Simple facts about evolution and debate.

Status
Not open for further replies.

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
no true science would get away with this

physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, chemistry are therefore not true sciences then, as well as biology for all have significant historical components that are not directly accessible to the laboratory/experimental part of the science.

in fact, if YECism claim of apparent age is true, no science that talks about anything older than 6K years old is a science: anthropology, archeology, for example.

But why stop with 6K years ago?
Why not last thursday for the creation of this world with a deceptive apparent age? Therefore an science that does not repeat all of its experimention in the last week, just to be confident that it has not changed since last thursday, is likewise not a science.

Yesterday is as inaccessible as last year, as the last century as the last millennium if last thursdayism is an allowable explanation. In fact, it is an answer to the brains in a vat question, which is the Matrix theme, we are all in a deep sleep, a overwhelming illusion that only the chosen few-Those YECists to whom God has spoken directly and told what the world really is beyond the illusion He created, a consistent illusion that no one but they can see behind/beyond.

The ultimate in solipism, just me and my Bible, alone without illusion, without need for physical eyes, which are only deceived by this world anyhow, the Manicheans cry of an evil and deceptive world. It is true, there is nothing new under the sun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redneck Crow
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
rmwilliamsll said:
no true science would get away with this

physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, chemistry

Physics defines quantitative and qualitative properties and determines the principle of motion as they are directly measurable. Astronomy is the oldest science in the world and is based on direct observations and precise predictive movements of celestial object. Chemistry can be reduced to allmost purely empirical methodologies and rarely varies in it application and repeatablity. Geology is an exception to the rule and that is with regards to radiometric dating, which does project observations made over months or years across billions of years. Cosmology is riddled with speculative philosophy and metaphysics but it refrains from theological thematas, unlike Darwinism.

Oh, by the way, genetics can't get away with this simply because it is a real science. Darwinism needs only the a priori assumption of universal descent and *presto* it becomes the very definition of science.

are therefore not true sciences then, as well as biology for all have significant historical components that are not directly accessible to the laboratory/experimental part of the science.

Baloney! Biology is by definition the study and science of living systems, not the presumption of a Single Common Ancestor. Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, not the absense of God as the creator of living systems. Where biology can directly observe and demonstrate natural mechanism it is well within the realm of science. Where it is relying on a forgone conclusion of the naturalistic origins of life it wanders into metaphysics and abandons it's scientific authority.

in fact, if YECism claim of apparent age is true, no science that talks about anything older than 6K years old is a science: anthropology, archeology, for example.

That's right! That is why history is not considered a science, ever think of that? The history of civilization and mankind only goes back about 6-10 thousand years. That is because that is as far back the history of this planet goes.

But why stop with 6K years ago?

Sure, let's just project in infinite regress into the incomprehensible primordial past. That's what is going on and it's chasing the wind with a passion.

Why not last thursday for the creation of this world with a deceptive apparent age?

The only deception here is the arguments of science falsely so-called.

Therefore an science that does not repeat all of its experimention in the last week, just to be confident that it has not changed since last thursday, is likewise not a science.

You can repeat the experiments and observations of Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo and Mendel and come up with almost identical results. The bibliographical evidence of history (which by the way is thoroughly scientific) going back well into antiquity. Your attempt at a reducto ad absurdum is itself absurd and abandons any standard of proof for historicity.

Yesterday is as inaccessible as last year, as the last century as the last millennium if last thursdayism is an allowable explanation. In fact, it is an answer to the brains in a vat question, which is the Matrix theme, we are all in a deep sleep, a overwhelming illusion that only the chosen few-Those YECists to whom God has spoken directly and told what the world really is beyond the illusion He created, a consistent illusion that no one but they can see behind/beyond.

The ultimate in solipism, just me and my Bible, alone without illusion, without need for physical eyes, which are only deceived by this world anyhow, the Manicheans cry of an evil and deceptive world. It is true, there is nothing new under the sun.

Oh brother...is that the best satire you can come up with? Try this on for size.

The pantheon of science attributes to blind, impersonal, naturalistic causes what is rightfully attributed to God. Both the Nicene creed and Holy Scripture begin with a proclaimation of Christian theism founded on God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, of both things seen and unseen. Any explanation for the origin of the universe and life in our world may be considered science if it ignores God completly.

The gods of Olympus have been replaced by the laws of science. Gravity, chemical interactions, random chance and pragmatic necessity are the modern icons. It was not God but an advantageous mix of primordial soup. Not special creation but natural selection. Not the will of the Most High but the death of the less fit that we owe our highly evolved status to. The cry of the evolutionist is that history is purely naturalistic and therefore in our search for truth, the origin of life can never be attributed to an act of special creation by God.

It's a little cheesy but if we are going to have an exchange of satirical rants count me in.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
You can repeat the experiments and observations of Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo and Mendel and come up with almost identical results.


