Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Transitional evolutionary forms


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#31    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 23 November 2004 - 10:04 AM

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Nov 22 2004, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE
Agreed. My eyes are sore. But I fear that any topic I can choose will lead back to these types of posts.
How about we discuss the various possibilities of what might exist outside our universe, but which is still connected to it. Such as where conciousness actively comes from. If this is too bleak, I'll leave the topic up to you.


No, this thread is about transitional evolutionary forms, so let's stay in that general area.  First and foremost, here is my question to you:  Do you understand the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology?

View Post




Visit the following site.

www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#32    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 November 2004 - 01:17 PM

Surprisingly, the page was fairly accurate about quite a few things.  Unfortunately, the bias of the author made a perfectly workable system sound like some sort of dogmatic rulebook.  While the site was technically accurate, it is obvious that the author is not taking into account what every single experienced researcher knows: science is not neat and pretty, and hardly ever clear cut.  I am not sure exactly what this "myth" is that he believes the world to be laboring under, but scientific methodology is indeed a dynamic system that sets very few hard and fast rules, and is open to change and development (one of the rules is less than a few decades old).

So, I ask again, are you familiar with the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology?


#33    The Gryphon

The Gryphon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:05 May 2004
  • Location:The Great Pacific Northwest

  • There are no such things as accidents, only plans that others have made and failed to tell you about!!

Posted 24 November 2004 - 12:43 AM

[quote=aquatus1,Nov 23 2004, 01:17 PM]
  I am not sure exactly what this "myth" is that he believes the world to be laboring under, but scientific methodology is indeed a dynamic system that sets very few hard and fast rules, and is open to change and development (one of the rules is less than a few decades old).

Hear!Hear! Aquatus. "The Universe is a crapshot with loaded dice." "Never say never." "Chaos is as chaos does"

Neat and tidy and not true of our universe, look at relativity and the search for TOE (Theory of everything) Proving one theory tends to disprove a few others. Let's talk about this again in a millenia or two and it will have changed. blink.gif  blink.gif

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-- Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four

#34    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 24 November 2004 - 01:50 AM

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Nov 23 2004, 05:17 AM)
Surprisingly, the page was fairly accurate about quite a few things.  Unfortunately, the bias of the author made a perfectly workable system sound like some sort of dogmatic rulebook.  While the site was technically accurate, it is obvious that the author is not taking into account what every single experienced researcher knows: science is not neat and pretty, and hardly ever clear cut.  I am not sure exactly what this "myth" is that he believes the world to be laboring under, but scientific methodology is indeed a dynamic system that sets very few hard and fast rules, and is open to change and development (one of the rules is less than a few decades old).

So, I ask again, are you familiar with the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology?

View Post




Elaborate

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#35    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 November 2004 - 02:33 AM

QUOTE
Elaborate


I'll take that as a no, then.

The prerequisites for scientific methodology are as follows:

QUOTE
1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result.


In order for any theory to be considered scientifically valid, it must, at a bare minimum, fulfill these pre-requisites.  Depending on the field, other requirements may also be present.  These pre-requisites reflect certain basic points about scientific methodology that are extremely significant, both historically and in intellectual impact.

1)  Any theory needs to explain the imperical evidence concerning the pertinent phenomena.  This reflects the nature of theories explaining how things work, rather than how things do not.  One does not disprove a theory by showing that it does not work, but rather by presenting a theory that works better.

2)  A theory is basically a formal proclamation to the world that one has found a formula which, when a specific set of elements are in place, results in a specific phenomena occurring.  Through this formula, one should then be able to use elements that are not yet in place, or that were in place in the past, and be able to predict future or past occurences.

3)  Science is, at its core, a method used to strip away the subjective and illogical.  A scientific theory cannot depend on a person's personal bias or desires to lead them to the conclusion proposed.  Any independant person should have the ability to replicate the theory on their own and be able to arrive (although not necessarily agree with) the same conclusion.

4)  Any theory, in order to be considered scientifically provable, must have a means through which it can be unproven.  If it cannot be unproven, it cannot be verified, and if it cannot be verified, then it is useless for scientific purposes.

5)  In line with that, in science, there is no such thing as Truth.  Truth is a philosophical concept of something which is 100% complete and unchangeable.  Put more simply, it is an end result.  It is innate human nature to support their beliefs, and this is a safeguard against that.  One cannot allow the end result to dictate the existence of the evidence; one must allow the existing evidence to form the end result.  Science cannot be done backwards.

I can elaborate further, if you like.  This is the foundation of scientific understanding, and it is absolutely imperative to understand in order to be able to distinguish between genuine science and pseudoscience.


#36    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 24 November 2004 - 08:25 AM

One does not disprove a theory by showing that it does not work, but rather by presenting a theory that works better.

"Better" seems to represent a gray area.


3)  Science is, at its core, a method used to strip away the subjective and illogical.  A scientific theory cannot depend on a person's personal bias or desires to lead them to the conclusion proposed.  Any independant person should have the ability to replicate the theory on their own and be able to arrive (although not necessarily agree with) the same conclusion.

The beauty behind being created with free will was the fact that God gave us the ability to actually belief and find proof for whatever we wanted. If he created the world where is was painfully obnvious to any casual observer that he HAD to exist, then we wouldn't be beings of free will. We would be forced into a belief system.


