Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

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

[dubyagee]

And, before you bother, if the neighborhood didn't support life, life wouldn't be here.

And happenstance placed us in just the right neighborhood, right?

[tractorman]

The original Hebrew language contains a number of different words for the English word "day". Things like "in the days of…" or "it'll take all day to do …" did not use the Hebrew word that signifies a 24 hour period. Genesis, however, does use the Hebrew word for 24 hour time period in describing the 6 days of creation so I tend to believe that's what it meant.

P.S.
Evolution - creation: it's all about faith.
If I'm wrong about God and His creation then I guess I wasted a lot of time.
If I'm right, atheists are in big trouble.

[moneyrunner]

”You are wrong. "Theory" is used scientifically to represent a body of knowledge, for example: Group Theory, Theory of Equations, Theory of Gravity, String Theory, Music Theory, etc.”

I have been known to be wrong, but not in this case. I refer you to “Google.” Type in “Law of Gravity.” The first citation is “The Universal Law of Gravitation.” It refers you to Sir Isaac Newton who first propounded this LAW.

I understand that in this degenerate age words have been abused and twisted out of their obvious meanings, but that is no reason for me to allow myself to be sucked into an “Alice in Wonderland” world in which words mean anything we wish them to mean to support our prejudices. “Gay” to me still implies happiness, “Coke” is a carbonated beverage and “theory” is a hypothesis.

[r9etb]

You are wrong. "Theory" is used scientifically to represent a body of knowledge

With regard to gravity (which is roughly where this "theory" thing began), gravity unquestionably exists, and is thus a "Law of Nature". The theory part lies in the various ideas of how it works.

Same with life on Earth. It obviously exists -- it's a "Law of Nature". The theory part resides in the how.

[VadeRetro]

And happenstance placed us in just the right neighborhood, right?

And what would have "placed" us where life cannot exist? ID is the science that says, "If it isn't a miracle, then that's a miracle!"

[dd5339]

"Arguably, a deity with sufficient knowledge and power would know exactly what is required to convince me and would be able to do so."

I'll agree 100% with that! God, (my specific deity) did know what was required to convince me. For me it involved a well placed smack to the side of my head, (figuratively that is). I received the message and made the transition from a hard core aetheist to a professing Christian, it took awhile but I made it.

Semper Fi

[Doctor Stochastic]

You are still wrong. See post 149 for an explanation.

Why do you continually attack people for explaining to you the usage of terms that has been common in the scientific community for years.

[dubyagee]

ID is the science that says, "If it isn't a miracle, then that's a miracle!"

Hey! I like that! ; * )

[jim35]

You want some evidence? There's no perfect evidence, but there is some pretty compelling logic. For example: if a thing exists, it may have been created. If all things exist, then all things may have been created. If all things were created, there was a creator. Not perfect, but it can't be dismissed as utter superstition, either.

[tortoise]

Just curious if you have read Dempski's "Intelligent Design"? I think if you had you would not be making the statement you did. Dempski's arguements stand up to critical, logical, and scientific reasoning.

Dembski is a snake-oil salesman. His entire theory is based on "invented" mathematical concepts that literally don't exist in the mathematics he claims to be using, and in most cases, are demonstrably in conflict with core theorems of mathematics. Furthermore, he subverts information theory by grossly misapplying it (just because two unrelated fields of science and mathematics happen to use the same terms for things doesn't mean those terms are interchangeable outside their respective contexts); it is up for discussion as to whether he is merely grossly ignorant or intentionally deceptive in this regard.

Dembski talks a good line to someone only casually familiar with the mathematics and science he talks about, but it is a thinly guilded turd if you have any kind of expertise in the field. To date, nobody has been able to support his ideas in a rigorous mathematical fashion. Any mathematician worth his salt in information theory can cut his argument to shreds in a matter of minutes.

[dubyagee]

Why do you continually attack people for explaining to you the usage of terms that has been common in the scientific community for years

Can I jump in, because his post made perfect sense to me.

Because when the 'common' usage is suddenly not common anymore, it tends to get confusing and needs explanation. Why should a definition mean something within the Scientific community that is not the same as outside that community? It is used within the same context as we use it in the outside world, is it not? A is A.

[gdani]

If all things were created, there was a creator

Why just one creator? Why not two? Ten? Ten thousand?

[dd5339]

"End taxpayer support of schooling, and the debate disappears."

AMEN! (Satire fully intended!)

Semper Fi

[jim35]

True, but this isn't a religion vs religion debate, it's a creation vs evolution debate. In essence, you've made my point. Thank you for your support.

[dubyagee]

it is up for discussion as to whether he is merely grossly ignorant or intentionally deceptive in this regard.

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.)

[jim35]

No reason. That's just pretty much taken on faith. Not really germaine to this thread.

[f.Christian]

The MO Magic of the EVO taliban...

missing dove(TRUTH/SCIENCE)---

appearing rabbit(RATS)!

Then came the...

SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/PSYCHO-EVO/NWO Soviet-LIBERAL-Socialist America---

via evo butchery---

the post-modern age of SPLIT-switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...

Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative...

REDACTING them

and calling/CHANGING---

all the... residuals(technology/science) === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...

to substantiate/justify/validate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...

anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)---

and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...

against God--man--society/SCIENCE(religious oath-TEST for office/employment)!!

[gdani]

No reason. That's just pretty much taken on faith. Not really germaine to this thread.

But isn't the point of the thread whether creationism (or intelligent design) should be taught in schools as the logical alternative to evolution?

If so, would the science lesson end or start at "everything was created somehow"? I think it's pretty obvious that everything was created (somehow). But creationists and ID's won't stop there - it had to be - at a minimum - created by some singular god or supreme being.

[gdani]

Call it a hunch, but I've gotta think that the people who enjoy debating creation, evolution, theories of life, etc from the creationist angle hate having you post even more than the people from the evolutionist side do.

[mil-vet]

Darwinism is based wholly on assumption and inference without a single shred of hard scientific proof, so how can anything which refutes it in the slightest be any more than an amazing grasp of the obvious.

No, I'm NOT pushing creationism (or anything else)! I'm taking this as yet another opportunity to laugh (out loud) at the folly of darwin who, just like enviro-terrorist wackos and darwinist protagonists both past and present, based his wasted life on junk (false) "science"!!!!

All seriousness aside, for a moment: Education is supposed to be about EXPANDING the mind, including instruction on THEORIES (plural) on various subjects, ESPECIALLY if they conflict with one another! Too bad our origin isn't as clearly proven as most math and REAL science (using the "scientific method")!!

Then again, I'm reminded that if you ask an engineer what 2 + 2 is, the answer will be "4.0". If you ask a mathematician, the answer will be "aproximately 4". Ask a lawyer, the answer will be "how much money do you have and what would you LIKE it to be."

Ah, "wordy battles...."