Evolutionary trump card

[Coyotero]

Creationists: Something I've always been puzzled about.

Why is evolution viewed as the trump card that would claim to disprove God and creation? Why must divine creation and evolution be mutually exclusive?

I would think that evolution could be said to resemble an intelligently-designed process. It makes sense that if I were God, and I were populating a planet with creatures, I would want the creatures to be adaptable and dynamic, to change with their environment.

Why are people so threatened by this theory?

[Alan Clarke]

EVOLUTION & HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

Ah, I wondered where my old friend "Irreducible Complexity" had gone. This is something championed by Dr Behe and he got his proverbial butt slapped at the Dover trial when Ken Miller (a Catholic Evolutionary Biologist) showed that the concept of irreducible complexity with regards to the Bacterial Flagelum was wrong.

Your argument is a hybrid of “post hoc ergo propter hoc� + “straw man�. Look at your key ingredient: "Catholic Evolutionary Biologist) showed that..." Can't you see the fallacy of your argument? The Catholics are the ones that thwarted Galileo’s attempt to advance science beyond an antiquated Aristotelian Universe. Now you are heralding this Catholic Evolutionary Biologist as a savior of science! If Catholics distorted the truth 3500 years ago, what makes you think their testimony can be trusted in a Dover trial? Aristotle thought that mice came from dirty hay just as do modern-day evolutionists. The only difference is that Aristotle overlooked the fact that he needed to wait 2 million years before the mice appeared. I am also astounded that you appeal to the American judicial system to determine the fate of "science". The ultimate decision in the case of the Dover trial rested in the hands of a judge. What credentials did the judge possess beyond a law degree that empowered him to judge matters of science? (Click here to find out for yourself) From your logic, we are assured that evolution theory stands firm on American lawyers, judges not trained in science, and the Catholic Church. The U.S. judicial system with the assistance of the ACLU has stooped to levels unseen in the history of this country. I have been a U.S. citizen for 56 years, so I know what I’m talking about. The icing on the cake is that the Dover trial judge, John E. Jones, was appointed by George W. Bush. Bush himself exhibits the same lack of discernment when trying to separate true and false. There is indeed one God, but when a Catholic petitions Mary, this in no way validates that she is one-in-the-same with the Creator of the Universe, nor does it validate that all religions pray to the same God.

Evolution’s Dream Team

• 1) Catholics who hindered science in Galileo's day.
  2) Catholic who hindered science at Dover trial.
  3) U.S. judge, trained only in law, who hindered science at Dover trial.

"Dream Team" Superstar Emits Howl, Proving
Ancestral Link To Old World Monkeys

Quiz: Which monkey is “New World� and which is “Old World�?

Click links [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] for clues before viewing answer here.

The picture is becoming ever clearer. You construct the best possible straw man by utilizing the worst possible corrupted religions of the world, and then try to link all of Christendom to it. You will need to perform additional tasks before your illogical junk flying machine will ever take off. Since you are debating with Alan Clarke, a non-Catholic, Bible-based YEC, you will need to discount my argument by convincing others that I’m actually a Mary-worshipper, stuck in purgatory, with indulgences stuffed in my back pocket. Have you ever noticed that I like to quote from the Bible? Was it not the Catholic church that dissuaded everyone from interpreting and translating the Bible, and from making their own interpretations apart from priests and church tradition? This is what gave birth to Protestantism, which I proudly endorse. I LOVE science when it is founded in TRUTH. I am on the side of Galileo. Man is fallible so I choose my heroes, Newton and Pascal, with reservation. Poor old Darwin embraced the idea of “blending�, so he probably thought that Christianity was nothing more than a homogenous solution of Catholicism and Anglicanism. He rightly decided to dump his self-made concoction of religious perceptions and indoctrination and looked (unfortunately) to the Greek-based philosophy of materialism.

Names may change but central ideas do not (ex: spontaneous generation becomes “abiogenesis�). Modern philosophical materialists extend the old definition of “matter� to include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. [ref.] Do you see how the foundation is the same? Continuing from the same reference: “Many current and recent philosophers… and Richard Dawkins… operate within a broadly physicalist or materialist framework…, producing rival accounts of how best to accommodate mind—functionalism, anomalous monism, identity theory and so on.�

A materialist believes that the “ultimate truth� lies in matter, so the search for truth will always be confined to matter. The idea that the ultimate source of truth could reside in a man seems preposterous to an evolutionist. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.� Even the “first cause� must lie in matter. There is nothing scientific about this belief whatsoever since it is based on a non-empirical pre-supposition. Darwin attempted to abide by this principle after his Beagle voyage. His idea of ultimate truth or “good� is revealed in this writing:

Real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks [on Christianity]. (source)

350 years ago the official interpretation of the church was that the sun, planets and stars orbited the Earth.