5)  In line with that, in science, there is no such thing as Truth.  Truth is a philosophical concept of something which is 100% complete and unchangeable.  Put more simply, it is an end result.  It is innate human nature to support their beliefs, and this is a safeguard against that.  One cannot allow the end result to dictate the existence of the evidence; one must allow the existing evidence to form the end result.  Science cannot be done backwards.

You didn't adress my previous statement:

"Is the earth flat?"

"No"

"How do we know that?"

"Because it has been proven that the earth is round by many. It's a fact."

"Is it true that the earth is round?"

"Yes, that is true."

Does not fact and truth coicide here? If someone asks if it is true or not that the earth is round, will you answer with the word "true" or with the word "fact"?




I can elaborate further, if you like.  This is the foundation of scientific understanding, and it is absolutely imperative to understand in order to be able to distinguish between genuine science and pseudoscience.



Convetional science cannot seem to acocunt for the existance of God. Why then can there also be creationist scientists, who seem to be able to account for God's proof using the same means you have described to me here?

If mainstream or conventional science cannot account for God, it only makes sense that this feild is headed by godless men. Where as Godly men find the proof they seek. It almost seems that what ever a man fills his mind with, he is able to find.

Have you ever heard of a creationist becoming an evolutionist after his scientiffic findings? (That's an actualy question, not a rhetorical.)

Many people think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a proven fact. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, recent developments in science completely disprove the theory. The only reason Darwinism is still foisted on people by means of a worldwide propaganda campaign lies in the ideological aspects of the theory. All secular ideologies and philosophies try to provide a basis for themselves by relying on the theory of evolution. Many evolutoinsists have gone public in their findings, and changed their outlook on science and evolution.

A quote from Krister Renard:

"I had a hidden agenda in believing in evolution, although mine was not theological, but sociological. Even years after I had committed myself to observing the commandments of the Torah, I still clung to a belief in evolution. Why? I didn't want to be one of them. The Creationists, Jerry Falwell and his ilk, made my skin crawl. Denying the Theory of Evolution would have put me on their side of the fence, and jeopardized my image of myself as an enlightened, scientific thinker."

An exerpt from Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box -- The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution:

Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism -- natural selection working on variation -- might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small.

All this leads me to defining creation science. It seems to me that Biblical creation begins with the confession that certain knowledge of God "is plain to [man], because God has made it plain to [us]. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made ..." Romans 1:19-20 Employing a sound approach to the legal method of proof, we enter alleged testimony of the Creator from Genesis as evidence from the only conceivable witness of the events, methods, and timing of creation. Within the context of this testimony, we mount up physical evidence together with the testimony of experts in their respective fields of study so as to confirm for many the reliability of the testimony of God. Is our faith, then, in the words of men? No. Our faith rests on the truthfulness of the God who cannot lie. But we feature proofs from the science of man as additional confirmation of the word of God "so that you may be saved."

I'm not nearly finished responding to your last post, but I'm falling asleep here, so I'll pick up where I left off tomorrow. Sorry.


When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#37    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 November 2004 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE
"Better" seems to represent a gray area.


It most certainly does, and there are no lack of those in science.  Quite often, there are multiple theories for the same phenomena.  Ultimately, the one that is the most accepted is the one that answers the most questions in the simplest fashion.  That is, of course, until further evidence comes to light.

QUOTE
The beauty behind being created with free will was the fact that God gave us the ability to actually belief and find proof for whatever we wanted. If he created the world where is was painfully obnvious to any casual observer that he HAD to exist, then we wouldn't be beings of free will. We would be forced into a belief system.


That's just it.  It isn't "painfully obnvious to any casual observer that he HAD to exist".  I do not see it at all, I have looked from many different angles.  The only way to see it in this manner is too first look at the end result (God Exists), and then "find proof" (he created the world).  As I said, one cannot do science backwards.  The evidence must come before the conclusion.  That is just one of the differences between science and belief.

QUOTE
You didn't adress my previous statement:
"Is the earth flat?"
"No"
"How do we know that?"
"Because it has been proven that the earth is round by many. It's a fact."
"Is it true that the earth is round?"
"Yes, that is true."


I had hoped you had read my previous thread to avoid answering this question yet again.  Ah well...

"Does not fact and truth coicide here? If someone asks if it is true or not that the earth is round, will you answer with the word "true" or with the word "fact"?"

Neither.  I will answer with "The Earth is an oblate spheroid."  Truth is relative to the individual.  One person, in a given situation, will say that the Earth being round is true, and another (or even the same person) will say, in another situation, that the Earth being round is not true.

QUOTE
Convetional science cannot seem to acocunt for the existance of God. Why then can there also be creationist scientists, who seem to be able to account for God's proof using the same means you have described to me here?


Excellent question.  The answer is:  They can't.  There has, to date, not been a single serious study concerning a supernatural power that has conclusively shown their existance without violating at least one, often more, of these five rules.  Once you better understand the five pre-reqs, you will find yourself going back over what you once proudly proclaimed to be truth and find yourself asking questions about the proceedures involved.

QUOTE
If mainstream or conventional science cannot account for God, it only makes sense that this feild is headed by godless men.


Hardly.  Science, as I said, does not depend on the bias or personal desires of the researcher.  While it is true that, the higher the educational level of a person, the less chance they believe in supernatural or paranatural phenomena, there are still more than a significant number of high-level scientists who believe in deities.