Mendel fudged, no intro bio class gets near the correct % as he did. and that is for the characteristics we now know are on different chromosomes and assort independently.

His experimental results have later been the object of considerable dispute. The renowned statistician R. A. Fisher analyzed the results of the F1 (first filial) ratio and found them to be implausibly close to the exact ratio of 3 to 1.[2] Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud — reproduction of his experiments has demonstrated the accuracy of his hypothesis — however, the results have continued to be a mystery for many, though it is often cited as an example of confirmation bias, and he is generally suspected of having "smoothed" his data to some degree (not knowing about the importance of blind classification). The fact that his reported results concentrate on the few traits in peas, which are determined by a single gene, has also suggested that he may have censored his results, otherwise he would have stumbled across genetic linkage.
from the wiki at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

is that the best satire you can come up with?


it is not satire, the Manicheanism and solipism of YECist apparent age theory has been widely discussed. Last Thursdayism is the common argument label against the YECist omphalos proposition. and has been for 150 years.

http://www.roizen.com/ron/omph.htm
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
mark kennedy said:

Both Darwin and modern Darwinians reject God as the creator, they are in fact explicit in their statements.

They reject the special creation myth that is put forward by Creationists as the way God created species. That is a lot different than being anti-God (but then you knew that) and it certainly doesn't mean that evolution is religious (which is what you were replying to).

Can you actually show us how evolution is anti-God or religious? Considering that the two quotes you provided don't do that, I'm guessing you have little to offer to actually support any claim that it is.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Both Darwin and modern Darwinians reject God as the creator, they are in fact explicit in their statements.


Darwin was interested in understanding the problem of natural theodicy, especially after the death of his daughter Anna. It was not a issue of eliminating God but of understanding how, as Darwin put it "a good Creator would create wasps that parasitize caterpillars and eat them from the inside out".


But your statement shows only that there exist Darwinians who use their science to try to disprove the existence of God. It does not show that this actually is entailed by the science or is a logical consequence of the science. Just because a person uses an idea to justify something, it does not prove that they were justified in doing so.

That is one of the major problems with YECism, to declare that evolution is a religion is something that those who understand the science see to be a false argument. YECism therefore loses all ability to confront scientists with their responsibility to handle science properly. If drawing metaphysics out of science is wrong, then it must be addressed at that level. Something that YECism with it's wrong attacks on radiometric dating and the age of the earth just don't seem to understand. They lose on the science level and never pursue the real battle which is metaphysical and involves how science is used to justify the metaphysics of naturalism. Because of their confusion of levels, they are AWOL for the real battle. Science is the dominant epistemology of our culture, and in many ways YECists have surrendered that epistemology to materialists .
sad.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
mark kennedy said:
Cosmology is riddled with speculative philosophy and metaphysics but it refrains from theological thematas, unlike Darwinism.
An interesting debating strategy of YECs seems to be to label evolution 'Darwinism'. The advantage is that Darwinism can be made include, not just the science of Darwinian Evolution', but all of Darwin's personal views on God and religion even though they are theological rather than scientific, play no part in the scientific theory, and are not testable falsifiable science.

Nor is their any consensus among evolutionary scientists about Darwin's religious views. You find Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Christian and Atheist evolutionists but they all agree on Darwin's science.

Why not call the Big Bang Lemaitrism and describe it as Catholic Cosmology or the Steady State theory as FredHoylism an Atheistic Panspermist Cosmology? We could even start calling YEC Priceism, a Seventh Day Adventist Sabbatharian Cosmology.

mark kennedy said:
philadiddle said:
it's not anti-God, it's not religious.
"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars." (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
Again this is Darwins personal religious struggle over the goodness of God that began with the death of his daughter, not his scientific theory. It was actually from a personal letter rather than the Origin of Species. Nor does the full quote back up you position.

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol II said:
With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion AT ALL satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter.

Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest.
Yours sincerely and cordially, CHARLES DARWIN.


(Darwin to Asa Gray. Down, May 22nd 1860.)
http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/ebook-page-49.asp
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Graham4C said:
alright then, ignore the word Evolutionist and insert Old Earth Creationist. The section of the article demonstrates the validity (or lack thereof) of Old Earth Evidence.
Perhaps you should start a new tread about this, then, instead of inserting it as irrelevant in a discussion about Evolution. because that only makes you look ignorant of what Evolution even is.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Smidlee said:
I get the impression that most TE don't want to admit they have to accept many claims about evolution by faith.
Really? What "claims" don't have scientific evidence to support them? You are not just making things up here, are you? So I am sure you can come up with a list in no time.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
mark kennedy said:
Both Darwin and modern Darwinians reject God as the creator, they are in fact explicit in their statements.
Nope, it is your misrepresentation only. Science says nothing about God. Science doesn't include or exclude God. Your claim is false.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
rmwilliamsll said:
You can repeat the experiments and observations of Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo and Mendel and come up with almost identical results.


