Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[MeekOneGOP]

[LiteKeeper]

Name an eye witness to creation.
Answer: God was the eye witness

Before you dismiss and revisit your objections to the two stories, please read Genesis Contradictions? I am afraid your professors at Oklahoma Baptist University did you no favors by teaching you that very antiquated concept, long since refuted by competent scholars. Again, please read the linked article - it isn't very long.

Since when can people have a clear understanding of what God is saying to them?
If your contention is true, why did God bother to give us the Scriptures in the first place? No, we cannot understand God completely, but we can understand those things that He has revealed to us.

If that were so, then why aren't all Christians in the same denomination? Are we saved by grace, or is it works?

Accounting for denominations is not that hard to understand. There is no one church organization laid out in Scripture, for instance. There is a considerable gap culturally and historically from the Early Church. And, there is a wide range in tastes in the people of God. Isn't interesting that God is blessing all kinds of churches (which hold to the Word, and the diety of Christ.) Conservative scholars are in agreement that salvation is by grace...only the more liberal churches hold to a works oriented salvation...if they hold to any salvation at all.

Granted there are imperfect interpretations by humans, but God knew that would be the case, as well. And yet somehow, His kingdom has been advancing for 2000 years - even though that advancement has been through the efforts of imperfect humans.

grace and peace

[Saturnalia]

Please seek help. I really mean this.
Your posts just continue to degenerate into meaningless babble.
Do yourself a favor and get the medication you so desperately need.

[f.Christian]

CPR...so what---do you have a do not resuscitate(paddles) bracelet on?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Most scientific terms do not have the same meaning as in informal usage. Examples: (from math) group, root, real, imaginary, complex, or, norm, regulator, conductor, derivative, differentiate, parameter, integrate, infinite, function; (from computer science) do, repeat, end, real, complex, function, parameter; (from football) flat, encroachment, down; (from music) pitch, score, slur, dominant, bass; (from physics) caustic, law, theory; (from tennis) love, fifteen, twenty, thirty, deuce.

[f.Christian]

Evolution has ate out your brain---sense!

[LiteKeeper]

Sure it does - it is the underlying philosphy of evolution - the universe began with a Big Bang 15 billion years ago. And life began, somewhere in the distant past, millions and millions of years ago. Eons of time are required in order for there to be sufficient time for "descent with modification" to take place by means of random and chance mutations, and the process of natural selection. To say otherwise is to deny the basic premise of evolution - you can deny it if you want, but the only alternative, unacceptable to evolutionists, is that the universe was created by God, and that He created the first life.

[Physicist]

From my point of view, everything is created, so it would be impossible to point out anything that isn't.

But at that point, it loses all explanatory power, because in that case the "design hypothesis" would be true whether life actually evolved or not. The question of the origin or species would still remain.

You've pointed out a fundamental problem with "intelligent design theory", by the way.

[dubyagee]

group, root, real, imaginary, complex, or, norm, regulator, conductor, derivative, differentiate, parameter, integrate, infinite, function;

They all relate in some way to the informal usage.

[tortoise]

This is precisely what I was referring to. He slams Dembski rather than refutes his remarks. (and I haven't even read the book, so I'm not here to defend it, just making my point.)

Numerous specific and rigorous objections to Dembski have been posted over and over and over and over on this forum. After all this time, I'm not going to post them YET AGAIN only to have them forgotten the next time the same Dembski references pop up again. Dembski has no credibility and it really chaps my hide to see him polluting a field of mathematics I work in with his utter nonsense, garbage that never fails to get repeated all over the place by people who don't know better.

[dubyagee]

You've pointed out a fundamental problem with "intelligent design theory", by the way.

How can that be a problem? That's like saying the problem with the evolution theory is that everything that 'is' evolved. There are only two logical theories: evolution and creation. One requires everything to have evolved the other requires that everything is created.I don't see that as a problem at all. Or maybe, that is the problem with both, and the difficulty in proving either of them.

[dubyagee]

Dembski has no credibility and it really chaps my hide to see him polluting a field of mathematics I work in with his utter nonsense, garbage that never fails to get repeated all over the place by people who don't know better.

What are the requirements for 'knowing better?' Seriously. I'd like to read the book, but if it requires an extensive knowledge of mathematics to understand, I'm out.

[Doctor Stochastic]

So how does the conductor of an algbraic number field relate to a streetcar?

[Dimensio]

Sure it does - it is the underlying philosphy of evolution - the universe began with a Big Bang 15 billion years ago. And life began, somewhere in the distant past, millions and millions of years ago.

Evolution is a theory to explain a biological process. It makes no statements as to how the universe originated. All that it requires are biological life forms that do not reproduce in a fashion that produces a 100% identical duplicate. The origin and age of the universe is not relevant to the theory of evolution, much less a 'basic premise'. To claim such is either an act of deliberate dishonesty or such a level of ignorance that the person making the claim has no qualifications for speaking on evolution at all.

[Physicist]

Why should a definition mean something within the Scientific community that is not the same as outside that community?

Because the public is largely ignorant about science and how it works. We can argue all day the semantics of the words "law" and "theory", but moneyrunner is trying to tell us about how science itself works, and he's wrong.

Most laymen refer to particle accelerators as "atom smashers". If they don't, in fact, smash atoms, it isn't because the scientists who use them are out of step with the public.

[nightdriver]

"Apologies to Cal Thomas but I have yet to find any scientific evidence that shows that woman was created from a man's rib..."

And you won't until you do an autopsy on that man. (grin)

[oc-flyfish]

Just following in His footsteps. :-)

[LiteKeeper]

All that it requires are biological life forms that do not reproduce in a fashion that produces a 100% identical duplicate.

Where do these life forms come from?

Why do (or did) people like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, et al, spend a great amount of time discussing that very issue?

Why does every Discovery Channel show talking about evolution begin with the Big Bang and the Origin of life?

There is only one other alternative - Special Creation by a Divine Creator.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You really need to do some reading on scientific matters. Evolutionary theory has to do with change in living organisms. The main point is that you are not a clone of your parents.

[BMCDA]

The meaning of the terms "law" and "theory" haven't changed in the scientific context only in the vernacular the term "theory" has come to mean hunch, guess or mere speculation over time. But just because the common people misuse a word that has a clear definition in the scientific context doesn't mean we have to invent a new word since that would cause more confusion than it's meant to avoid.

Laws and theories are still two different critters in the scientific usage and there is no hierarchy which says that the one should become the other. So it's still true that [l]aws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).

Therefore people who claim that XYZ is just a theory commit the fallacy of equivocation because a theory doesn't change into anything else but remains a theory no matter how much evidence there is to back it up.