|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ernest Major
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
 |
|
In message <48167bdc$0$3355$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse
<Apocalypse@NoSpam.Com> writes
| Quote: |
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pVH9NYS$hgFIFwW7@meden.invalid...
In message <48160116$0$5121$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse
Apocalypse@NoSpam.Com> writes
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
where
we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
[snip]
Science is not in
the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is
set
in
stone and is impossible to refute.
While that statement does put science in to its proper place that is
not
what one observes in the world. In the area of origins what one
observes is
the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven
evolution
and origins. This is not true.
Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has
proven
many
facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just don't
know.
(A)
Science, alas for you, is an epistomology or way of knowing and not
simply a process to observe, weigh, and measure. Science does not
"prove" anything. It generates and tests *testable* models and
explanations against *observable* material reality to determine if the
explanations are "consistent with" the tests. Specifically, science
*limits* itself to understanding how the material world works by means
of materially observable phenomena. The process involves hypothesis
testing (testing specific expectations) and theory testing
(determining whether the results of hypothesis testing are "consistent
with" current theory).
The more we know scientifically, the better (the more consistent with
observable reality) are the models to observable reality. Ignorance
is not typically an outcome of the scientific method even when it
overthrows current theory.
The facts are that observable reality is overwhelmingly consistent
with the ideas that the current forms of life arose by the branching
historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. No other
*testable* model (ID is a non-testable model that can be made
consistent with any information since it makes no specific testable
predictions).
Now, I made a *testable* prediction that you would not reply and
engage in a dialog where you would try to support your position. That
hypothesis has now been partly falsified. [You responded, but merely
made more evidenceless assertions.] As a scientist, I simply accept
that, and now make a further hypothesis modifiying the original one.
Since your response was nothing but an unsupported repeat of your
original assertions, I now make a further hypothesis that you are
incapable of presenting an actual scientific argument, with actual
evidence that is "inconsistent with" the tests that have led
scientists to the 'evolution model'. [And, no, it does not require
the actual observation of speciation in real time, even though that
has been observed. It only requires testable hypotheses such as that
there be a discernible pattern of fossils in the geologic layers and
consistent pattern of neutral change in sequence that would be
unlikely to be due to chance.]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
not 'prove' anything."
But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
evolution is an undisputed fact.
What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
that evolution is a fact.
Ray
Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms). What
angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or
hidden
from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be
true.
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
alternate theory...which is absurd.
Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would
appear
there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
understand.
(A)
Then how do you explain the appearance of Spartina anglica
A hybrid grass? This is your proof of evolution of species?
|
I see that you don't offer an explanation. Spartina anglica is an
observation of a new species appearing. That's proof enough for science
or for a court of law. Noting that it is a hybrid grass is not an
alternative explanation; to argue against the factuality of the
formation of new species by evolutionary processes you have to
demonstrate either that is not new, not a species.
It's also interesting that while you retained the lists of examples of
speciation and respeciation in the laboratory you cut out all but one
example of spontaneous speciation in the wild and under domestication.
| Quote: |
How do you explain experimental recreation of species such as
Ararabidopsis sueica,
So the fact that we can alter DNA artifiscially is relevant here?
|
One wonders whether you have actually bothered to read the literature.
It's straining the language to describe the techniques involved here as
altering DNA artificially. For example, in the case of Galeopsis
tetrahit what was involved what manually transferring pollen from one
plant to another. While the use of colchicine treatment to increase the
frequency of chromosome doubling is common in experimental recreation of
species, it is not universal - in addition to Galeopsis tetrahit, the
recreation of various tetraploid Gilias by Verne Grant involved no more
than manual pollination.
| Quote: |
Galeopsis tetrahit, Brassica carinata, Brassica napus, Brassica juncea,
Dactylis glomerata, Madia citrigracilis, Nicotiana tabacum and Triticum
aestivum? How do you explain the laboratory created species such as the
various Raphanobrassicas
More hybrinds....wow this is eath shattering. What is your point Enie?
|
You correct it's not earth-shattering - apart from the creation of new
species being almost routine in agronomy, the voluminous evidence for
common descent with modification though the agency of natural selection
put together by Charles Darwin and subsequent workers means that the
actual observation of cladogenesis is no great surprise. It's like
detecting planets orbiting stars other than the Sun - it's nice to have
observational confirmation. Earth-shattering would apply better to
things like the Michelson-Morley experiment, where the results were not
in accordance with contemporary understanding of the universe.