QUOTE
Where as Godly men find the proof they seek. It almost seems that what ever a man fills his mind with, he is able to find.


That is precisely why science is set up the way it is.  To keep people from overlooking what is there in favor of what they have filled their mind with.

QUOTE
Have you ever heard of a creationist becoming an evolutionist after his scientiffic findings? (That's an actualy question, not a rhetorical.)


Yes, indeed.  In fact, I can proudly claim to be responsible for at least one person doing just that myself.  I think, however, that what you are asking is whether a person has ever given up their faith because of evolution.  I suspect the answer to that is yes, but not as a direct cause of it.  Science is about the facts, not about beliefs.  There is absolutely no need to stop believing in God simply because you stop believing creationism.  In fact, I think you will find that your relationship with God will be enriched the more you learn about the world he created for you, rather than keeping your mind bound up in the stories created by man millenia ago.

But I digress.  My purpose here is to show you how scientific validity works.

QUOTE
Many people think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a proven fact. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, recent developments in science completely disprove the theory.


No theory is a proven fact.  The only thing that can be a fact is an individual element of data.  A theory is a formula tying together as many of these elements as possible and explaining them in a reliable and predictable way.  I think you will find that the many alleged "disproofs" to Darwinism tend to fall into three categories:
1)  Competing or symbiotic theories
2)  Bad Science
3)  Outright deceit.

Regarding your quotes:

The first quote from Krister Renard reflects the basic political nature of...well, anything.  Credibility is quite possibly the most important quality a scientist can possess, and it is difficult to gather and easy to lose.  Darwin himself established his credibility through twenty long years of research and studies proving to the scientific community that he had a complete grasp of science as it was understood at the time.  The reward for this was, when he published his revolutionary theory, he was met with righteous indignation and immediate opposition, but not by disbelief and scorn.

The second quote is quite simply a different style of creationism that we are accustomed to hearing about.  There are several different branches of it, and only one is fundamentalist bible literalist.  Unfortunately, he still makes the fundamental mistake of beginning at the conclusion:  God exists.  It is, as your own quote said earlier, very easy for man to find proof when he wishes to.

Since you have so many questions, why don't we take these one at a time?  Which of the five pre-requisites would you like to discuss?

Edited by aquatus1, 24 November 2004 - 02:49 PM.


#38    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:39 AM


It most certainly does, and there are no lack of those in science.  Quite often, there are multiple theories for the same phenomena.  Ultimately, the one that is the most accepted is the one that answers the most questions in the simplest fashion.  That is, of course, until further evidence comes to light.

Since when has what is "most" accepted every been right? Look at mainstream culture, products, and business practices!

That's just it.  It isn't "painfully obnvious to any casual observer that he HAD to exist."

You misunderstood what I said. Of course, it IS NOT PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that God exists, otherwise we would not have free will. If God's existance WAS so very obvious that we could not deny him, then we WOULD NOT have free will. He created us with the mental ability to deny him or accept him.



I do not see it at all, I have looked from many different angles.

There is a verse in the Bible that says, "They look with eyes that do not see, and they listen with ears that do not hear."


The only way to see it in this manner is too first look at the end result (God Exists), and then "find proof" (he created the world).

Proof is subjective to your beliefs. If you outright deny God's existance, you will never see him. If you close you mind to something, no ammount of it's evidence will sway your mind.




Neither.  I will answer with "The Earth is an oblate spheroid."  Truth is relative to the individual.  One person, in a given situation, will say that the Earth being round is true, and another (or even the same person) will say, in another situation, that the Earth being round is not true.

Convetional science cannot seem to acocunt for the existance of God.

I completely disagree with this statement. Have you ever heard of the concept of "Irreversibly complex"?

If you remove a single part from a mousetrap, it will not function. There is not combination of the parts that you can arrange that will lead up to anything even close to a working mousetrap if one part is not used. This shows intellegent design.

The human eyeball is another example of this. Many regard it as the Perfect organ.

Why then can there also be creationist scientists, who seem to be able to account for God's proof using the same means you have described to me here?[/quote]

Excellent question.  The answer is:  They can't.  There has, to date, not been a single serious study concerning a supernatural power that has conclusively shown their existance without violating at least one, often more, of these five rules.  


I ask you, HOW can a natural study account for a SUPERNATURAL occurence? The five rules are meaningless in explaining the supernatural. How can the IMPERFECT define THE PERFECT? It simply cannot.

There has, however, been many studies which account for intellegent design by very prominent scientists.

Once you better understand the five pre-reqs, you will find yourself going back over what you once proudly proclaimed to be truth and find yourself asking questions about the proceedures involved.

You mean, fact, don't you? I thought truth was subjective, and had no place in science.


QUOTE
If mainstream or conventional science cannot account for God, it only makes sense that this feild is headed by godless men.


Hardly.  Science, as I said, does not depend on the bias or personal desires of the researcher.  

Grossly untrue, as I have read countless acounts of the personal and individual reasons for evolutionists to follow what they do. To remove bias of some sort is to remove one's own humanity.

While it is true that, the higher the educational level of a person, the less chance they believe in supernatural or paranatural phenomena, there are still more than a significant number of high-level scientists who believe in deities.

Deities are NOT of God. It doesn't matter what diety it is. If it is not God/JesusChrist, it is not God. Gad says he in the only one, that he is a jealous God, and will have no other gods be proclaimed above them. There is no room for gray here in his eyes. The belief in deities is just as "bad" as atheistic beliefs.

