Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[The Cadet]

Got any more great quotes on that?

 

[Jimmy D]

I can't help noticing that most of our Creationist friends have distanced themselves from this disaster of a thread.

 

[rjs330]

Have you read this thread? Don't you think it's dishonest taking someone's words out of context to imply that they hold the opposite view to what they actually do?

The rest of your post is not specific enough to answer, who are these 'evolutionists'? what are the flaws you mention? Why do you think that they can't hold religious beliefs?

I'm not sure that's what is going on here. What he's doing is pointing out that even the evolutionists see the problems with their theory. I've read plenty of full quotes of evolutionists and a great deal of them understand the problems with their theory. But they believe it despite their problems. The the judges quote sheds the light on why. The belief in ID cannot be scientific as science defines scientific. Because God cannot be measured, quantified, out in a beaker or dug out of the ground. He cannot be carbon dated experimented on or reproduced. No known scientific method can prove God. Thus God and ID cannot fit prescribed scientific methods. All the methods of evolution and assumptions of the theory begin with ID is not science therefore evolution must be the answer and everything we do will be done with that in,mind.

At least they admit it even though there is no proof or evidence that it happened as believed. The reptile bird is a prime example. Evolution is true therefore the reptile bird is proof. Rather than saying we have no evidence that the reptile bird evolved from anything. It exists therefore evolution is true.

It dogma it's not true science as it cannot be proven by scientific methods or observation.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Special pleading. That's all you have. Hey, Hieronymus, what's the reason for God existing? Why does God exist? Do you have an answer?

That's the wrong question. The right question is why do you exist?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

He's not being Dishonest in the least. When taken in context the evolutionists are being honest in admitting the flaws and downsides and sometimes the purposes of their theory.

They aren't flaws, as Dobzhansky explained in the last part of the quote:

"This is about as reasonable a demand as it would be to ask an astronomer to recreate the planetary system, or to ask an historian to reenact the history of the world from Caesar to Eisenhower”

What Dobzhansky is explaining is that creationists don't understand how the scientific method works. What happened in the past is the hypothesis. You don't observe the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not required to be "repeatable". That's not how the scientific method works.

They admit the theory can't be proven and admit that divine creation can't be thought of as a possibility.

No such thing was ever said by Dobzhansky.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing special about the meaning of the word "original"

You never demonstrated that God was the original cause.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure that's what is going on here. What he's doing is pointing out that even the evolutionists see the problems with their theory.

That is false. He is pointing out that the problems creationists claim that the theory has are not flaws at all. They simply don't understand how the scientific method works.

I've read plenty of full quotes of evolutionists and a great deal of them understand the problems with their theory.

And you probably misrepresent them, just as you have misrepresented this quote.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it's not arbitrary.
Give it up, you're not gonna win this. (i.e. you have lost this one)
Your arguments don't make sense nor do they hold water.

Then give us evidence that God was the original cause.

 

[rjs330]

Variation within kind is exactly what evolution is.

Man and chimps are both primates, as was our common ancestor. Primate begetting primate.

Man and bear are both mammals, as was our common ancestor. Mammal begetting mammal.

Man and reptile are both amniotes, as was our common ancestor. Amniote begetting amniote.

Man and fish are both vertebrates, as was our common ancestor. Vertebrate begetting vertebrate.

Man and amoeba are both eukaryotes, as was our common ancestor. Eukaryote begetting eukaryote.

Kind begetting kind all the way back to the beginning.

Let me help with the "kind" issue.

God said, "Let the waters swarm with living things, and let birds fly above the earth up in the dome of the sky." God created the great sea animals and all the tiny living things that swarm in the waters, each according to its kind, and all the winged birds, each according to its kind. God saw how good it was. Then God blessed them: "Be fertile and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth." There was evening and there was morning: the fifth day. God said, "Let the earth produce every kind of living thing: livestock, crawling things, and wildlife." And that’s what happened. God made every kind of wildlife, every kind of livestock, and every kind of creature that crawls on the ground. God saw how good it was.
Genesis 1:20-25 CEB
http://bible.com/37/gen.1.20-25.CEB

This is the biblical definition of kind. God created each creature separately and each creature was a kind. It doesn't say God created one thing and it evolved into a bunch of things. He created the large creatures in the sea and ALL the small,creatures in the sea and ALL the birds indicating a myriad of different kinds.

The earth (ground) then produced the crawling things, livestock, wild life every kind. Again pointing out all the variety of creatures that roam the earth were created by God AS different creatures not coming from a single ancestor.

Note that the animals came from the ground not the sea. Birds came before bugs.

God wasn't making a scientific term of modern man. We can define kind however we want. If we want to say all vertebrates are a kind that's fine. Who cares what we do. But just because WE decide OUR definition of kind,does not mean that definition applies to the Bibles thoughts on kind in Genesis.

I don't expect you to,believe any of this by the way. Just trying to clarify the difference of kind as described in Genesis and the definition,of kind that may be used in science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

They aren't flaws, as Dobzhansky explained in the last part of the quote:

"This is about as reasonable a demand as it would be to ask an astronomer to recreate the planetary system, or to ask an historian to reenact the history of the world from Caesar to Eisenhower”

What Dobzhansky is explaining is that creationists don't understand how the scientific method works. What happened in the past is the hypothesis. You don't observe the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not required to be "repeatable". That's not how the scientific method works.