The point is that contrary to your apparent claim new species have been
observed to arise. If you want a non-hybrid species look into Mimulus
cupriphilus.
| Quote: |
and Triticosecales, Brassica napocampestris, Brassica naponigra, Elytricum
fertile and Solanum indianense?
--
alias Ernest Major
So far you have not been able to *show me the proof*. We both know why, it
doesn't exist.
|
Is this blind denialism, or are you equivocating on the meaning of
proof? Or perhaps on the meaning of "show" - are you insisting that we
perform the experiment before your eyes.
In one sense of the word proof (as used in mathematics) it can be said
that science "doesn't do proof, science does evidence". The factuality
of common descent with modification through the agency of natural
selection and other processes is supported by overwhelming evidence;
there are literally billions of supporting observations.
Are you ignorant? In that case you should not be so arrogant as to
proclaim evolution is not a fact.
Are you a nihilist? Then you should be open about your position, and
proclaim "nothing is a fact", rather than equivocate on the meaning of
fact.
--
alias Ernest Major |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ray Martinez
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 2:41 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 3:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:43 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:40 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at all?
DJT
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Common sense says if you want accurate information about the Bible do
not listen to an evolutionist.
No, Ray, you say that. Your assumptions are not common sense, or
sense of any kind. Why would accepting the scientific fact of
evolution make one any better or worse at interpreting the Bible?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You haven't dented my point in the least - why?
Because you haven't made one.
Once more: Common sense says if you want accurate information about
the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
Saying something stupid more than once doesn't make get you any closer
to making a point.
Now let me add to it: Common sense says if you want accurate
information about the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist, that is,
a person who accepts the biological origins theory that all Atheists
accept.
"Common sense" is a euphemism for one's general life experience. Most
of us haven't experienced being brainwashed by a greedy televangelist,
so our common sense is different from yours.
Come on Dana, stop acting like you do not understand. This ruse tells
us that you have no answer.
Make a point, and I'll bet Dana will have an answer.
Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Rage caused by the inability to refute.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
DJT
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:33 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 8:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 2:41 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
snip |
| Quote: |
Make a point, and I'll bet Dana will have an answer.
Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rage caused by the inability to refute.
|
You've failed to make a point, Ray. Perhaps you ought to see to your
own rage.
DJT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ray Martinez
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 3:13 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 3:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:43 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:40 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at all?
DJT
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Common sense says if you want accurate information about the Bible do
not listen to an evolutionist.
No, Ray, you say that. Your assumptions are not common sense, or
sense of any kind. Why would accepting the scientific fact of
evolution make one any better or worse at interpreting the Bible?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You haven't dented my point in the least - why?
What "point" ? You made an assertion.
Once more: Common sense says if you want accurate information about
the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
Once more, your claim is devoid of sense, common or otherwise. Why
would a person who accepts the fact of evolution be more, or less able
to interpret the Bible?
Now let me add to it: Common sense says if you want accurate
information about the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist, that is,
a person who accepts the biological origins theory that all Atheists
accept.
Not all atheists do accept the biological theory of evolution. But
that's beside the point. Why would someone who can accept a factual
statement about biology, not be able to present accurate information
about the Bible?
Come on Dana, stop acting like you do not understand. This ruse tells
us that you have no answer.
What you claim is false. You assume that someone who can recognize
truth about science is unable to recognize truth about a religious
writing. On what do you base that assertion?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dana's answer says evolutionists and Atheists have no anti-Bible bias
or agenda. The source for Creationism and Supernaturalism, that is,
the Source which says living things were created by God, and
evolutionists and Atheists have no anti-Bible axe to grind?
This Group constantly slanders the Bible, but evolution has no agenda
against the Bible. Atheists exist to slander the Bible. Everything
they publish exists to say the Bible is not true. That is why they
invented the Agnostic label, to hide behind, so their predictable anti-
Bible conclusions are not seen as the predictable opinion of an
Atheist.
Of course Dana's answer shows that evolutionists are completely
dishonest, unwilling to admit to the most obvious bias that they
possess. It shows that evolutionists and Atheists will lie to your
face. That is my only point. Now just think what they have done with
complicated scientific evidence if they will not even admit that their
enemy is their enemy?
Now we will be told that the Bible and evolution do not contradict,
which will once again prove my point that evolutionists will lie to
your face even over the undisputed and self-evident.