QUOTE
Where as Godly men find the proof they seek. It almost seems that what ever a man fills his mind with, he is able to find.


That is precisely why science is set up the way it is.  To keep people from overlooking what is there in favor of what they have filled their mind with.

Or perhaps this is just another method of our control by the powers that be. Making us believe that we have the an ability to descern fact from misfact, giving us an illusion of control, of freedom, when infact the system is fundementally flawed.

QUOTE
Have you ever heard of a creationist becoming an evolutionist after his scientiffic findings? (That's an actualy question, not a rhetorical.)


Yes, indeed.  In fact, I can proudly claim to be responsible for at least one person doing just that myself.  I think, however, that what you are asking is whether a person has ever given up their faith because of evolution.  I suspect the answer to that is yes, but not as a direct cause of it.

What do you make of the following quotes?

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University)

The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."
(Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)

The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."
(Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University)

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
(Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History)

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
(Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought)

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
(Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267)

It is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years."
(Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D., physicist and C-14 dating specialist)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."
(Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose)

"The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling ... the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet ... To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phoney science."
(Thomas Barnes Ph.D., physicist)

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89)

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.)

"When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them."
(C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioural complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity ... Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form."
(James A Shipiro, Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, "Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 (June 1988))

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ... it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."
(John Woodmorappe, geologist)

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."
(H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."
(N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist)

"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
(Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
(John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

"The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before."
(Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
(Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History).

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician)

"As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
(Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, p.7)

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
(Dr David Raup, Curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago)

"Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)

"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philisophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Books,1988) pp.7-8)

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
(Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist)

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422))

"If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."
(Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p 174)

"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge ... or even a new enzyme."
(Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38)

"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
(George Simpson, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)


"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools ... Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."
(William R Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."
(Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)

"... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."
(Dr Eldred Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p.97))

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation."
(Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/palaeontologist and former evolutionist)

"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128] ... one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism ... [p.127] If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle. [p.128]"
(Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's destiny: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp127-8)

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."
(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)

"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooksas though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still onexhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is theexhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem."
(Dr Niles Eldredge, Palaeontologist and Evolutionist)


"The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long."
(Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication, Scientific America, Vol. 259, No.2 August 1988, pp40-46)

"DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism - a miniaturised marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet."
(Paul S Taylor in The Illustrated Origins Answer Book page 23)

"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
(Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space)

"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first - the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? ... there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words.'"
(George Howe, expert in biology sciences)

"...An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."
(Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley and Robert L Olsen: The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories (New York Philosophical Library 1984) pp 211-212)

"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA ... All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening ... if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilised egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion."
(Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication... Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 (August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24))

"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology."
(Arthur Koestler, author)

"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life."
(David A Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville)

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate....It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ...higher intelligences...even to the limit of God...such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)

"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."
(Michael Denton, 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis' page 358)

"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).

"The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
(Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle)

"The theory of Evolution ... will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has."
(Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'"
(K.Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich)

"Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies."
(Scott M Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp 127)

"Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology - professors and textbook writers included - have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it ... College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud."
(George Kocan, Evolution isn't Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune 9 Monday April 21 1980)

"Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
(Dr T N Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Dr Louise Bounoure, Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg)


Science is about the facts, not about beliefs.  There is absolutely no need to stop believing in God simply because you stop believing creationism.

You would think so, and many do, but I do not feel this for me. I feel it will distract me from my beliefs, and my faith.

  In fact, I think you will find that your relationship with God will be enriched the more you learn about the world he created for you, rather than keeping your mind bound up in the stories created by man millenia ago.

I highly agree with this, but also think it is important to seek understanding in the pages of history.

Since you have so many questions, why don't we take these one at a time?  Which of the five pre-requisites would you like to discuss?

I apologize to you for this HUGE post, but truely would like your opinions of the quotes provided. I'm sorry, as this was not really how you wanted to continue, but I found so many good quotes I couldn't pass up the opportunity to hear what you had to say in regards to each of them.

As far as the 5 pre-requesits go, let us please start that in the following posts we make, after this one, if you don't mind doing so.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#39    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 November 2004 - 04:39 AM

QUOTE
I apologize to you for this HUGE post, but truely would like your opinions of the quotes provided. I'm sorry, as this was not really how you wanted to continue, but I found so many good quotes I couldn't pass up the opportunity to hear what you had to say in regards to each of them.
As far as the 5 pre-requesits go, let us please start that in the following posts we make, after this one, if you don't mind doing so.

Insight, remember what I said when you asked why I "feared" you were going through creationist arguments?  This is precisely the reason.  I will now, once again, definitely not for the first time, and undoubtedly not for the last time, go over the very old, very tired, creationists arguments that you so ferverently belief in.

In deference to your belief in creationist, we shall begin at the end of your list:  The quotes.  Anti-evolutionary quotes from known and respected pro-evolutionary scientists are so commonly used by creationists that they have actually been numbered.  I will give you a site that demonstrates how these quotes have, completely and intentionaly, been used out of context for the sole purpose of libeliously changing the definition of what the scientist was saying to one 180 degrees opposite.  In other words, using quotes like this out of context is a creationist tactic based completely on deceit and misderection and it relies on the faithful's unwavering trust that they will not investigate and find out.

