Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[js1138]

What would you expect? Did you get your understanding of evolution from Hollywood movies?

[Tribune7]

Back again with your best and only shot -- a bit of pissant lawyering over terminology?

LOLOLOLOLOL.

Somebody says something incorrect. I correct them. And you chime in with outrage.

Quck quiz: Who is the one who brought up terminology?

[Christopher Lincoln]

Nobody ever claimed that evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) solved the problem of the origin of life. However, it does narrow the problem by postulating a few origins (ideally only one) rather than millions.

[stands2reason]

It is not possible to undermine ID. That's the problem with it.

[js1138]

Quck quiz: Who is the one who brought up terminology?

It wasn't me. It's always an ignoramus who thinks that understanding biogenesis is necessary before understanding variation and selection.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Does conflating Darwinian and chemical evolution make one or the other invalid?

Darwinian or otherwise, the claim that an intelligible universe populated by intelligent beings can come about wholly apart from intelligence, design, or some combination of the two can only be described as something other than emprical science.

[jec41]

What do we call a scientific doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof?

Proof is acheived by mathematics, truth is argued by philosophy, a scientic theory is the explination and evidence for a observed fact. A scientific doctrine by defination does not exist. One term is of philosophy and the other is of science. The statement is of no use to anyone.

[Tribune7]

It wasn't me

And I didn't post to you correcting you did I?

[stands2reason]

Nothing in that quote says that Harvardites consider abiogenesis as part of the ToE. Only the writer of this article is implying that. Reread it.

[stands2reason]

Reading through the various replies to your post suggests that "Darwinism" has become a religion.

How do they suggest that? Please answer.

[js1138]

Do you fully understand how God came to exist? If not, then you are simply pushing the problem back. Any way you look at it, the origin of existence is beyond our understanding.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Let the name calling begin!"

I didn't start the hostilities.

"To: SirLinksalot

Reasonable article. But expect to get flamed when the evo's catch up!

5 posted on 04/15/2006 2:53:04 PM EDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

And my point was accurate; ID'ers are a bunch of whiny drama queens who thrive on their alleged victim status. No different than the left.

"I see you've shown up on yet another evo thread."

I see you have too, though you have added nothing to this one. At least you're consistent. :)

"So if you don't mind, what exactly are your scientific credentials? What degrees do you hold? Where did you graduate and when?"

It's evidence that wins arguments, not pigskin. I could care less what your creds are, btw, so don't bother posting them. Anybody can make up a degree. Not everybody can make a logical argument.

[stands2reason]

Are you calling Alter Kaker a creationist?

[js1138]

You posted on a public forum.

[stands2reason]

What are you talking about? How does ToE negate the polite rules of society?

[PatrickHenry]

It's always an ignoramus who thinks that understanding biogenesis is necessary before understanding variation and selection.

Understanding the chemical processes that led to the first life on earth is as un-important to evolution as the question of whether the Vikings really sailed to North America before Columbus is to understanding the political history of America. The Viking question is interesting, but ultimately it has no bearing on our history.

[Tribune7]

You posted on a public forum.

And this bothers you because . . . ?

[Mephari]

Evolutionary Biology and the theory of evolution are not the same thing.

Abiogenesis does fall within Evolutionary Biology (A field of science) while the theory of evolution is one theory in the field of biology.

[jennyp]

Breathtakingly-inane-article PLACEMARKER

[js1138]

It's equivalent to saying that understanding the formation of heavier elements in supernovas is essential before you can understand chemistry. It is an interesting historical topic, but not required for understanding how elements behave in the here and now.

I am quite willing to accept the assertion that most biologists believe abiogenesis happened, and that a few have written popular articles declaring that some major part of the history has been solved.

So what?