Evolution is a lie. Animals have no power to change into another
animal. Evolution is Atheist ideology based on rejection of Genesis.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ray Martinez
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 7:47 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:d8ef6d43-7db8-4f08-acd0-39321a280af5@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 29, 2:41 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 3:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:43 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:40 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups
.com...> On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman
Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies,
no wonder they contradict.
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at
all?
DJT
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Common sense says if you want accurate information about the
Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
No, Ray, you say that. Your assumptions are not common sense, or
sense of any kind. Why would accepting the scientific fact of
evolution make one any better or worse at interpreting the Bible?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You haven't dented my point in the least - why?
Because you haven't made one.
Once more: Common sense says if you want accurate information about
the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
Saying something stupid more than once doesn't make get you any closer
to making a point.
Now let me add to it: Common sense says if you want accurate
information about the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist, that
is, a person who accepts the biological origins theory that all
Atheists accept.
"Common sense" is a euphemism for one's general life experience. Most
of us haven't experienced being brainwashed by a greedy televangelist,
so our common sense is different from yours.
Come on Dana, stop acting like you do not understand. This ruse tells
us that you have no answer.
Make a point, and I'll bet Dana will have an answer.
Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rage caused by the inability to refute.
Where is your refutation of the clear contradiction
of the creation story in the Genesis chapters?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Genesis 2 is a selective close-up of Genesis 1, that is, chapter 2
simply explains and expands upon certain revelations declared in
chapter 1.
What makes you think there is a contradiction, beside your pro-
evolution, anti-creation bias?
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob T.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 7:33 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 8:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 29, 2:41 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
snip
Make a point, and I'll bet Dana will have an answer.
Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rage caused by the inability to refute.
You've failed to make a point, Ray. Perhaps you ought to see to your own rage.
DJT
|
He did make a point. He made the same point he always makes: "Rage
caused by the inability to refute."
Personally, I think it's an elegant synopsis of Ray's entire posting
career.
- Bob T. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lee Jay
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 8:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 2:41 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 3:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:43 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:40 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at all?
DJT
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Common sense says if you want accurate information about the Bible do
not listen to an evolutionist.
No, Ray, you say that. Your assumptions are not common sense, or
sense of any kind. Why would accepting the scientific fact of
evolution make one any better or worse at interpreting the Bible?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You haven't dented my point in the least - why?
Because you haven't made one.
Once more: Common sense says if you want accurate information about
the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
Saying something stupid more than once doesn't make get you any closer
to making a point.
Now let me add to it: Common sense says if you want accurate
information about the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist, that is,
a person who accepts the biological origins theory that all Atheists
accept.
"Common sense" is a euphemism for one's general life experience. Most
of us haven't experienced being brainwashed by a greedy televangelist,
so our common sense is different from yours.
Come on Dana, stop acting like you do not understand. This ruse tells
us that you have no answer.
Make a point, and I'll bet Dana will have an answer.
Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rage caused by the inability to refute.
Ray
|
This is what Ray says when the only point he's left with is the one on
the top of his head.
Lee Jay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ray Martinez
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 2:08 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
[snip]
Gen 1:11-12, Trees were created before man was created.
Gen 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
A plain reading confirms Mitchells summary, but you could possibly
interpret it (if you were the sort of person who permitted
interpretation rather than plain reading) that in Genesis 1, the "grass,
[and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed [was] in itself", (Gen 1:12) are created in seed form on the
third day, but do not grow until sometime after the sixth day when there
is "a man to till the ground" (Gen 2:5).
Gen 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Gen 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see
what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
creature, that [was] the name thereof.
Pretty clearly in Genesis 2 the beasts of the field and the fowls of the
air are being created after Adam. In Genesis 1, "fowl [that] may fly
above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" are created on the
fifth day, man on the sixth day.
"cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" are also created on
the sixth day, so one could interpret the narrative as jumping around to
maintain consistency with Genesis 2.
Gen 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was]
very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man.
Plain reading indicates that woman was created on the sixth day in
Genesis 1. Could be interpreted that Adam was rather tired after giving
"names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of
the field" (Gen 2:20) and took a nap during the sixth day, during which
Even was created.
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Well, I was able to come up with interpretations to resolve all but one
of the contradictions. That leaves one for you to explain:
Were birds created before Adam (Genesis 1) or after (Genesis 2)?