Quote Mining Project

I will, for the sake of completeness, provide one example, since I have no intention of answering all 65 individually, particularly when the answers to them will become very obvious once you learn just a minor amount of evolutionary theory.  I invite you to check out the site above on your own.
Creationist Quote #82
QUOTE
"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)
Charles Darwin never wrote any book by that title.  His son edited, after his father's death, a book called The life and letters of Charles Darwin.  Even then, you can only find the second half of the "quote" above There is no trace of the first half.  Creationists would love to have such a quote from the very father of evolution, but it simply isn't so.

Now, skipping to the beginning:
QUOTE
Since when has what is "most" accepted every been right?
So who said it was right?  I said, very specifically, "answers the most questions in the simplest fashion".  There is no "right".  There is only "mostly right"(String Theory), and "Hasn't been wrong yet"(Pythagorean Theorum).
QUOTE
You misunderstood what I said. Of course, it IS NOT PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that God exists, otherwise we would not have free will. If God's existance WAS so very obvious that we could not deny him, then we WOULD NOT have free will. He created us with the mental ability to deny him or accept him.
We are not talking about God's requirements.  We are talking about those of science.
QUOTE
Proof is subjective to your beliefs. If you outright deny God's existance, you will never see him. If you close you mind to something, no ammount of it's evidence will sway your mind.
It has nothing to do with denying anything or closing your mind to anything.  It is about letting the evidence point the way to the end result.  That is what makes it science.  Science is about proving the existance, not confirming it.
QUOTE
I completely disagree with this statement. Have you ever heard of the concept of "Irreversibly complex"?
Of course I have.  I would venture to say that there isn't a single creationist argument that you can mention that has not, for several decades now, been hashed over throughly in the field.  And the word is "irreducible", meaning that it is so complex that it could not possibly have come about by chance.  Irreducible complexity suffers from two major defects.  The first is denial.  Organs such as the eyeball are far from perfect.  They get old and foggy, they are constructed in such a way as to leave a blind spot smack dab in the center, the wires are twisted so that the optic chiasma has to switch them back before they get to the brain, and they only see an incredibly narrow range of the spectrum.  If somebody did indeed create these, they did not do a very good job.  The second problem is conceptual.  The moustrap, the watch, all these examples, rely on the idea that complexity is a sign of natural intelligence.  In fact, it is not.  Simplicity is the sign of natural intelligence.  Let me explain.

Let's say you are walking by a river.  You pick up a pebble.  Your job is to create a three-dimensional duplicate of this pebble.  In order to do so, you have to measure every curve, every angle, you have to note the density, the consistency, the color, and all its variations, the weight, and several other factors that, all together, would take you days to plug into a computer to make a copy.  The reason for this is because this irreducibly complex stone is the product of a million random chances as it made its way down the river.  But let us say that you found a different pebble.  This one is a perfect sphere.  It is of uniform density and a nice glossy black.  The formula for a sphere is simple: Pi(R^3).  Add a note for color, a note for density, a note for texture and you're done.  Maybe it took you two minutes to create the duplicate on the computer.

I leave it to your intution.  Which of the pebbles was the product of intelligent design?  The complex one or the simple one?
QUOTE
I ask you, HOW can a natural study account for a SUPERNATURAL occurence? The five rules are meaningless in explaining the supernatural. How can the IMPERFECT define THE PERFECT? It simply cannot.
And yet, it has.  It discovered that the magical bolts of the thunder god's wrath was not magic, but electricity.  It explained how the aurora borealis was not the spirits of the ancestors, but rather ionized plasma in the upper atmosphere. It discovered the horrible Kraken of sea-faring mythology and called it Archeteuthis, the giant squid. Supernatural phenomena can and has been explained by science, at which point it left the realm of the supernatural and became natural phenomena.
QUOTE
"Once you better understand the five pre-reqs, you will find yourself going back over what you once proudly proclaimed to be truth and find yourself asking questions about the proceedures involved."
You mean, fact, don't you? I thought truth was subjective, and had no place in science.
Nice try, but no, you can't use my words against me.  You are the only one claiming to speak truth here, and I do not agree that what you are proclaming is fact.
QUOTE
Grossly untrue, as I have read countless acounts of the personal and individual reasons for evolutionists to follow what they do. To remove bias of some sort is to remove one's own humanity.
Science is not concerned with "why" people do things.  It is only concerned with "how".  The "why" is about belief, and science isn't concerned with a person's beliefs.  The "how" is strictly procedural, and claiming that doing things in a specific and objective manner causes a person to lose humanity is as ridiculous as claiming that following the recipe for cooking a cake to the letter makes one inhuman.
QUOTE
Deities are NOT of God. It doesn't matter what diety it is. If it is not God/JesusChrist, it is not God. Gad says he in the only one, that he is a jealous God, and will have no other gods be proclaimed above them. There is no room for gray here in his eyes. The belief in deities is just as "bad" as atheistic beliefs.
This isn't about wether God exist or not.  It's about wether people can believe in the supernatural despite being evolutionists.  The answer is: yes, they can.
QUOTE
Or perhaps this is just another method of our control by the powers that be. Making us believe that we have the an ability to descern fact from misfact, giving us an illusion of control, of freedom, when infact the system is fundementally flawed.
What "powers that be?"  Every single student of science has to personally conduct laboratory research prior to being considered a graduate.  He or she has to personally run the tests, proofs, and equations that create the foundation of their field.  Nothing is taken on faith.  There is no "Supreme Council of Elders" one must report to (except in matters of funding).

