there was no way for me to address anything. I made my original post while at work. Then, after a 2+ hour bus ride home, time spent taking care of my wife and my two new kittens, making dinner, helping my wife to get ready for work (she works at night), etc, I finally got on around mid-night, posted a reply to Dem, then went to bed. Now I am back at work, and in between assignments, I will respond as I have time.

Plus, I want the responses to be correct, rather than speedy.

Unscientific basis for the article? Well, it was written in response to an article at talkorigins.com, and questions the points made in that article.

Which I commend if it does so in a scientific way. If it doesn't, then it doesn't speak to the point we asked of you in the first place. The claim is that evolution is unscientific and if this is true then it must be shown to be so with scientific means using the scientific method.

Yep, sounds real unscientific, if your premise is that you treat science like a religion that must not be questioned! And only its high priests, scientists, are qualified to speak about the topic, having been initiated into the sacred mysteries by the secret rites...

Strawman. No one suggested such a thing. If you intend to debunk the scientific use of a scientific theory in science, guess what, you have to use scientific means to do so. Otherwise, you are simply saying you don't like science, which is fine, but it has no bearing on science itself, much like my saying I don't like liver has any bearing on whether other people eat it.

If on the other hand, science is all about knowledge, gathering and ordering of same, and questioning everything, well, maybe the article's premise is not so unscientific.

It's unscientific if it claims that all knowledge as far as science is concerned is based on scientific theory. Science does not recognize fact in the way the article uses it and I suspect the author of the article is aware of this. There are only theories based on available evidence.

Now, since the writer of the article was responding to an article promoting evolution, maybe you need to criticise the author of the talkorigins article for having defined the subject as he did, having defined terms as he did.

I didn't criticise the definition of the terms. I criticised the author of the article for ignoring the basic premise of science. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

Your criticism sounds as if you are criticizing the person who wrote the article, rather than addressing any of the points he made, simply because you don't respect him, because he is not a member of the sacred order of scientists.

I did address the points he made as the basis for the article. Again, do you understand thermodynamics? I'll tell you what. Tell your friend to tell me how an old-growth forest can exist and evolution can't happen without saying thermodynamics matters for one and not the other. In an old-forest I go in and upset the equilibrium by, say, hunting one of the creatures. The forest is sent into disorder. Then slowly it moves toward order again. Where does it find the energy to do so? The sun. The sun introduces energy into the system. Unless your friend can show that the sun CANNOT introduce enough energy for evolution or even IS NOT LIKELY TO introduce enough energy for evolution, then the argument is spurious.

Following that logic, as a man I cannot comment on anything having to do with women, as an American I cannot comment on anything having to do with any other country, as a black I cannot comment on any other culture, as a non-executive I cannot comment on anything done by the executives where I work, etc.

I didn't say he had to be accredited, which he's not, I said he's not a scientist. That means he does follow the scientific method or understand the basis of science in his 'theories'. Another strawman, my friend. Try harder.

If a non-scientist is not allowed to question science or scientists, then it becomes a matter of dogma and faith, and we can have no further discussion.

They have to be scientific. Science is a discipline like programming in C++. You can't come in and tell me it would be a more efficient program if I changed it to say "God Rules" and expect me to accept that. If you want to discuss a discipline you must adhere to the discipline. These gentlemen are not arguing that science sucks, they are arguing that evolutionary theory is unscientific. Your arguments are again spurious.

If you correct my grammar and you don't know English, forgive me if I dismiss your corrections.

If logic and science don't go together, then we have no further basis for discussion.

They aren't using logic. Logic tells us there is no fact. Logic tells that science deals in ONLY THEORY. Got that. So anyone who says that evolution is only a theory is illogical and unscientific. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (another THEORY) is a scientific principle that is being misapplied, again unscientifically. Again, if they were arguing that science should be taken out of schools this would be a different debate. They aren't so let's try to stay on topic, shall we?

Not being angry, just stating cold hard fact. I am not a member of the priesthood of science, so I guess whatever a scientist says must be true, and is beyond questioning by the likes of me.

Ad hominem. Question away, but expect it to be based on something that is true. Thus, if you address evolutionary theory, be correct on what it is. If you address science, address science and not what you pretend it is.