No such thing was ever said by Dobzhansky.

Yes he did. When he said it was,an hypothesis that's what he's saying. An hypothisis is not a fact.

An hypothesis is not a fact,until proven. And since it can't be then evolution remains a hypothesis.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy D]

What he's doing is pointing out that even the evolutionists see the problems with their theory.

I was just went back a few pages to get an example of how these quotes are dishonest but I noticed that you've probably seen them as you've been around for a few pages. If you can't see why they're dishonest I don't think I can help you - but you might want to read through this.

I've read plenty of full quotes of evolutionists and a great deal of them understand the problems with their theory

Such as?

Because God cannot be measured, quantified, out in a beaker or dug out of the ground. He cannot be carbon dated experimented on or reproduced. No known scientific method can prove God. Thus God and ID cannot fit prescribed scientific methods.

I agree, so why do Creationists need to complain about 'evolutionists' denying God?

All the methods of evolution and assumptions of the theory begin with ID is not science therefore evolution must be the answer and everything we do will be done with that in,mind.

Eh? The 'methods of evolution' involve observing and measuring the natural world according to the scientific method. You just said ID cannot fit the prescribed scientific method so why should it be considered?

At least they admit it even though there is no proof or evidence that it happened as believed.

No 'they' don't, you're just making things up now.

The reptile bird is a prime example. Evolution is true therefore the reptile bird is proof. Rather than saying we have no evidence that the reptile bird evolved from anything. It exists therefore evolution is true.

Do you think that that's how science works? I think I've been wasting my time. I call Poe

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me help with the "kind" issue.

God said, "Let the waters swarm with living things, and let birds fly above the earth up in the dome of the sky."

Let me help you with this issue.

That is what a man wrote in a book.

This is the biblical definition of kind. God created each creature separately and each creature was a kind.

As we have seen, creationists have been incapable of using this definition to determine which species belong to which kinds.

Also, what men wrote in a book more than 2,000 years ago does not determine common ancestry. Evidence determines that.

Note that the animals came from the ground not the sea. Birds came before bugs.

All of which is not supported by one iota of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes he did.

I already refuted your claim.

When he said it was,an hypothesis that's what he's saying. An hypothisis is not a fact.

A hypothesis is not a flaw in a theory. A hypothesis is exactly what the scientific method uses.

An hypothesis is not a fact,until proven. And since it can't be then evolution remains a hypothesis.

Evolution is a proven theory, as Dobzhansky goes on to show in the rest of the article.

 

[rjs330]

Let me help you with this issue.

That is what a man wrote in a book.



As we have seen, creationists have been incapable of using this definition to determine which species belong to which kinds.

Also, what men wrote in a book more than 2,000 years ago does not determine common ancestry. Evidence determines that.



All of which is not supported by one iota of evidence.

And evolution is not supported,by one shred of evidence,either. As spoken by the judge quoted,earlier scientists and decided what they would accept as science. Thus ruling out creationism. Yet then they go on to completely ignore their own definitions of true science. Science has not been able to,prove evolution yet it's proclaimed as fact. They assume much and use these assumptions in all they do without even,knowing if their assumptions are true.

My point is not that creationism is science as defined by scientists. My,point is evolution is no more science either. Its a belief system not based on fact but by supposition and assumption.

Special pleading.

Why does God exist?

You can't answer the question.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

And evolution is not supported,by one shred of evidence,either.

29+ pieces of evidence supporting macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

As spoken by the judge quoted,earlier scientists and decided what they would accept as science. Thus ruling out creationism.

They defined a scientific theory as a testable model that is supported by evidence. It isn't the fault of scientists or the court that creationism can't meet those criteria.

Science has not been able to,prove evolution yet it's proclaimed as fact.

29+ pieces of evidence supporting macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

They assume much and use these assumptions in all they do without even,knowing if their assumptions are true.

Name a single assumption.

 

[rjs330]

I was just went back a few pages to get an example of how these quotes are dishonest but I noticed that you've probably seen them as you've been around for a few pages. If you can't see why they're dishonest I don't think I can help you - but you might want to read through this.



Such as?



I agree, so why do Creationists need to complain about 'evolutionists' denying God?



Eh? The 'methods of evolution' involve observing and measuring the natural world according to the scientific method. You just said ID cannot fit the prescribed scientific method so why should it be considered?



No 'they' don't, you're just making things up now.



Do you think that that's how science works? I think I've been wasting my time. I call Poe

We complain because science cannot prove evolution by their methods any more than they can prove God. Therefore creation is just as viable an option as evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

We complain because science cannot prove evolution by their methods any more than they can prove God.

29+ pieces of evidence that prove evolution beyond any reasonable doubt:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This whole thread is just a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

 

[rjs330]

29+ pieces of evidence that prove evolution beyond any reasonable doubt:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You know you can quote that piece of nonsense all you want and it still,doesn't prove evolution. Its still full of supposition and assumption. Dolphins with legs and reptile birds are just two of them. Dolphins don't have legs but it is supposed that the fetal,process shows evolution Reptile birds are assumed to be proof while there is no evidence of the evolution. They just appear and it is assumed they evolved.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hieronymus]

So, even though the prophets of the church of naturalism reluctantly admit it is a matter of faith and a priori commitment to naturalism, their Godless flock refuses to accept this.
So whatever brings them to a Christian forum to discuss our origins is completely beyond me.