Einstein taught us that observations are contingent upon a reference. Applying the same principle, and using Earth as the reference, the planets and stars indeed orbit the Earth. Even quantized redshift supports geocentricity. The important question to ask is not, “Am I in the center of the Universe?�, but “Is God in the center of me?� (god ≠ God).

Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for daring to look because he found out that the official interpretation was false. Today's interpretation, as represented here by Alan, is just as false, but the church no longer has the power to prosecute(persecute) those who find that out. Our world is better off for all the scientist's discoveries made by men who would not, and will not accept such a stupid answer.

History is written by the victors. Fortunately, those attempting to revise history by placing revisionist pamphlets on every automobile are not going to succeed while Bible-based Christians are living.

The lesson to be learned from Galileo, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed the Greek philosophy of Aristotle to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. Click to read whole story.

Does it not seem contradictory that Catholic Church’s endorsement of an Aristotelian Universe was also an endorsement of Aristotle who believed that aphids, fleas, mice, and crocodiles came from plant dew, decaying matter, dirty hay, and rotting sunken logs respectively? This compromise is identical to modern-day Christians who think that God uses evolution to create species. The Bible couldn’t be clearer in articulating a line of demarcation between “kinds�. The phrase is repeated so often that only the most indoctrinated, belligerent, die-hard evolutionist could miss it:

[Fisherking]

... But those variations have limits, just as does height or weight...

We've observed changes, and from such we can make a reasonable and logical conclusion that such changes, over time, will lead to speciation.

Why not present this 'reasonable and logical' argument so we can decide whether or not it is reasonable and logical? Are you saying all changes over time result in speciation?

We have observed speciation.

Observing speciation doesn't address whether or not microbes can evolve into men.

I would agree, as a matter of honorable debate, at least I can't claim humans came from bacteria, however there is evidence (however great or slight) for this reasonable and logical conclusion.

A simple syllogism would sufffice in showing how reasonable and logical this conclusion is, please.

Generally, mutations that are harmful will be weeded out, and mutations that are beneficial will be kept.

Evidence?

There are also mutations that have a "dual effect", like in sickle cell diseases, where inheriting a single copy will infer benefits against malaria, and a double copy creates problems.

Is that kindof like the dual effect of plucking ones eyes out for the benefit of not having a pornography addiction?

Evolution has been observed.

Could you please be specific what it is that has actually been observed?

Many people have come to the same conclusion: these motors cannot build themselves by the mechanisms of mutations and natural selection.

See above, many of these IC claims have been refuted.

I saw some peoples names and some claims that IC can be a result of evolution in the quote from talkorgins, but must have missed the evidence that it is actually happening.

Evolution theory is often marketed as "change over time" but the sellers are almost embarrassed to tell you that they believe the product can turn bacteria into people.

I somewhat agree. I think there should be a bit more explaining of how the ToE is based on reasonable and logical conclusions. As opposed to such as "Darwin did it"

Hey, me too!!

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke



Personal attack against scotracer.



Personal attack against me.

The Bible couldn’t be clearer in articulating a line of demarcation between “kinds�. The phrase is repeated so often that only the most indoctrinated, belligerent, die-hard evolutionist could miss it:

Didn't miss it, it is irrelivant to the science of biology. The Bible is not a science book, Eden was and is a myth, as is everything else found in Genesis.

Besides, define "kinds" in a scientific way.

Einstein taught us that observations are contingent upon a reference. Applying the same principle, and using Earth as the reference, the planets and stars indeed orbit the Earth.

Einstein showed that everything is relative to it's reference frame and the stars and planets do not orbit the Earth. You said you were on Galileo's side, he showed that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

Fisherking

Observing speciation doesn't address whether or not microbes can evolve into men.

Yes, it surely does.

Are you saying all changes over time result in speciation?

Nope, but the accumulation of evolutionary changes certainly does, man came from "simpler" forms, which themselves came from even simpler forms...(repeat a few million times)...which came from one celled forms. Viola, Microbes to Man(and everything else).

Could you please be specific what it is that has actually been observed?

A species splitting into two different lines, the end products of those two lines not being able to interbreed.

