Science or creation? Thou art too nosy

Toronto Sun ^ | March 19, 2009 | Mike Strobel

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

This week, the Globe and Mail asked Science Minister Gary Goodyear, a chiropractor, if he believed in evolution.

None of your beeswax, he replied.

"I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."

Well, the primordial ooze hit the fan.

Scientists roasted Goodyear. Is this why the feds have cut research funding? Does Ottawa figure it's cheaper to read the Bible?

Fumed one: "It's the same as asking the gentleman, 'Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds."

No, it's not the same. We can bloody well see the world is round. But I can't look at an ape and see myself.

You could say that God made Conservatives and only Liberals come from apes.

[editor-surveyor]

You were never able to provide any proof of your foolish assertion that any of the few tumors were cancer.

Statistically very unlikely.

Now go play.

[DevNet]

I give you links to papers on the issue. You refused to read them.

You are the one who refuses to provide proof that cancer only started being a disease 300 years ago - that cancer simply did not exist before that point in time.

[Darwin Fish]

tagline bump.

[Caramelgal]

You were never able to provide any proof of your foolish assertion that any of the few tumors were cancer. Statistically very unlikely.

Now go play.

Although this is somewhat off topic, since I was involved in that previous conversation - E-S – IIRC you were the one that made the assertion that cancer did not exist before the industrial revolution, that it was the product of “artificial chemicals” or a “non-natural”, “non-plant” based diet or some such nonsensical pure conjecture on your part.

You were provided with much evidence to the contrary which you summarily dismissed and refused to discuss. You were then asked to provide evidence to support your claim and all you did was to hurl silly insults at me and DevNet.

I suggest either you educate yourself or you go play with yourself – just don’t tell me what you’re playing with because it obviously isn’t a full deck.

[editor-surveyor]

What you and your dedicated anti science cohorts consider “evidence” is what normal people call vague opinion.

Devnet is obviously a juvenile that loves to post on net sites. I have no patience with that.

There is zero evidence of any epidemic of anything remotely resembling cancer prior to the emergence of industry and urbanization.

[DevNet]

What will you take as evidence and what year do you consider to be the start of industrialization?

[munin]

Or you could also say Got made idiots that write for the Toronto Sun. Man did not descend from apes and I don’t know anyone with half a brain that believes so, though I notice a lot of creationists seem to accept that. Says a lot about them.
Don’t you think that God was a Scientist? he might have used some form of Simmien as raw material to create MAN, clearly he did not use clay as it is inorganic. Are not scientists today regularly creating new vertions of some kinds of life forms?, (Hybrids)transfering DNA from spiders to cotton plants to make a stronger fabric and thousands others. some of them fauna. Recomend to read:(Enuma Elish)
The seven Tablets of Creation, My vertion is edited by L.W. King. There are lots to ponder in this world

[Liberty1970]

You overlook the fact that they used the scientific method to do those things. You know the same scientific method that current gen creations ignore / hate with a passion.

And you ignore the fact that it was biblical creationists who invented the scientific method, which was used for centuries by scientists who were almost all creationists.

There is nothing "evolutionary" about the scientific method. On the contrary, to believe in natural law (necessary to use the scientific method) you must believe in a Lawgiver over nature. It is Darwinian fundamentalists who rely on a creationary foundation to do science, not the other way around. Naturalistic evolutionists have no explanation for the presence of laws in nature when they deny the Lawgiver.

Childishly imputing a 'hatred' of science, evidence, or the methodology of science to creationists is just an act of wishful thinking among the dinosaurs known as Darwinists.

[metmom]

You know the same scientific method that current gen creations ignore / hate with a passion.

What scientific method that creationists hate? Is there more than one, the one that the creationist Newton developed?

[Caramelgal]

What you and your dedicated anti science cohorts consider “evidence” is what normal people call vague opinion.

It is not just my vague opinion and I’m certainly not the one who is anti-science.

Devnet is obviously a juvenile that loves to post on net sites. I have no patience with that.

So when DevNet asks you a serious question and your response is to ask him if his “mommy knows he is using the computer” – he is being juvenile but you aren’t? Pleeeze!

There is zero evidence of any epidemic of anything remotely resembling cancer prior to the emergence of industry and urbanization.

Fine. If you have the evidence; a scientific study, some verifiable peer reviewed statistics to back up that claim, I’d like to see it. Really I would as I would find it interesting and educational and wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.

Certainly there are some modern environmental and dietary factors in a persons’ likelihood to develop cancer. We know for instance that smoking, exposure to asbestos, a high fat diet, exposure to some industrial chemicals, exposure to radiation can cause or make a person more likely to develop cancer. There are also a great many cancers that are idiopathic, meaning that a person had no known risk factors or exposures to known cancer causing agents who yet still developed the disease.

Before the autopsy, which only a hundred years ago or so was considered immoral and illegal, and before modern medical diagnostic tools, many cancers went misdiagnosed or undiagnosed. That’s not to say that cancer didn’t exist before then. Forensic studies of exhumed bodies of people who died before the industrial age proves that fact.

And not all cancers result in visible tumors anyway. Back before modern diagnostics, sometimes people became ill, withered away and no cause for their death was ever determined.

You can’t seriously claim that there is zero evidence of cancer prior to the emergence of industry and urbanization.

The pathology of some tumors found in Egyptian mummies is clear. That you have already formed an immovable irrefutable opinion on the subject, clearly makes you the anti-science one around here.

[count-your-change]

Darwinism cannot stand aloof from origins seeing that it claims evolution has been working on organisms from their what? if not origin.
The search for life on other planets, Mars in particular, is guided by origin of life theories to explain the alleged evolution of life on earth.

Origin of life theories is just one leg of a wobbly Darwinism.

You know this is true so why are you pretending not to see that big elephant in The Temple of Darwinism?

[Politicalmom]

She’s probably had an automatic airbrusher installed on it. :)

[Tax-chick]

I just let the cat noseprints and toothpaste spatters accumulate ;-).

[Politicalmom]

And sticky baby fingerprints...

[Tax-chick]

If the boys manage to get on the counter, I’ve got worse problems than fingerprints!

[Politicalmom]

Well, I was picturing a full-length mirror. :p

[DevNet]

One can not use the scientific method and arrive at an age of 10,000 year for the Universe. It simply isn’t possible.

[DevNet]

What every method they use to arrive at the Universe being 10,000 years old or the Earth to be a fixed point in space that everything else orbits around. That one.

You - again - are overlooking the fact that Newton used the scientific method for his major discoveries - he didn’t ignore it like AIG, ICR and all the other fund raising orgs disguised as scientific research establishments.

[DevNet]

Because you aren’t correct - no matter how much you yell at the Universe to change it will not.

[count-your-change]

What is astonishing is that Darwinists can pretend that they don’t have to address the question of the origin of life.
What is ignorant and dishonest is the notion that HOW life began is of no importance to WHAT followed.