Ray
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
|
Your entire theory is built on the assumption that Genesis 2 is a
chronology. Genesis 2 is not a chronology. It is a close-up of chapter
1 in that it provides additional facts and explanations of chapter 1.
When viewed this way these texts make perfect sense.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
DJT
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 8:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 7:47 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:d8ef6d43-7db8-4f08-acd0-39321a280af5@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 29, 2:41 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 3:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:43 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:40 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups
.com...> On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman
Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies,
no wonder they contradict.
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at
all?
DJT
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Common sense says if you want accurate information about the
Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
No, Ray, you say that. Your assumptions are not common sense, or
sense of any kind. Why would accepting the scientific fact of
evolution make one any better or worse at interpreting the Bible?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You haven't dented my point in the least - why?
Because you haven't made one.
Once more: Common sense says if you want accurate information about
the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
Saying something stupid more than once doesn't make get you any closer
to making a point.
Now let me add to it: Common sense says if you want accurate
information about the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist, that
is, a person who accepts the biological origins theory that all
Atheists accept.
"Common sense" is a euphemism for one's general life experience. Most
of us haven't experienced being brainwashed by a greedy televangelist,
so our common sense is different from yours.
Come on Dana, stop acting like you do not understand. This ruse tells
us that you have no answer.
Make a point, and I'll bet Dana will have an answer.
Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rage caused by the inability to refute.
Where is your refutation of the clear contradiction
of the creation story in the Genesis chapters?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Genesis 2 is a selective close-up of Genesis 1, that is, chapter 2
simply explains and expands upon certain revelations declared in
chapter 1.
|
Then why does it contradict the events in Genesis 1?
| Quote: |
What makes you think there is a contradiction, beside your pro-
evolution, anti-creation bias?
|
The fact that the first story is different from the second.
DJT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
DJT
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:39 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 8:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 3:13 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 3:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:43 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:40 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at all?
DJT
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Common sense says if you want accurate information about the Bible do
not listen to an evolutionist.
No, Ray, you say that. Your assumptions are not common sense, or
sense of any kind. Why would accepting the scientific fact of
evolution make one any better or worse at interpreting the Bible?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You haven't dented my point in the least - why?
What "point" ? You made an assertion.
Once more: Common sense says if you want accurate information about
the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist.
Once more, your claim is devoid of sense, common or otherwise. Why
would a person who accepts the fact of evolution be more, or less able
to interpret the Bible?
Now let me add to it: Common sense says if you want accurate
information about the Bible do not listen to an evolutionist, that is,
a person who accepts the biological origins theory that all Atheists
accept.
Not all atheists do accept the biological theory of evolution. But
that's beside the point. Why would someone who can accept a factual
statement about biology, not be able to present accurate information
about the Bible?
Come on Dana, stop acting like you do not understand. This ruse tells
us that you have no answer.
What you claim is false. You assume that someone who can recognize
truth about science is unable to recognize truth about a religious
writing. On what do you base that assertion?
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dana's answer says evolutionists and Atheists have no anti-Bible bias
or agenda.
|
Which is quite true. "evolutionists" have no reason to be "anti
Bible" and atheists don't care what the Bible says.
| Quote: |
The source for Creationism and Supernaturalism, that is,
the Source which says living things were created by God, and
evolutionists and Atheists have no anti-Bible axe to grind?
|
Well, the "source" for "supernaturalism" is belief in the
supernatural. Many people believe in the supernatural, without
believing in the Bible. As for the "source" of Creationism, that's
religious fundamentalism, which also can exist without belief in the
Bible.
Why would atheists have an "axe to grind" about something they
don't believe in? Why would an "evolutionist" care what a religious
text has to say?
| Quote: |
This Group constantly slanders the Bible,
|
Not only is it impossible to "slander" a book,, where has anyone even
made such an attempt? Can you give any examples of anyone
"slandering" the Bible?
| Quote: |
but evolution has no agenda
against the Bible.
|
True, the group has no "agenda" against the Bible.
| Quote: |
Atheists exist to slander the Bible. Everything
they publish exists to say the Bible is not true.
|
Well, it seems to me that atheists exist to live their own lives.