I saw some peoples names and some claims that IC can be a result of evolution in the quote from talkorgins, but must have missed the evidence that it is actually happening.

It is there if you look...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Irreduca ... =utf8&rlz=

joeyknuccione wrote:
Alan Clarke wrote:

Evolution theory is often marketed as "change over time" but the sellers are almost embarrassed to tell you that they believe the product can turn bacteria into people.

I somewhat agree. I think there should be a bit more explaining of how the ToE is based on reasonable and logical conclusions. As opposed to such as "Darwin did it"

Hey, me too!!

There you go, didn't mention Darwin once.

Grumpy

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 3 Post 22:

Why not present this 'reasonable and logical' argument so we can decide whether or not it is reasonable and logical? Are you saying all changes over time result in speciation?

No, not all changes will create speciation. It could be argued only the one latest change, much like only one drop of water to drown someone.

I don't think anyone could accurately predict how many changes are necessary, only that at some point these observed changes will eventually
lead to a speciation event, of which we've also observed.

We have observed speciation.

Observing speciation doesn't address whether or not microbes can evolve into men.

As a matter of honor, I just can't make the overt claim. As a matter of my "deeply held conviction" I can shout it from the rooftops.

A simple syllogism would suffice in showing how reasonable and logical this conclusion is, please.

I'm not good at rhymes, so I'll just say it plain and normal like:

We have observed speciation.
We have these old fossils that are very similar to human forms.
Humans evolved from previous forms.

Of course there's one whole heckuva lot to fill in there, but that's the gist.

Generally, mutations that are harmful will be weeded out, and mutations that are beneficial will be kept.

Generally, mutations that are harmful will be weeded out, and mutations that are beneficial will be kept.

Ever see one of them thalidomide babies wrestle a buffalo?

There are also mutations that have a "dual effect", like in sickle cell diseases, where inheriting a single copy will infer benefits against malaria, and a double copy creates problems.

Is that kind of like the dual effect of plucking ones eyes out for the benefit of not having a pornography addiction?

I'm talking about otherwise natural processes, not folks plucking their eyeballs out.

You're too smart to have made that error.

Evolution has been observed.

Could you please be specific what it is that has actually been observed?

I was specifically thinking of change in form sufficient to earn the "species" label.

See: Talk Origins: Observed Instances of Speciation.

>on flagella as irreducibly complex<

I saw some peoples names and some claims that IC can be a result of evolution in the quote from talkorgins, but must have missed the evidence that it is actually happening.

I offered it as a reasonable example of a case where evolution creates forms that have an appearance of IC. Given that we have one "logical" inference - IC as ID, I offered another.

[Alan Clarke]

Personal attack against scotracer. [Viva La Evolución image]

Personal attack against me. [Mystic Superhero image]

The images I posted are not your copyrighted property. They represent "ideas", not people. You can claim immunity from attack on your person (ex: You are an idiot.), but not your ideas. I will respect you as a person but mythical superheroes, mythical half man-ape creatures, and mythical sciences are not sacred. Grumpy, if I have really hurt you, would you direct me to my worst offense? I will consider an honest apology.

Was Jesus Christ a myth? I suppose you could build an argument using revisionist history and the evolutionist’s toolbox, but who cares?

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

The images I posted are not your copyrighted property. They represent "ideas", not people.

No, the pictures were in ridicule of specific people, IE scotracer and I.

You can claim immunity from attack on your person (ex: You are an idiot.), but not your ideas.

Ooh! Slipped another one in! It was not my idea to put fliers on cars, that was all you. That's three violations of the same rules that got me put on probation . I probably deserved it, but the same rules should apply to everyone.

I will respect you as a person but mythical superheroes, mythical half man-ape creatures, and mythical sciences are not sacred.

I've yet to see a sign of any respect. Supermen are mythical, but the more apelike ancestors of you and I were real creatures, and evolution is not mythical, it is a fact.

Grumpy, if I have really hurt you, would you direct me to my worst offense? I will consider an honest apology.

Hurt me, no. But if I have to bite my tongue to keep from breaking rules of decorum by telling you what I really think of your behavior, I expect you to be held to the same standard. It is not my job to do that, however.

Was Jesus Christ a myth? I suppose you could build an argument using revisionist history and the evolutionist’s toolbox, but who cares?

