Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[editor-surveyor]

Reading comprehention problems?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" You can be forgiven for this grossly erroneous statement."

It's true, Science is incapable of examining whether there is or isn't a God. That's the work of theologians.

"due to the gaping hole in your education, but science has proven the existance of God by the soundest of principles:
The proponderance of the evidence."

Nonsense. There is no scientific evidence that points to a God over there not being a God.

"The numeric evidence alone is so overwhelming that any who doubt God's existance certify their own incognition. Those denying statistical evidence cannot lay claim to the title scientist."

Platitudes and weak insults. There simply IS NO way to test or observe the claim that God exists using the means of science. Your insults/claims notwithstanding.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You are foaming at the mouth about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you. The theory of evolution applies equally well if a deity created the first life. Many who call themselves Christians (I believe that you disagree with their right to that title) disagree with you, and accept the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution following initial life that they believe was created by God.

Not really good enough, Thatcherite.

If you are willing to admit that the Law of Biogenesis demands the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell, then there's really no reason to prefer Random Evolution thereafter as opposed to the Intelligent Design of every successive living cell (whether singular, or in organizational combination -- i.e., multicellular organisms or "plants and animals").

Creationists are certainly willing to admit that all of these fossil-recorded species did exist, in antiquity. However, as I said -- the point is, once you're willing to admit the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell, there remains no inherent reason to favor the notion of Random Evolution over the possibility of Intelligent Design for every Living Species thereafter.

I am reminded of an old exchange between my friend "the_doc" and the Evolutionist "VadeRetro", in which the Doc challenged Vade to present any fossil evidence whatsoever for the Evolution of the Bat (which appears fully-formed in the fossil record, wings and sonar and all, with no apparent precursors)... and Vade responded by triumphally posting some photographed fossils of an antediluvian Bird...

Great fun was had by all. Vade only managed to FUBAR the entire Phylogenetic Column by way of his response (but I don't think he'll soon again forget that Mammalia is an entirely different Class of Phylum Chordata than that of Avia!!)

These ancient, now-extinct species did exist? Yes. The Fossil Record proves as much.

They evolved, one-to-another? Ah, that's another question entirely.

If you are willing to admit the possibility that an Intelligent Designer directly-created the First Living Cell... then why not all of them?

[editor-surveyor]

A free associator like you is liable to be reminded of most anything, but the truth won't blush.

[Havoc]

Fantastic point. If one gives up the argument of abiogenisis, one has folded in the poker game over whether there is a viable argument against God. If one cannot argue against God, then what we're reduced to is determining whether God is truthful, something science isn't entirely in a position to do on the one hand; but, which it is capable of doing in some instances. One doesn't need to be God in order to determine whether God is levelling with us.

[editor-surveyor]

Earthworms will swear that it is impossible to fly until the day that the robin snaches them. Your ignorance fails to impress.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Earthworms will swear that it is impossible to fly until the day that the robin snaches them. Your ignorance fails to impress."

Your insults are not an argument. I didn't think you had one; you have just lived up to my expectations of you. :)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You a Christian Reconstructionist ?

No. Calvinist Theonomic Libertarian.

Bonus Points awarded if you can understand the difference. (Hint: go directly to Romans 13 -- do not pass Leviticus, do not collect 200 Post-Millennial Talents.)

Best, OP

[editor-surveyor]

Your problem is that you assume that all are as limited as yourself. If you want a real educayshun to fill your empty basket,try reading Edwin Sherman's Bible Code Bombshell. Do real scientists frighten you or is it the truth that you fear?

[VadeRetro]

Your strange quote of no-one in particular looks like somebody's wish-dream. Possibly I misread somebody's demand for a particular broomstick. (One targeted at a known gap, as if one gap anywhere makes all the evidence we do have go away.) However, I don't recall the incident. I do happen to recall that the earliest (Eocene) bat does have a remarkably long tail. This is not a feature of modern bats, but it (along with the rest of the clues) does point to an arboreal insectivore heritage.

As this site notes, for a tiny, light-boned forest animal to have a spotty record of preservation is no shock.

If you are willing to admit the possibility that an Intelligent Designer directly-created the First Living Cell... then why not all of them?

Because of all the evidence for common descent. And, no "common design" does not cover all of it equally well. I call your attention especially to the sections on redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses under Part 4. Of course, reading and absorbing that might interfere with the 20-second response latency preferred by Holy Warriors on these threads.

[Thatcherite]

If you are willing to admit that the Law of Biogenesis demands the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell

That's your incomprehending contention. Not my admission at all. I was saying that even if one does accept it then it has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. The evidence (absolutely overwhelmingly cross-confirming across numerous scientific disciplines) that evolution is true stands or falls completely separately from the creation of first life. It is also competely separate from your cluelessness about Pasteur's work.

[Thatcherite]

Bible Code Placemarker. Hurrah!

[Right Wing Professor]

Bonus Points awarded if you can understand the difference

You overestimate my interest in fine distinctions between extremist sects.

[Right Wing Professor]

Reading comprehention problems?

Thu spel cheker is yer frend.

[Thatcherite]

And, no "common design" does not cover all of it equally well.

What if the Designer is using a genetic algorithm and a great deal of time? :))

[editor-surveyor]

Your 'evidence' for common descent is startlingly similar to the 'evidence' for the hazards of second hand smoke; it consists entirely of opinion, and 'study' to gloss over the thousands of chasms that cannot be bridged by anything but assumption, such as Punctuated Equilibrium.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You overestimate my interest in fine distinctions between extremist sects.

You asked, I answered.

Of course, without understanding the distinction I raised, you don't even understand the Terminology of your own Question.

Hey, I tried to help.

(shrug).

[RadioAstronomer]

Spel chek placmarcker.

[RadioAstronomer]

2000?

[RadioAstronomer]

again?