Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

And Rightlyso...Conservative Book Club ^ | 1-20-2006 | Jeffrey Rubin

[narby]

You put aloe on your spaghetti?

NO! Ptttuuiii...

But on skin. mmmmmmm.

[185JHP]

BTTT

[hail to the chief]

A majority of evolutionists are theists, and by definition secular humanism is nontheistic.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Please continue your assistance
With the overkill of Darwin.
The Church of Organized Matter and Intelligent Design
Will not tolerate this has-been.

[PatrickHenry]

Recognizing that a formal award for your activities has long been overdue, the Grand Master of Darwin Central has granted you a coveted membership in the Order of the Beagle. Congratulations!

[PatrickHenry]

You'd better save that for future use. It's too good to lose.

[Beagle8U]

Evolution is only a theory, but Darwinists are willing to make a monkey of themselves to prove it.

[ScubieNuc]

I am quite sure that you can out "cut and paste" me, I am sure you are quite scientifically minded. However, your statement....

Evolutionary biology rests of vast mountains of evidence, no "faith" is required."

is not quite true.

I read a Pro-evolutionist book, "Denying Evolution" by Massimo Pigliucci. This was in response to a different person who disagreed that faith plays a part in evolutionary theory of origins. Here are a few notes from that exchange....

....Thanks for recommending the book Denying Evolution by Massimo Pigliucci. The book actually reaffirmed what I had sent to you in e-mails. Here are a few examples:

• In my first e-mail to you, I made a statement about faith being required to believe in evolution. Massimo reaffirms this on page 28 where he says, “Although we all necessarily have to make assumptions about the world in order to live our lives, some assumptions represent small and others large leaps of faith and science is distinguished by an attempt to make those leaps as small as possible—in fact, no larger than any person of common sense would make …”

• He demonstrates a few of those leaps of faith when he states that science is not immune from ideology or social pressure (p.66), or on p. 145 that science can not draw conclusions about things it can not measure (like a primitive organisms (p. 203) or transitional forms or how non life created life or how mutations could add genetic information vs. subtract information, etc.), or how science is subjective because it is done by human beings (p.248), or how it is influenced by politics in academia (p.262), or that scientists will “stretch a point if it fits with the scenario he is trying to convene” and that he MAY not get away with it under peer review (p. 228-229).

In short you don't need faith to study what you can observe, but you need faith in the scientific community for things that cannot be observed (like original primitive organisms).

The funny thing is...you don't need to believe evolutionary theory of origins to DO science. In other words, this is more of an ideology then practical science.

Sincerely

[narby]

Evolution is only a theory, but Darwinists are willing to make a monkey of themselves to prove it.

You don't have any substantive rebuttal to Ichneumon? Nothing?

[Beagle8U]

"You don't have any substantive rebuttal to Ichneumon? Nothing?"

Nope, I'll just read along and let others argue.

[Ichneumon]

TIME will tell how long darwin gets propped up,

For 147 years now, it's been propped up just fine by the evidence and research results, and its support just keeps getting stronger year after year. With the advent of DNA sequencing, the evidence has been positively flooding in, providing vast new amounts of evideciary and validating findings in support of evolution.

personally I kinda like that word "heap" when talking about darwin's TOE.

Yes, there is a gigantic heap of supporting evidence for it.

[GLDNGUN]

And if I post an entire book on Creation, you'll sit there staring at your computer monitor and read it all, right? Cuz obviously whoever posts the most information is right. Of course.

[narby]

And if I post an entire book on Creation, you'll sit there staring at your computer monitor and read it all, right? Cuz obviously whoever posts the most information is right. Of course.

Ich just gave you a huge target for your golden gun. Aren't you going to take a shot at any of it? Any rebuttal at all?

[GLDNGUN]

Ich just gave you a huge target for your golden gun. Aren't you going to take a shot at any of it? Any rebuttal at all?

Sure, I could follow every link which will undoubtedly lead to other links and read everything ever written on the subject and post a reply. I'm sure he would immediately change his mind and abandon evolution. *SNICKER* On the other hand, I could pick the first thing out and rebut that, to which the response would be "SO! What about all the other stuff? You could only find one thing?!" Ad naseum.

[Just mythoughts]

"For 147 years now, it's been propped up just fine by the evidence and research results, and its support just keeps getting stronger year after year. With the advent of DNA sequencing, the evidence has been positively flooding in, providing vast new amounts of evideciary and validating findings in support of evolution."

OH but 147 years is not even a twinkle of the eye in the matter of TIME, wonder if anything significant will occur on the 150th year? Flooding is an appropriate word for what is called evidence and validation.

"Yes, there is a gigantic heap of supporting evidence for it."

Yes heaps and heaps of bones showing all that transitioning.

[Coyoteman]

And if I post an entire book on Creation, you'll sit there staring at your computer monitor and read it all, right? Cuz obviously whoever posts the most information is right. Of course.

Ichny would read that book and find every error, misrepresentation, and outright distortion in it, and give it back to you (probably in triplicate).

And its not the "most" information that counts. Its accurate information, well supported by fact and theory.

CS and ID are real short in that department because they are religious in origin, and are based on divine revelation and belief rather than fact and theory.

Just read the transcripts of the Dover trial. The ID proponents did not come off very well, under oath. Some actually lied. Not the way I would choose to support my beliefs.

[Coyoteman]

You have not yet responded to post #260.

Inquiring minds still want to know.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Institute for Creation Research seems to dislike capitalism because it's a Darwinian thing.

[GLDNGUN]

Ichny would read that book and find every error, misrepresentation, and outright distortion in it, and give it back to you (probably in triplicate).

And some of us have lives. Funny you would assume that the book would be filled with errors, mispresentations, and outright distortions. No, you're obviously unbiased. ;-)

they are religious in origin, and are based on divine revelation and belief rather than fact and theory.

Hard-line Darwinians hold their beliefs in evolution as strongly as any Creationist holds his/her beliefs. To believe in EITHER, requires faith. One could make the argument that the Darwinians actually possess more faith than Creationists. To look at Creation and believe that it's a result of intelligent design is the most obvious, logical answer. To believe that human beings evolved from pond scum...well, now THAT is faith!

[narby]

On the other hand, I could pick the first thing out and rebut that, to which the response would be "SO! What about all the other stuff? You could only find one thing?!" Ad naseum.

So, you have no rebuttal. Gave up before you even tried.

Maybe your new dog ate the rebuttal. That's the excuse I'd use.