Insight, what you are doing here is a very typical creationist tactic known as the "blitzkrieg" attack.  Basically, it means that you attempt to overwhelm the opposition with so much, so fast that they cannot possibly answer and eventually get tired and leave.  I urge you not to do this.  Focus on one thing, learn it, then move on to another.  There was no need to copy-and-paste 65 quotes (some of which, incidentally, where doubled up).  If you do have a quote that you desperately need explained before moving on, post specifically that one and we will discuss it.  Likewise, if you have another specific question, ask that one.  You have, to date, averaged ten questions per post.  Lets focus on one or two at a time.


#40    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 25 November 2004 - 05:42 AM



In deference to your belief in creationist, we shall begin at the end of your list:  The quotes.  Anti-evolutionary quotes from known and respected pro-evolutionary scientists are so commonly used by creationists that they have actually been numbered.  I will give you a site that demonstrates how these quotes have, completely and intentionaly, been used out of context for the sole purpose of libeliously changing the definition of what the scientist was saying to one 180 degrees opposite.  In other words, using quotes like this out of context is a creationist tactic based completely on deceit and misderection and it relies on the faithful's unwavering trust that they will not investigate and find out.

Quote Mining Project

I visited that site, but didn't find any support to what you have said here. It seemed to further support standalone quotes by giving the text surrounding them. What I do find misleading is the interpretations of them. I don't need to be told how to interpret what people say. The expanded quotations seem to speak quite clearly for themselves.


I will, for the sake of completeness, provide one example, since I have no intention of answering all 65 individually, particularly when the answers to them will become very obvious once you learn just a minor amount of evolutionary theory.  I invite you to check out the site above on your own.


Creationists would love to have such a quote from the very father of evolution

Of course we would. Wouldn't you love a quote from Jesus saying that he was a false messiah and evolution is true?


Now, skipping to the beginning:[quote]Since when has what is "most" accepted every been right?[/quote]

We are not talking about God's requirements.  We are talking about those of science.

You maybe were. I was trying to paint a picture of how God fits into all this, but your intellect's scalpel seems determined to keep the discussion of God in relation to science severed, and severed again at any healing point.


[quote]Proof is subjective to your beliefs. If you outright deny God's existance, you will never see him. If you close you mind to something, no ammount of it's evidence will sway your mind.[/quote]


It has nothing to do with denying anything or closing your mind to anything.  It is about letting the evidence point the way to the end result.

How can you honestly believe that? Your mind is what you use to percieve all evidence! If you close you mind to a concept, how can you honestly percieve any evidence in regards to it? The statement you made above is completely faulty.-

That is what makes it science.  Science is about proving the existance, not confirming it.

You constantly use double speak and seem to talk in circles, in one statement proclaiming something that your words comprimised in past statements. A common effect seen in the minds of evolutionists is circular reasoning, which you seem to be exibiting.

Organs such as the eyeball are far from perfect.  They get old and foggy, they are constructed in such a way as to leave a blind spot smack dab in the center, the wires are twisted so that the optic chiasma has to switch them back before they get to the brain, and they only see an incredibly narrow range of the spectrum.


These are limitations, not imperfections. Obviously no organic material can maintain it's original funtionality. Does the blind spot noticably hinder our ability to use our sense of sight. I was talking about it's structure.


  If somebody did indeed create these, they did not do a very good job.

A fallable human is to judge the work of god as less than adequate? This is a mistake in your thinking. What would you have human eyes do? Percieve radio waves? All spectrums of light? If everything happenes for a reason, there is a reason why our senses are not unlimited.

You keep on refering to creation as if it was by an imperfect being. You must develop a concept of what creation could be coming from a perfect being.

Let's say you are walking by a river.  You pick up a pebble.  Your job is to create a three-dimensional duplicate of this pebble.  In order to do so, you have to measure every curve, every angle, you have to note the density, the consistency, the color, and all its variations, the weight, and several other factors that, all together, would take you days to plug into a computer to make a copy.  The reason for this is because this irreducibly complex stone is the product of a million random chances as it made its way down the river.  But let us say that you found a different pebble.  This one is a perfect sphere.  It is of uniform density and a nice glossy black.  The formula for a sphere is simple: Pi(R^3).  Add a note for color, a note for density, a note for texture and you're done.  Maybe it took you two minutes to create the duplicate on the computer.

You seem to be taking intellegent design completely out of context. If you take a molecule away from a pebble, it is still a pebble. If you take a gear out of a watch, it is no longer a time keeping device. Try to stick to this train of logic when making your arguments in regards to intellegent design.

quote]I ask you, HOW can a natural study account for a SUPERNATURAL occurence? The five rules are meaningless in explaining the supernatural. How can the IMPERFECT define THE PERFECT? It simply cannot. [/quote]

And yet, it has.  It discovered that the magical bolts of the thunder god's wrath was not magic, but electricity.

Again you speak as if I believe in or speak in regards to multiple gods. The concept of multiple gods, and one single God are night and day.


  It explained how the aurora borealis was not the spirits of the ancestors, but rather ionized plasma in the upper atmosphere. It discovered the horrible Kraken of sea-faring mythology and called it Archeteuthis, the giant squid.


Is it unreasonable to say that one day it will explain how an entire generation could believe in the concept of evolution, just like the myths of old were debunked?