They don't, as a matter of course, "slander" the Bible (as if it were
possible to slander a book). As for what they "publish", believing
the Bible isn't true, is not the same as "slandering" it. Ray,
you seem to have some very strange ideas about what atheists do. Have
you actually met any atheists, or known any personally?
| Quote: |
That is why they
invented the Agnostic label, to hide behind, so their predictable anti-
Bible conclusions are not seen as the predictable opinion of an
Atheist.
|
It's my understanding that "Agnostic" describes someone who isn't sure
about the supernatural. It's not a "label" to "hide behind". As
for the "anti Bible conclusions" being "predictable, that doesn't mean
they are right, or wrong. Your own opinions about the Bible seem to
be much worse than any atheist has ever said about the book.
| Quote: |
Of course Dana's answer shows that evolutionists are completely
dishonest, unwilling to admit to the most obvious bias that they
possess.
|
Actually, it just shows Ray's own dishonesty.
| Quote: |
It shows that evolutionists and Atheists will lie to your
face.
|
Yet when a lie is brought up, it's nearly always a creationist who is
lying. Despite Ray's name calling, he hasn't identified a single
"lie" that any "evolutionist" is supposed to have said.
| Quote: |
That is my only point. Now just think what they have done with
complicated scientific evidence if they will not even admit that their
enemy is their enemy?
|
Maybe because they don't consider those they disagree with as an
enemy. You are projecting your own hatred, illogic, and fear onto
others.
| Quote: |
Now we will be told that the Bible and evolution do not contradict,
|
Not as long as you don't treat the Bible like a science text. It
was never written to be science.
| Quote: |
which will once again prove my point that evolutionists will lie to
your face even over the undisputed and self-evident.
|
So, Ray, why is it the creationists are the ones that lie? As far
as "undisputed" or "self evident", may I point out that your own
fantasies, weird beliefs, and bizarre imaginations are neither
undisputed, or self evident.
| Quote: |
Evolution is a lie.
|
Yet life evolves. Evolution is observed in the lab, and in the
wild. If it's a lie, why is it so easy to observe?
| Quote: |
Animals have no power to change into another
animal.
|
Tell that to a caterpillar. That's metamorphosis, which is not
evolution, however. Animals, plants, bacteria, and all other life
forms do have the ability to reproduce, and they do so imperfectly.
With imperfect reproduction, and selection operating on populations,
evolution is inevitable. Evolution is not one animal changing into
another, it's populations changing over generations, splitting off
from ancestral populations to become different species.
| Quote: |
Evolution is Atheist ideology based on rejection of Genesis.
|
No matter how often you try to convince yourself of that, you still
know it's not true. Evolution is not atheist, it's not ideology.
It's a scientific theory, based on the evidence.
DJT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
DJT
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:45 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 9:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 2:08 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
[snip]
Gen 1:11-12, Trees were created before man was created.
Gen 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
A plain reading confirms Mitchells summary, but you could possibly
interpret it (if you were the sort of person who permitted
interpretation rather than plain reading) that in Genesis 1, the "grass,
[and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed [was] in itself", (Gen 1:12) are created in seed form on the
third day, but do not grow until sometime after the sixth day when there
is "a man to till the ground" (Gen 2:5).
Gen 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Gen 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see
what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
creature, that [was] the name thereof.
Pretty clearly in Genesis 2 the beasts of the field and the fowls of the
air are being created after Adam. In Genesis 1, "fowl [that] may fly
above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" are created on the
fifth day, man on the sixth day.
"cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" are also created on
the sixth day, so one could interpret the narrative as jumping around to
maintain consistency with Genesis 2.
Gen 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was]
very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man.
Plain reading indicates that woman was created on the sixth day in
Genesis 1. Could be interpreted that Adam was rather tired after giving
"names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of
the field" (Gen 2:20) and took a nap during the sixth day, during which
Even was created.
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Well, I was able to come up with interpretations to resolve all but one
of the contradictions. That leaves one for you to explain:
Were birds created before Adam (Genesis 1) or after (Genesis 2)?
Ray
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com-*Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Your entire theory is built on the assumption that Genesis 2 is a
chronology. Genesis 2 is not a chronology. It is a close-up of chapter
1 in that it provides additional facts and explanations of chapter 1.
|
The problem is that Genesis 2's creation story is not consistent with
Genesis 1's story. The creation story in Genesis 2 does give a
chronology of sorts, as all stories tend to play out over time. The
"additional facts" in Genesis 2 are in a different order than Genesis
1, and give a different account.
| Quote: |
When viewed this way these texts make perfect sense.
|
Ray, not everyone can get their head that far up their colon to view
it your way.