Actually, Jesus was a real man, in my opinion. But some things written about him half a century after he died were tainted with superstitious religious non-sense. His ideas have merit even though he was only a man, he does not need to be a "mythical superman"(or a god), to borrow a phrase, for his teachings to be important to the social evolution of man's society. In fact, attributing his acheivment to mythical god(s) is to denigrate his extraordinary accomplishment, though, knowing his teachings, he would forgive you for that slight. Budda was like that as well, but he made it perfectly clear to his followers(though some STILL did not listen) that he was not a god and that enlightenment was acheivable by anyone. Jesus was an enlightened individual and a great man in history. In contrast, Moses was a bloodthursty barbarian guilty of multiple genocides.

But none of this has a thing to do with the science of biology, the Bible is not a book about science in any form. Any opinions read into it's words about the science is just your faulty interpretations. Would you trust a brain surgeon to operate on you if his only source of knowledge was the Bible??? Why do you try to make biologists do that very thing? Does this really make sense to you?

Grumpy

Grumpy

[Wyvern]

Your argument is a hybrid of “post hoc ergo propter hoc� + “straw man�. Look at your key ingredient: "Catholic Evolutionary Biologist) showed that..." Can't you see the fallacy of your argument? The Catholics are the ones that thwarted Galileo’s attempt to advance science beyond an antiquated Aristotelian Universe. Now you are heralding this Catholic Evolutionary Biologist as a savior of science! If Catholics distorted the truth 3500 years ago, what makes you think their testimony can be trusted in a Dover trial? Aristotle thought that mice came from dirty hay just as do modern-day evolutionists. The only difference is that Aristotle overlooked the fact that he needed to wait 2 million years before the mice appeared. I am also astounded that you appeal to the American judicial system to determine the fate of "science". The ultimate decision in the case of the Dover trial rested in the hands of a judge. What credentials did the judge possess beyond a law degree that empowered him to judge matters of science? (Click here to find out for yourself) From your logic, we are assured that evolution theory stands firm on American lawyers, judges not trained in science, and the Catholic Church. The U.S. judicial system with the assistance of the ACLU has stooped to levels unseen in the history of this country. I have been a U.S. citizen for 56 years, so I know what I’m talking about. The icing on the cake is that the Dover trial judge, John E. Jones, was appointed by George W. Bush. Bush himself exhibits the same lack of discernment when trying to separate true and false. There is indeed one God, but when a Catholic petitions Mary, this in no way validates that she is one-in-the-same with the Creator of the Universe, nor does it validate that all religions pray to the same God.

Alan in your attempt to argue away the results of the Dover trial you ignore why there was a trial at all. The school board tried to force creationist teachings into the science curriculum. The smoking gun of the trial was the book, "Of pandas and people" The edition that was "anonymously" donated was worded to support ID but when the previous edition was examined it had replaced all the terms for ID with god with no other changes. Also when everything was said and done it turns out these supposedly good christian people lied under oath and destroyed a large mural because it disagreed with their dogma an action the Taliban would agree with.
You state the judge was not qualified to pass judgement but all I have to say is the verdict would have come in a lot quicker if put before a science panel and it would have been the same.

[Alan Clarke]

Einstein showed that everything is relative to it's reference frame and the stars and planets do not orbit the Earth. You said you were on Galileo's side, he showed that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

I strive to be on the side of TRUTH, not Galileo's. Whether the Universe orbits around an evolutionist's imagination of accretion and star nursuries is of little concern to me. Your motto, "Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination." is quite befitting since you have shown what is conversely true:

Nature is constrained by the abundance of your imaginations:

While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero... The ultimate conclusion was that, on the contrary to popular belief, it was possible for the universe to suddenly appear from nothing. (source)

[Alan Clarke]

That's three violations of the same rules that got me put on probation. I probably deserved it, but the same rules should apply to everyone.

If otseng will allow it, I would like to serve your probation and let you go free. Is it a deal? Otseng, are you out there?

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Whether the Universe orbits around an evolutionist's imagination of accretion and star nursuries is of little concern to me.

Evolution says absolutely nothing about the Universe, that is Astronomy and Cosmology. Their use of the concept of evolving is not related to biological evolution. To any other science, evolving just means the series of events and forces that cause the changes we see in the stars and galaxies, whereas biological evolution is driven by the intense competitions for resources and culled by natural selection(among other forces)that determines who the winners of that competition are. The losers die.

If otseng will allow it, I would like to serve your probation and let you go free. Is it a deal? Otseng, are you out there?

No, thanks. I will wear my own sack cloth and ashes. I was not making a comment about the moderators, and I have no beef with their actions(I get quite ascerbic at times).

Grumpy