Having been properly chastised, I will now go off to my corner, tail between my legs, secure in the knowledge that the quotes of scientists used in the article must be true, especially the quotes which refute evolution, and therefore, cannot be questioned.

Ah, so apparently, the one being dogmatic here is you.

This is why any area of life in which people have a "circle the wagons, shoot before you see the whites of their eyes" mentality loses me as an adherent. That is why I am no longer many of the things I was when I was young, including a believer in evolution. If I can't ask questions, or get logical answers, you don't get to have me just sit and be talked at, or talked down to.

You are doing it. I didn't circle the wagons. I asked you to use terms correctly and actually address what you're talking about and not what people erroneously say it is.

Must rest brain now...:(

I suggest a good washing and scrubbing. Wouldn't want the questions I posed to cause you to realize that the article is based on fallacies.

You've typed all of those words and not addressed a single point I made. Are you capable of addressing them or only attacking me and suggesting I'm treating science like a faith? For the record, some people do treat science like a faith and we pwned them too. Check earlier in the thread or in similar threads and you'll see it time and time again. Try again.

:)

I only do it so you'll imortalise me. :D

I want to have my lower half immortalized in bronze. I figure that the best way to make that happen is to debate about evolution on NS. That's the best way, right?

You know I find it interesting that all of these Christians who know, KNOW, that nothing can shake their faith in Creation pretend like if there was just a little more evidence they would change their mind. If only there was some scientific basis for evolution and they would buy in, lock, stock and barrell. There is no evidence they would accept. They know it. We know it. And yet they persist in pretending their objection is scientific. Doesn't intellectual dishonesty fall under lying? I wonder if there is anything discouraging that in the Bible. I thought there was, but I could be mistaken.

I want to have my lower half immortalized in bronze. I figure that the best way to make that happen is to debate about evolution on NS. That's the best way, right?

Hell, I've been impressed so far.... I'm right behind the 'immortalise Jocabia's lower half in bronze' campaign. :)

So, yeah... I guess it works! :D

You know I find it interesting that all of these Christians who know, KNOW, that nothing can shake their faith in Creation pretend like if there was just a little more evidence they would change their mind. If only there was some scientific basis for evolution and they would buy in, lock, stock and barrell. There is no evidence they would accept. They know it. We know it. And yet they persist in pretending their objection is scientific. Doesn't intellectual dishonesty fall under lying? I wonder if there is anything discouraging that in the Bible. I thought there was, but I could be mistaken.

Ooooh, looks like someone is wearing their 'Thong of Sarcasm', again...;)

Ooooh, looks like someone is wearing their 'Thong of Sarcasm', again...;)

Go over to the Fascist Gay Lobby thread. I just did another one of those posts you so love.

Ooooh, looks like someone is wearing their 'Thong of Sarcasm', again...;)

It's uncomfortable and yet it feels so good.

I hurt my back playing dodgeball and it puts me in a mood. We smoked them though. I was the oldest guy on the court and I pwned those kids.

It's uncomfortable and yet it feels so good.

I noticed you were playing a little rougher today.... did the frustration of 'pretend evidence' dampen your enthusiasm?

I noticed you were playing a little rougher today.... did the frustration of 'pretend evidence' dampen your enthusiasm?

Go to the other thread, go to the other thread. I want to see your response before I head out to numb the pain in my back.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9885092&postcount=137

Go to the other thread, go to the other thread. I want to see your response before I head out to numb the pain in my back.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9885092&postcount=137

Been there, done that, my friend. Rest easy, young Padawan. :)

Been there, done that, my friend. Rest easy, young Padawan. :)

You should read from page 7 on. It feels so good to be so bad sometimes, but that thread is just so ironic that I couldn't help it.

"You can't call me a homophobe, because ad hominems marginalize me, you fascist"

You should read from page 7 on. It feels so good to be so bad sometimes, but that thread is just so ironic that I couldn't help it.

"You can't call me a homophobe, because ad hominems marginalize me, you fascist"

Well, I'm off to work right now, but I'll catch up tomorrow.... sounds like fun, you naughty boy, you. :D