Supernatural phenomena can and has been explained by science, at which point it left the realm of the supernatural and became natural phenomena.

No, I'm afraid you are wrong here. All of these "supernatural" phenomena are simply natural phenomena, just as you have said. Your concept of supernatural phenomena is skewed. Supernatural phenomena being something like the healing of the sick, the creation of the universe, the ability of spirits to interact in a seperate realm. The TRUE supernatural can never be proven natural, because it is just that: Above the natural. The process you describe is used to determine what is infact a natural act that was once believe to be a supernatural act. This helps us gain a clearer perspective on the acts and properties surrounding God.


Nice try, but no, you can't use my words against me.  You are the only one claiming to speak truth here, and I do not agree that what you are proclaming is fact.

If fact and truth are seperate, which one rules the other? Is there no ruling?

[quote]Grossly untrue, as I have read countless acounts of the personal and individual reasons for evolutionists to follow what they do. To remove bias of some sort is to remove one's own humanity.[/quote]

Science is not concerned with "why" people do things.  It is only concerned with "how".  The "why" is about belief, and science isn't concerned with a person's beliefs.

Of course science, being an innanimate process, cannot take heed to bias. If only we were able to construct a human in the form of a man's mind to do the scientiffic work of man without bias. Or would the computer it's self be infused with the subconcious bias of it's creator?

Is psychology not a form of science? Is studying the chemical interactions in the human brain to figure out why we do things science? Is the study of chemical imbalances which lead to personality disorders science?

This isn't about wether God exist or not.  It's about wether people can believe in the supernatural despite being evolutionists.  The answer is: yes, they can.

The supernatural, yes. But the existance of the Christian God, the Belief in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, and his Word, no. Not by a long shot.

[quote]Or perhaps this is just another method of our control by the powers that be. Making us believe that we have the an ability to descern fact from misfact, giving us an illusion of control, of freedom, when infact the system is fundementally flawed.[/quote]

What "powers that be?"  
The government. The secret societies. The secret governments. The Masons. The conspirists. The Illuminati. The Globalists who control every facet of humanity. THAT power. THOSE powers that be.

Every single student of science has to personally conduct laboratory research prior to being considered a graduate.  He or she has to personally run the tests, proofs, and equations that create the foundation of their field.  Nothing is taken on faith.  There is no "Supreme Council of Elders" one must report to (except in matters of funding).

Funding funding funding. It always come down to the funding. The love of money is the root of all evil. Know where the money goes, know who's in power. Check out Alex Jones' Comprehensive Annual Finacial Reports exposed for easily researchable proof on who is power, and then tell me those who fund the very reserach you speak of are Good, honest men.


Insight, what you are doing here is a very typical creationist tactic known as the "blitzkrieg" attack.  Basically, it means that you attempt to overwhelm the opposition with so much, so fast that they cannot possibly answer and eventually get tired and leave.  

This was not my intention. If I wanted you to leave, I would have already executed a plan to do so long ago.

I urge you not to do this.

T'was not my intention.

If you do have a quote that you desperately need explained before moving on, post specifically that one and we will discuss it.  Likewise, if you have another specific question, ask that one.  You have, to date, averaged ten questions per post.  Lets focus on one or two at a time.

It's very difficult for me to do that with the form of conversation I feel we have started here. It is also difficult for me not to ask questions at almost every sentence you write, because we are on opposite sides of the spectrum it seems.

But I do want you to know I am very appreciative to your dedications to this thread. Most people would have quit by now, and I hold you in high regards because you have not done so. Thank you. Now, because my questions it seems are much to scattered, I urge you to feel free to choose one of them to further our discussion.

I await whatever you have to say in your next post.






When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#41    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:25 PM

QUOTE
Of course we would. Wouldn't you love a quote from Jesus saying that he was a false messiah and evolution is true?


A quote from Jesus would mean very little to me.  I have no interest in wether he is the messiah or not, and he has absolutely no credibility regarding modern evolutionary theory, so his endorsement would be scientifically worthless.  Even if it did get the devoutly faithful to beleive in evolution, I have no interest in science being turned into a religion.  If you are going to believe in evolution, do so because you have studied and understand why it is valid, not because some authority figure, divine or otherwise, told you to.

QUOTE
You maybe were. I was trying to paint a picture of how God fits into all this, but your intellect's scalpel seems determined to keep the discussion of God in relation to science severed, and severed again at any healing point.


Exactly.  One does not shoehorn a result into science.  The answer to this lies in the fifth pre-req.

QUOTE
How can you honestly believe that? Your mind is what you use to percieve all evidence! If you close you mind to a concept, how can you honestly percieve any evidence in regards to it? The statement you made above is completely faulty.-


No, your mind is what you use to interpret all evidence.  The answer to this lies in the third pre-req.

QUOTE
You constantly use double speak and seem to talk in circles, in one statement proclaiming something that your words comprimised in past statements. A common effect seen in the minds of evolutionists is circular reasoning, which you seem to be exibiting.


Please show me a specific example as well as an explanation of why the reasoning is circular.

QUOTE
These are limitations, not imperfections. Obviously no organic material can maintain it's original funtionality. Does the blind spot noticably hinder our ability to use our sense of sight. I was talking about it's structure.


Deterioration in one individual but not another is not a limitation, it is an imperfection.  The answer to this lies in the first pre-req.

