Science vs. Evolution

[AV1611VET]

It'd be sad day for the scientist's family and humanity who would've have benefited from his research.

An atheist or an evolutionist have a profound understanding for life, and how valuable and special our existence really is. I imagine that both would show a dramatic display of altruism and do whatever they could to prevent this persons death.

A Christian would probably consider the fact that this person has lived a long life, was trying to end her life anyway, so they might as well let the train hit her. If she grew up in America, chances are she was "saved," even if she wasn't living like it (Pascal's wager need apply), and she'll probably go to heaven, if not, god has prepared a place for her in hell. Either way, god's will be done.

What happened to those words "good" and "bad" all of a sudden?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure what you mean. I can admit when I've made a mistake. How about you?

Don't you look forward to all this work becoming obsolete in the name of 'progress'?

Wouldn't you like to see that happen in your lifetime?

One poster once told me he couldn't wait to be found wrong, as that meant that science has taken the next step forward.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

What happened to those words "good" and "bad" all of a sudden?

Its all relative and subjective (You can stop reading now and just quote this to make your point), good and bad are in the eye of the beholder and majority rules. Just look at the middle-east its good and moral to beat a woman to an inch of her life since the majority agrees. Same with slavery, interracial marriage, the right to vote.

In order for whats "good and bad" to be changed it takes either a hostile take over, Awareness raising, debate or simply gradual change.

 

[Belk]

What's the difference to an atheist or an evolutionist?

What if a scientist on the verge of a breakthrough in cancer research jumps in front of a train (and gets atomized) to save the life of a 117 year-old alcoholic who just swallowed enough cyanide to stop a train?

He was stupid and should have let the Cyanide stop the train for him?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Don't you look forward to all this work becoming obsolete in the name of 'progress'?

Wouldn't you like to see that happen in your lifetime?

One poster once told me he couldn't wait to be found wrong, as that meant that science has taken the next step forward.

Are you answering my question? Or did you mean to quote someone else?

 

[sandwiches]

What happened to those words "good" and "bad" all of a sudden?

Maybe I was replying out of context. I simply saw what your wrote and replied to that. Was there something I missed?

Edit: I see what you mean now. You wanted the response to be in relation to human actions being good or bad. Gotcha.

Well, those actions you described would be good or bad depending on the viewpoint. For instance, for some, the scientist's heroic act would seem as a good thing. For others, myself included, it would seem as a bad thing as, overall, it'd be a greater loss to humanity and possibly myself and my progeny, in the future. Is that answer more in context with good or bad, as you wanted it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Don't you look forward to all this work becoming obsolete in the name of 'progress'?

Wouldn't you like to see that happen in your lifetime?

And then we get to be a part of whatever replaces it.

One poster once told me he couldn't wait to be found wrong, as that meant that science has taken the next step forward.

That shows an great display of true humility I hope to someday see in religious folk.

Alas, their pride stagnates them.

 

[Cassiterides]

In responce to the quotemining about (alleged) creationist statements:

Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.

Although they fear to say too much openly, *Denton reveals that there are a surprising number of biologists who cannot accept the foolishness of Darwinian theory.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

Biological specialists recognize that the theory is inadequate.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 8.

It is all one big scientific mistake.

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

It is a tottering mass of speculation.
"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
*Simpson, a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to give up trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.​

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."—*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.

Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

*Thompson, a leading scientist, was asked to write the introduction for a new printing of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. But Thompson’s Introduction proved to be a stunning attack on evolutionary theory.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.


There are no facts supporting the evolutionary claim that any 'species' ever changed into any other.

"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959], was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.


Evolutionary theory cannot square with scientific facts.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.

The two great riddles for evolutionists are these: "Nothing cannot become something"—a Big Bang cannot turn nothing into stars.

"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).

Not a single fact in nature confirms it.

" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

 

[Bushido216]

It's almost like you were like, hey, I know what I can do, I can throw a bunch of empty quotes against a wall and hope something sticks.

And, unsurprisingly, the whole thing stinks.

 

[Hespera]

In responce to the quotemining about (alleged) creationist statements:

Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.

Although they fear to say too much openly, *Denton reveals that there are a surprising number of biologists who cannot accept the foolishness of Darwinian theory.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

Biological specialists recognize that the theory is inadequate.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 8.

It is all one big scientific mistake.