DJT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 28, 1:25 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
In message <48160116$0$5121$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse
Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> writes
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
where
we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
[snip]
Science is not in
the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is set
in
stone and is impossible to refute.
While that statement does put science in to its proper place that is
not
what one observes in the world. In the area of origins what one
observes is
the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven
evolution
and origins. This is not true.
Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has proven
many
facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just don't
know.
(A)
Science, alas for you, is an epistomology or way of knowing and not
simply a process to observe, weigh, and measure. Science does not
"prove" anything. It generates and tests *testable* models and
explanations against *observable* material reality to determine if the
explanations are "consistent with" the tests. Specifically, science
*limits* itself to understanding how the material world works by means
of materially observable phenomena. The process involves hypothesis
testing (testing specific expectations) and theory testing
(determining whether the results of hypothesis testing are "consistent
with" current theory).
The more we know scientifically, the better (the more consistent with
observable reality) are the models to observable reality. Ignorance
is not typically an outcome of the scientific method even when it
overthrows current theory.
The facts are that observable reality is overwhelmingly consistent
with the ideas that the current forms of life arose by the branching
historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. No other
*testable* model (ID is a non-testable model that can be made
consistent with any information since it makes no specific testable
predictions).
Now, I made a *testable* prediction that you would not reply and
engage in a dialog where you would try to support your position. That
hypothesis has now been partly falsified. [You responded, but merely
made more evidenceless assertions.] As a scientist, I simply accept
that, and now make a further hypothesis modifiying the original one.
Since your response was nothing but an unsupported repeat of your
original assertions, I now make a further hypothesis that you are
incapable of presenting an actual scientific argument, with actual
evidence that is "inconsistent with" the tests that have led
scientists to the 'evolution model'. [And, no, it does not require
the actual observation of speciation in real time, even though that
has been observed. It only requires testable hypotheses such as that
there be a discernible pattern of fossils in the geologic layers and
consistent pattern of neutral change in sequence that would be
unlikely to be due to chance.]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
not 'prove' anything."
But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
evolution is an undisputed fact.
What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
that evolution is a fact.
Ray
Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms). What
angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or hidden
from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
alternate theory...which is absurd.
Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would appear
there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
understand.
(A)
Then how do you explain the appearance of Spartina anglica, Senecio
cambrica, Senecio eboracensis, Mimulus cupriphilus, Tragopogon mirus,
Tragopogon micellus, Cardamine schultzii, Aesculus carnea, Digitalis
mertonensis and Primula kewensis? How do you explain experimental
recreation of species such as Ararabidopsis sueica, Galeopsis tetrahit,
Brassica carinata, Brassica napus, Brassica juncea, Dactylis glomerata,
Madia citrigracilis, Nicotiana tabacum and Triticum aestivum? How do you
explain the laboratory created species such as the various
Raphanobrassicas and Triticosecales, Brassica napocampestris, Brassica
naponigra, Elytricum fertile and Solanum indianense?
--
alias Ernest Major
|
That's easy for you to say!
Eric Root |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 28, 9:37 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pVH9NYS$hgFIFwW7@meden.invalid...
In message <48160116$0$5121$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse
Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> writes
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
where
we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
[snip]
Science is not in
the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is
set
in
stone and is impossible to refute.
While that statement does put science in to its proper place that is
not
what one observes in the world. In the area of origins what one
observes is
the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven
evolution
and origins. This is not true.
Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has
proven
many
facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just don't
know.
(A)
Science, alas for you, is an epistomology or way of knowing and not
simply a process to observe, weigh, and measure. Science does not
"prove" anything. It generates and tests *testable* models and
explanations against *observable* material reality to determine if the
explanations are "consistent with" the tests. Specifically, science
*limits* itself to understanding how the material world works by means
of materially observable phenomena. The process involves hypothesis
testing (testing specific expectations) and theory testing
(determining whether the results of hypothesis testing are "consistent
with" current theory).
The more we know scientifically, the better (the more consistent with
observable reality) are the models to observable reality. Ignorance
is not typically an outcome of the scientific method even when it
overthrows current theory.
The facts are that observable reality is overwhelmingly consistent
with the ideas that the current forms of life arose by the branching
historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. No other
*testable* model (ID is a non-testable model that can be made
consistent with any information since it makes no specific testable
predictions).
