Darwin Among the Believers (theory of evolution crucial for many fields)

Tech Central Station ^ | 07/22/2005 | Frederick Turner

[csense]

I see that you are a creationist. That's your choice; fine with me. But to answer your question ... No, I don't care to explain to you. I no longer take the time for such futilities. I do, however, present information from time to time, which is available to everyone. That's all I can do for you.

Just as I thought, an intellectual bully, and like all bullies, you're nothing more than a coward.

...Nuff said

[chariotdriver]

That is your implication not mine.
Since the response was to the totality of Dementeds writings, if it is a twisted association then it is in tone with the totality of atheists message, which is a dead thing. Therefore the style of of the statement is one that I would expect to be embraced by the atheists based upon their arguments here.

The infinite is no more defined by chariots tiny descriptions any more than it is by dementeds descriptions or Alpher, Gamow, and Herman.
Reality is reality. Alpher, Gamow, and Herman were about the big bang. That is not reality nor is it science.
You can go onto Alpher, Gamow, and Herman and wherever that takes you.

[general_re]

How dare you not jump when I say jump, you big bully...

[PatrickHenry]

I've been outed.

[csense]

And hopefully, you might understand the argument first.

The point (that you missed) was that you learn chemistry from chemists, biology from biologists, and physics from physicists.

If you reject the teaching of the professor in his field, instead holding to a teaching of a religious leader, then maybe you ought to study for a theology degree

A theory is nothing more than a philosophy at the door of reality, and it takes belief, or faith, to cross the threshold of truth.

That is the point...not your rambling of things self evident, or your implied denial of contempt.

[chariotdriver]

The Big Bang Gamow, Alpher, Herman, DNA

[jennyp]

ID bias. Your tools are all ID based. How do you ensure that this fact doesn't taint your results?

The fact that scientists' tools & experiments are all intelligently designed by necessity doesn't create any bias per se. But what's ironic is, if ID-based tools would taint scientists' results in the manner you assert, they should taint them toward ID, not away from it!

When I show the logical paradox of Darwinism and ID, Darwinist who understands it at all pretty much attacks it as faulty logic without addressing the paradox itself. Commonly, the charge is that such a paradox disproves all science, when, in actuality it merely challenges the original premise of the Darwinist.

No, it would challenge the premise of any experiment about any natural phenomena.

I say that snowflakes are natural, undirected phenomena. I point to the details of chemistry & physics, and the results of X-ray crystallography and other high-tech tools of chemistry & physics to show why an ID explanation isn't necessary to explain why all snowflakes follow the same general pattern.

But by your logic, as soon as I use technology to examine what really happens when snowflakes form, that means that snowflakes must be constructed by hand by angels!

[balrog666]

...Speaking of embarrasing problems, not to mention behavior, care to explain to me just what your logical basis is for assuming the existence of a soul absent special creation?

Gee, what's a soul? Have you ever seen one? Have you ever measured one?

[csense]

(PatrickHenry) Creationism first corrupts the mind; then -- by requiring denial of reality and constant lies -- it destroys the soul. Creationism is more than an embarrassing problem for conservatism; it's the sworn enemy of reason, and therefore it's a cancer on Western Civilization.

(csense) ...Speaking of embarrasing problems, not to mention behavior, care to explain to me just what your logical basis is for assuming the existence of a soul absent special creation?

(balrog666) Gee, what's a soul? Have you ever seen one? Have you ever measured one?

Do you have a point other than acting like an adolescent?

[dread78645]

I don't know who your Alpher, Gamow, and Herman are but I reject their work (as I reject the work of the best minds in the 3rd Reich when they concluded that Jews were sub-human).

So you haven't the slightest clue of who Alpher, Gamow, and Herman are ...
Yet you're ready to associate them with the German National Socialists ?

Was Georges Lemaître a NAZA also?

(Like Wow!)

[dread78645]

You can go onto Alpher, Gamow, and Herman and wherever that takes you.

And Fr. Lemaître ?

[dread78645]

A theory is nothing more than a philosophy at the door of reality, and it takes belief, or faith, to cross the threshold of truth.

Fascinating.

[csense]

Fascinating.

...Yet more evidence of this superior intellect I keep hearing about.

Truly, you guys are overwhelming me.

[chariotdriver]

A theory is nothing more than a philosophy at the door of reality, and it takes belief, or faith, to cross the threshold of truth.

Well okay then what is theory to you? Yes more than Fascinating ) That is not an argument.
If argument is not the the intent then let me know.
I think that is a good analogy for theory, a philosophy at the door of reality.

[chariotdriver]

See post 366. I Knew the name Gamof, not Gamow. They were the authors of the hot big bang theory.

Don't misunderstand me. Although I have my faiths, I don't deny you yours.
In fact I am as intrigued by the theory's or even more than most.
I was responding to Dementeds writings. If you look into his material you will not want to associate it with your POV at all. He uses very vulgar & obscene inferences & analogies that reveal a pure hatred. In that tone my NAZI comparison was at his level, regretfully I went there with him.

I now go back to my original if poorly worded message. And that is things beyond the absolute are unprovable. Therefore my so called unscientific POV is an absurd-yet valid concept as your scientific POV which also fails before the unknowable, and to me at least is even more absurd.

[atlaw]

My shameless dishonesty? Good lord, you are a hyperbolic flake.

"You can't recognize a mature question from a truly interested questioner, and that's sad."

What "mature question"? Your arm-waving accusation that the theory of evolution was administered a fatal set-back and that scientists were involved in a conspiracy of silence to prevent its discovery, followed by your vein-bulging shouts that I agree? That's not a mature question. That's what is commonly known as "creationist claptrap".

On top of that, I do agree that Mr. Protsch commited fraud, was properly punished, and should have been found out sooner. But you want -- what? What is it that you want? I can't tell, and I'm sure no one else on this board can tell.

"Your answer to why the 'peer-review' process in the so-called water-tight journals of evolution failed so significantly is to say that his findings were miniscule, and therefore didn't matter."

Talk about shameless dishonesty. The peer review system is neither "water-tight" nor instantaneous, and I never claimed that it was. Science is nevertheless pretty thoroughly effective at weeding out errors and intentional misconduct, as Mr. Protsch discovered, and as you adamantly refuse to even acknowledge. This never happens with creationists, however, because they just can't bring themselves to discipline their own in any way whatsoever.

And yes, Mr. Protsch's research was of rather obscure significance. That's why I believe he wasn't caught earlier. But guess what? He was caught, corrected, and punished nevertheless.

"If that's your gospel, you should ask for a refund on the purchase price of the book."

And with this comment, you are revealed as a trivial idiot. Good day.

[balrog666]

Do you have a point other than acting like an adolescent?

Just demonstrating that your premise, your "reasoning" and your conclusions are nothing more that BS.

[csense]

Just demonstrating that your premise, your "reasoning" and your conclusions are nothing more that BS.

I asked a question. I didn't submit a proposition, so there is no premise or conclusion within my statement.

The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're an idiot.

[balrog666]

I asked a question. I didn't submit a proposition, so there is no premise or conclusion within my statement. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're an idiot.

If you could read at a better than 3rd grade level, you might just understand that the premise of your question was meaningless, thus calling in to question your genetic heritage, your educational level, and your basic reasoning power.

[Stark_GOP]

Exodus 20:11 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.