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

It is a tottering mass of speculation.
"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
*Simpson, a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to give up trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.​

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."—*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.

Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

*Thompson, a leading scientist, was asked to write the introduction for a new printing of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. But Thompson’s Introduction proved to be a stunning attack on evolutionary theory.
"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.


There are no facts supporting the evolutionary claim that any 'species' ever changed into any other.

"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959], was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.


Evolutionary theory cannot square with scientific facts.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.

The two great riddles for evolutionists are these: "Nothing cannot become something"—a Big Bang cannot turn nothing into stars.

"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).
Not a single fact in nature confirms it.

" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

Ok! so, if you are such an accomplished quote miner, will you please dig up for us ONE FACT, or data point from anyone anywhere that is contrary to the toe.

Lotta fine adjectives in there. lotta big claims. But it is all show and no go. unless ya got some data.

So where is it? No excuses now, just the facts. Lets hear some.. One????

Lets hear it. Surely all them wonderful experts have some data? Wont you dig up some and tell us about it?

 

[laconicstudent]

Why is his posting style identical to Agonances of Susa?

 

[Tielec]

I feel the thread has moved from purely scientific explanations for why the ToE is valid, and onto whether part of the creationist mindset is an inability to admit mistakes.
I too have noticed this in creationists...

One of the most pertinent examples is in the formal debates forum - The Biologist versus Agonaces of Susa debate, wherein AoS debates native German speakers on the German language, and when he is thoroughly routed he slinks off with his "truth" between his legs, and never comments there again.

The question is, do creationists admit to themselves they have made a mistake, but never admit it to atheists, as that may amount to an admission of defeat. In part this helps explain why the phrase "I don't know" is so repugnant to a creationist.

Regardless, I really think that these debates do end up changing opinions, for example at the start of the thread we can see that Cassetirides does not know what a theory and a fact are, in relation to science. I am confident he knows now, though he may continue to misrepresent them if he feels he can get away with it. I remember in my early days of atheism I was convinced evolution could explain abiogenesis, and creationists (as well as atheists) convinced me on that topic I was wrong. I guess it cuts both ways... though it is a hard pill to swallow to be proved wrong by a creationist .

When I first signed up to these forums (not long ago, maybe a year?) AVET seemed significantly more hardline too, I really feel that his opinions on certain issues has changed. Earlier in this thread he admits that he brings no evidence to support creationism, and that it is a position of faith. I hope that doesn't sound derisive AVET, but when I first joined the forums that was a position you seemed loath to take.

Feel free to educate on me on how wrong I am on your positions AVET .

I guess in a nutshell I feel that even though people on both sides of the debate will not admit they are wrong (I won't lie I feel that one side is over-represented), eventually the accumulating evidence of wrongness becomes too great, and a slight shift in a person's opinion occurs. Eventually these slight shifts, taken over a couple of generations and over many people, propel great societal changes.

 

[Split Rock]

Good mine but like anything else you might say, its wasted on a person who cannot admit he is wrong about even the simplest thing. May as well argue with a possum; they wont admit anything either.

Hmmm... let's see if you are right....

In responce to the quotemining about (alleged) creationist statements:
(long boring quote mine copied and pasted from a "Creation Mininstry" website)
.[/I]

Wow, Hespera is right on the money! Who would have guessed??

Alleged?? I made that Quote Mine all by myself. It is 100% verbatum. What did you do? Did you bother to check any of those quotes before you posted them here? Did you bother to give credit to whoever you took it from? No and No.

Your "response" is pathetic.

Ok! so, if you are such an accomplished quote miner, will you please dig up for us ONE FACT, or data point from anyone anywhere that is contrary to the toe.

Lotta fine adjectives in there. lotta big claims. But it is all show and no go. unless ya got some data.

So where is it? No excuses now, just the facts. Lets hear some.. One????

Lets hear it. Surely all them wonderful experts have some data? Wont you dig up some and tell us about it?

I have come to the conclusion that Cassiterides is not interested in facts or the truth. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when he first posted here. I took the questions he raised seriously, but this nonsense is the only means of response he is capable of. Sad, really... but not surprising.

 

[Cassiterides]

I'm going over the website link you provided. It will take time to read all the pages on there though. And the thread went off topic after Hespera accused all creationists to be liars, my responce to this was evolutionists don't have morals.