Now, I made a *testable* prediction that you would not reply and
engage in a dialog where you would try to support your position. That
hypothesis has now been partly falsified. [You responded, but merely
made more evidenceless assertions.] As a scientist, I simply accept
that, and now make a further hypothesis modifiying the original one.
Since your response was nothing but an unsupported repeat of your
original assertions, I now make a further hypothesis that you are
incapable of presenting an actual scientific argument, with actual
evidence that is "inconsistent with" the tests that have led
scientists to the 'evolution model'. [And, no, it does not require
the actual observation of speciation in real time, even though that
has been observed. It only requires testable hypotheses such as that
there be a discernible pattern of fossils in the geologic layers and
consistent pattern of neutral change in sequence that would be
unlikely to be due to chance.]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
not 'prove' anything."
But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
evolution is an undisputed fact.
What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
that evolution is a fact.
Ray
Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms). What
angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or
hidden
from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be
true.
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
alternate theory...which is absurd.
Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would
appear
there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
understand.
(A)
Then how do you explain the appearance of Spartina anglica
A hybrid grass? This is your proof of evolution of species?
|
Science doesn't deal with proof, just preponderance of evidence. What
basis do you have to doubt evolution? And how does _your_ preferred
explanation work.
| Quote: |
How do you explain experimental recreation of species such as
Ararabidopsis sueica,
So the fact that we can alter DNA artifiscially is relevant here?
|
| Quote: |
Galeopsis tetrahit, Brassica carinata, Brassica napus, Brassica juncea,
Dactylis glomerata, Madia citrigracilis, Nicotiana tabacum and Triticum
aestivum? How do you explain the laboratory created species such as the
various Raphanobrassicas
More hybrinds....wow this is eath shattering. What is your point Enie?
and Triticosecales, Brassica napocampestris, Brassica naponigra, Elytricum
fertile and Solanum indianense?
--
alias Ernest Major
So far you have not been able to *show me the proof*. We both know why, it
doesn't exist.
|
Is there some reason your babbling about "proof" doesn't show you to
be a contemptible goof-ball?
Of course it is, what's wrong with you? Everything that humans do uses
only forces and principles that exist in nature, showing that there is
no need to assume supernatural forces.
Eric Root |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
chris thompson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 29, 4:53 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:14:06 -0700, chris thompson wrote:
On Apr 28, 12:53 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
where
we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
[snip]
Science is not in
the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is set
in
stone and is impossible to refute.
While that statement does put science in to its proper place that is
not
what one observes in the world. In the area of origins what one
observes is
the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven
evolution
and origins. This is not true.
Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has proven
many
facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just don't
know.
(A)
Science, alas for you, is an epistomology or way of knowing and not
simply a process to observe, weigh, and measure. Science does not
"prove" anything. It generates and tests *testable* models and
explanations against *observable* material reality to determine if the
explanations are "consistent with" the tests. Specifically, science
*limits* itself to understanding how the material world works by means
of materially observable phenomena. The process involves hypothesis
testing (testing specific expectations) and theory testing
(determining whether the results of hypothesis testing are "consistent
with" current theory).
The more we know scientifically, the better (the more consistent with
observable reality) are the models to observable reality. Ignorance
is not typically an outcome of the scientific method even when it
overthrows current theory.
The facts are that observable reality is overwhelmingly consistent
with the ideas that the current forms of life arose by the branching
historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. No other
*testable* model (ID is a non-testable model that can be made
consistent with any information since it makes no specific testable
predictions).
Now, I made a *testable* prediction that you would not reply and
engage in a dialog where you would try to support your position. That
hypothesis has now been partly falsified. [You responded, but merely
made more evidenceless assertions.] As a scientist, I simply accept
that, and now make a further hypothesis modifiying the original one.
Since your response was nothing but an unsupported repeat of your
original assertions, I now make a further hypothesis that you are
incapable of presenting an actual scientific argument, with actual
evidence that is "inconsistent with" the tests that have led
scientists to the 'evolution model'. [And, no, it does not require
the actual observation of speciation in real time, even though that
has been observed. It only requires testable hypotheses such as that
there be a discernible pattern of fossils in the geologic layers and
consistent pattern of neutral change in sequence that would be
unlikely to be due to chance.]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
not 'prove' anything."
But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
evolution is an undisputed fact.
What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
that evolution is a fact.
Ray
Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms). What
angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or hidden
from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
alternate theory...which is absurd.
Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would appear
there is some sort of an agenda at work here ( | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