Mendel fudged, no intro bio class gets near the correct % as he did. and that is for the characteristics we now know are on different chromosomes and assort independently.

That's why The Human Genome in their Landmark paper on the initial sequence of the human genome said this:

"The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century, sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html

By the way, wikipedia is the last place I would expect an accurate statement. They still think that we are 99% indential to chimpanzees in our dna sequences.



is that the best satire you can come up with?


it is not satire, the Manicheanism and solipism of YECist apparent age theory has been widely discussed. Last Thursdayism is the common argument label against the YECist omphalos proposition. and has been for 150 years.

http://www.roizen.com/ron/omph.htm

It's not good satire but it is nonetheless not even remotely scientific. Just a lot of negative jabs at a worldview you know nothing about. I realize it's a popular bandwagon but it is nevertheless contrary to what the Bible and 2,000 years of Church tradition have upheld as essential doctrine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
steen said:
Nope, it is your misrepresentation only. Science says nothing about God. Science doesn't include or exclude God. Your claim is false.

Why don't you learn the meaning of the word you are trying to pontificate about? The word science simply means knowledge, if it is possible to 'know' anything about God then theology is a science.

You are trying to make your naturalistic assumptions synonomous with science, which neither natural nor scientific.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
steen said:
Nope, it is your misrepresentation only. Science says nothing about God. Science doesn't include or exclude God. Your claim is false.
Mark didn't say "science says..." so how is his claim false? science doesn't really say anything ... it's the scientists who makes bold claims.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
mark kennedy said:
Why don't you learn the meaning of the word you are trying to pontificate about? The word science simply means knowledge, if it is possible to 'know' anything about God then theology is a science.
Utter nonsese. Science is the exploration of observable and measurable phenomenon through the application of the Scientific Method. When you don't even know what science is, then I can see why this doesn't make much sense to you.

You are trying to make your naturalistic assumptions synonomous with science, which neither natural nor scientific.
What a flagrant misrepresentation of science.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I realize it's a popular bandwagon but it is nevertheless contrary to what the Bible and 2,000 years of Church tradition have upheld as essential doctrine.


if YECism is essential doctrine then why isn't it in any of the creeds of the Church? Even as conservative and comprehensive of a creed as the Westminister Confession does not make it an essential doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
steen said:
Utter nonsese. Science is the exploration of observable and measurable phenomenon through the application of the Scientific Method. When you don't even know what science is, then I can see why this doesn't make much sense to you.

I had forgotten how much fun it is to see you guys argue in circles. It's utter nonesense but notice, the pontification did not include a definition. Tell me something, what is the scientific methodology that led you to think fossils were geology and time periods were paleontology. You're lack of understanding of the words you throw around so carelessly is down right comical.

What a flagrant misrepresentation of science.

Historically, in western civilization, theology has been the queen of the sciences. Secularists under the guise of clerical authoritarianism smoothered real science by it's clichish academic arrogance. Now instead of dalmatic they don white lab coats and off the rack leisure suits.

Hey, wanna know the real source of Darwin's natural selection? It was actually Artemise crudely transformed into a psuedo-scientific brand of materialistic metaphysics.

templeofnature.jpg


A picture is worth a thousand words.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
thank you that will be my word for today

The dalmatic is a long wide-sleeved tunic, which serves as a liturgical vestment in the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches worn by a deacon at the Eucharist or Mass. Like the chasuble, it is an outer vestment and is supposed to match the liturgical colors of the day. At a Pontifical High Mass, it is worn by the bishop under the chasuble.

from the wiki at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatic
 
Upvote 0

philadiddle

Drumming circles around you
Dec 23, 2004
3,719
56
43
Canada
Visit site
✟4,522.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
mark kennedy said:
The word science simply means knowledge
It's not as simple as that. Here's the wikipedia definition of science in this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Notice, it deals with naturalism, which has a link for the definition of that. Notice naturalism does not exclude the possibility of God. Also notice in the "science" definition there is a link for "scientific method". Read that as well, then apply it to the "evidences" you have for YEC.
Earlier you said you don't trust wikipedia because of it's information on dna between apes and man. That is constantly studied and the information may change. The definitions we speak of do not change. You can also cross reference the definitions at dictionary.com or other such sites.
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
mark kennedy said:
Why don't you learn the meaning of the word you are trying to pontificate about?

You are trying to make your naturalistic assumptions synonomous with science, which neither natural nor scientific.

Are you being serious? Honest question.

I excluded the middle part of the quote because I really just want you to see your charge at the beginning and your hypocritical statement at the end. Now again....

Are you being serious? Honest question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

Graham4C

Guest
Don't always be so sure on Wikipedia. It is too easy for someone to replace an article with an incorrect one.

Rather try a normal dictionary:

(notice a definition is Christian Science, which supports Mark Kennedy).

Science
noun. 1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from sciens, scient-, present participle of scire, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.