Also, am i willing to convert to an evolutionist even if evolution is somehow 'proven' by the science? The answer is no, just exactly how if the science proves a young earth an evolutionist would not accept it. No one who posts here is neutral or unfamiliar with the topic they will convert to either one side after reading what is posted here.

 

[tanzanos]

In responce to the quotemining about (alleged) creationist statements:

Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.

TROLL ALERT!!!!!

 

[mpok1519]

Science is in more accord with evolution than creaionist "theory".

 

[USincognito]

In responce to the quotemining about (alleged) creationist statements:{snip}

Why is his posting style identical to Agonances of Susa?

Doesn't that question sort of answer itself?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Also, am i willing to convert to an evolutionist even if evolution is somehow 'proven' by the science?

You don't "convert" to evolution any more than you "convert" to germ theory. You look at the evidence and draw your conclusion.

And guess what? Your immortal soul will be perfectly safe regardless of your decision!

The answer is no, just exactly how if the science proves a young earth an evolutionist would not accept it.

Actually, the evolutionist would accept it -- of course, it's shocking hard to prove something which just ain't so, but that jus makes it easier.

No one who posts here is neutral or unfamiliar with the topic they will convert to either one side after reading what is posted here.

Look at the evidence, see who knows their stuff and whose trying to give you a bum's rush. You might be surprised.

 

[USincognito]

Why is his posting style identical to Agonances of Susa?

In case folks don't make it over to OT.

I would agree with what Kent Hovind said on this issue (and no i'm not a great fan of him). He said if you give the Bible to an ordinary person (with no preconcieved notion on age of earth or evolution etc) they would support YEC after reading the pages of the Bible. The Bible does support Young Earth Creation. Kent also said, anyone saying the earth is older then what the Bible teaches is a cultist. This is also what i would agree with.

I believe in the Bible, not man. The Bible warns us to follow God and not the false teachings of man.

Psalm 118: 8 ''It is better to have faith in the Lord than to put one's hope in man.''

The theory of evolution was invented by man, it is a false teaching not found in the Bible.

I would say that anybody who builds a following based on a black-and-white view of a single issue and works to bring separation with other Christians based on their acceptance of that issue is very likely a cultist.

I would also say that anybody who said or agreed with what Hovind said above has absolutely no clue what a cult is.

Cult teachings:

1. Old Earth
2. Evolution

Why? Neither are found in the Bible.

*A cult is a group that claims to be part of the religion, yet denies essential truth(s) of that religion.

 

[Hespera]

I feel the thread has moved from purely scientific explanations for why the ToE is valid, and onto whether part of the creationist mindset is an inability to admit mistakes.
I too have noticed this in creationists...

One of the most pertinent examples is in the formal debates forum - The Biologist versus Agonaces of Susa debate, wherein AoS debates native German speakers on the German language, and when he is thoroughly routed he slinks off with his "truth" between his legs, and never comments there again.

The question is, do creationists admit to themselves they have made a mistake, but never admit it to atheists, as that may amount to an admission of defeat. In part this helps explain why the phrase "I don't know" is so repugnant to a creationist.

Regardless, I really think that these debates do end up changing opinions, for example at the start of the thread we can see that Cassetirides does not know what a theory and a fact are, in relation to science. I am confident he knows now, though he may continue to misrepresent them if he feels he can get away with it. I remember in my early days of atheism I was convinced evolution could explain abiogenesis, and creationists (as well as atheists) convinced me on that topic I was wrong. I guess it cuts both ways... though it is a hard pill to swallow to be proved wrong by a creationist .

When I first signed up to these forums (not long ago, maybe a year?) AVET seemed significantly more hardline too, I really feel that his opinions on certain issues has changed. Earlier in this thread he admits that he brings no evidence to support creationism, and that it is a position of faith. I hope that doesn't sound derisive AVET, but when I first joined the forums that was a position you seemed loath to take.

Feel free to educate on me on how wrong I am on your positions AVET .

I guess in a nutshell I feel that even though people on both sides of the debate will not admit they are wrong (I won't lie I feel that one side is over-represented), eventually the accumulating evidence of wrongness becomes too great, and a slight shift in a person's opinion occurs. Eventually these slight shifts, taken over a couple of generations and over many people, propel great societal changes.

Speaking for myself, i am not unwilling to admit i am wrong. i like to learn things, not just stick to mistaken ideas for the sake of some point of ego defense.