QUOTE
A fallable human is to judge the work of god as less than adequate? This is a mistake in your thinking. What would you have human eyes do? Percieve radio waves? All spectrums of light? If everything happenes for a reason, there is a reason why our senses are not unlimited.
You keep on refering to creation as if it was by an imperfect being. You must develop a concept of what creation could be coming from a perfect being.


Science judges the evidence based on the claims.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The answer to this can be found in the fourth pre-req.

QUOTE
You seem to be taking intellegent design completely out of context. If you take a molecule away from a pebble, it is still a pebble. If you take a gear out of a watch, it is no longer a time keeping device. Try to stick to this train of logic when making your arguments in regards to intellegent design.


Intelligent design is about natural creations and phenomena.  By applying it it to man-made machines, you are taking it out of context.

QUOTE
Again you speak as if I believe in or speak in regards to multiple gods. The concept of multiple gods, and one single God are night and day.


You claimed that science has never explained magic.  I showed you several examples where it had.

QUOTE
Is it unreasonable to say that one day it will explain how an entire generation could believe in the concept of evolution, just like the myths of old were debunked?


Not at all.  Unlikely, to the extreme, but not at all inconceivable.  All that would be required is a theory concerning the origin of species that answers more questions, makes better predictions, and has a better logical trail, than the many theories of evolution do.  Incidentally, we are well into the sixth generation of evolutionists at this point.

QUOTE
All of these "supernatural" phenomena are simply natural phenomena, just as you have said. Your concept of supernatural phenomena is skewed. Supernatural phenomena being something like the healing of the sick, the creation of the universe, the ability of spirits to interact in a seperate realm. The TRUE supernatural can never be proven natural, because it is just that: Above the natural.


Before they were explained to be natural phenomena, all of these where considered to be magical and supernatural in nature, even by the ancient judeo-christians, who reagrded such things as plagues to be supernatural punishment as opposed to biological epidemics.  There is absolutely no way to predict that what we today consider supernatural phenomena will not, in the future, be common household science.

QUOTE
If fact and truth are seperate, which one rules the other? Is there no ruling?


As I said, truth is subjective.  It has no place in science.

QUOTE
The supernatural, yes. But the existance of the Christian God, the Belief in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, and his Word, no. Not by a long shot.


You have just deeply offended many of the devoutly religious evolutionists on this forum.  Good luck justifying that you are closer to God than they.

QUOTE
Funding funding funding. It always come down to the funding. The love of money is the root of all evil.


Don't be naive.  The church is hardly pennyless.  Wether you love it or not, money is needed to accomplish anything.  If you judge people to be evil simply because they fund scientific research, then you must also find them to be evil for funding archeological research, and biogical, and geological, and spatial, and all reasearch, for that matter.  Including Biblical.

QUOTE
It's very difficult for me to do that with the form of conversation I feel we have started here. It is also difficult for me not to ask questions at almost every sentence you write, because we are on opposite sides of the spectrum it seems.


Insight, you have no idea how difficult it is for me not to respond to some of the things you have typed.  I have not done so because they are minutae, and by learning the foundations of scientific methodology, you will be able to answer these questions yourself.  I originally intended to simply reference most of your questions to the five pre-reqs, but found myself typing out detailed answers instead.

Let's do this.  We are putting on hold all the previous posts we have made.  Frankly, answering them will do you no good, since you still will not understand the foundation they are based on.  Have patience; the answers come to those who wait.  Let's start at the beginning.  Currently, because you do not show an understanding of the five pre-reqs, I find it difficult to give any of your arguments credibility.  If you show me that you do understand the five pre-reqs, even if you do not agree with them, your posts will carry more weight.

No more multiple questions.  Restrain your admirable enthusiasm.  This is the time for discipline.  Pick any one of the five and we shall begin.

Edited by aquatus1, 25 November 2004 - 02:28 PM.


#42    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 November 2004 - 03:26 PM

FYI, a quick tutorial.  In the ADD REPLY page, above the text box, there are a series of buttons.  One of them says QUOTE.  Clicking on this button will cause an "open quote" ([quote.]) command to appear in the text box.  Clicking it again will cause a "close quote" ([/quote.]) command to appear.  Anything typed or pasted within these two commands will appear in a quote box on the main thread page.  This will help your posts be a little easier to understand.

Edited by aquatus1, 25 November 2004 - 03:27 PM.


#43    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 28 November 2004 - 09:22 AM

How about we start me off with the first pre-requisite. No sense in going out of order really.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#44    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 November 2004 - 01:31 PM

Sounds good to me.

QUOTE
1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.


Data is imperical evidence or logical deductions that continually crop up from the many seperate fields in the scientific community.  Any theory must be able to account for the data that is currently in existence, and either predict or be able to assimilate data in the future.  It cannot ignore a statistically significant amount of data (which does mean that it can ignore a single nugget or two, as contradictory elements are an expected part of data).

A theory must not only be able to explain the data from which it is derived, but also be able to predict what we could expect to see from any future or past phenomena that contains those elements of data.

Questions?


#45    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 28 November 2004 - 09:24 PM

No prominent questions come to mind regarding the first pre-requisite. What you have written here only seems logical to me.

The theory must be able to explain, and predict. It must coincide with existing majority data, excluding a few unapplicable exceptions. And it should be able to assimilate future data.

I believe I understand.

Lets move on to pre-requisite 2.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users