The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[ALS]

Ok genius, go back and read WHY I posted it.

btw - Do you believe in evolution?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yeah, he lies.

Who?

[ALS]

lost your train of thought so soon?

[Aric2000]

You poor, poor thing.

You take one misquote and then generalize that over a whole other scientific community.

If this is the way you think, then you're in BIG trouble, troll!!

[Not Insane]

--DUH! It was a SCIENCE Class! Of course he wanted an answer "rooted in science"--

Yes. And his question was worded: "How do you think the human species originated?"

And I ask you, "is it true that you've stopped beating your wife." Both questions depend on an assumption to have any meaning. In the latter case, the assumption is that you have been beating your wife in order to stop or not stop. In the former case, you have to assume evolution is the de-facto explanation for the existence of man, since that is the only explanation offered in any "science" course on the subject.

An intelligent man is aware that with limited knowledge, someone can deduce that a particular event is a possible cause of another event, and yet that deduction can be entirely wrong. He can also deduce that there are other plausible explanations until the evidence for one becomes sufficiently overwhelming. A student who believes that man was created from the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man could not answer the question to the satisfaction of the teacher because he doesn't buy into the assumption. And there is plenty of reasonableness to that position.

Such a student could have preceded his answer with "I have been taught that..." but it would not be acceptable to this particular professor/preacher. It didn't say what the student "thought."

The professor either a) Didn't realize the phrase "How do you think..." was requiring a belief, or b) is attempting to prostheletize for the church of evolution. Not all adherants to this belief system are religious about it, but if (b) is the answer, this professor is.

[Lurking Libertarian]

You posted a fragment of the quote to show that Dr. Save-Sonderbergh was admitting to lying. You did so in an effort to discredit evolution and carbon dating. In context, the quote shows that Dr. S-S was not admitting to lying, but was criticizing someone else; that the person being quoted was not an evolutionist but an archaeologist; and that Dr. S-S was supporting, not criticizing, carbon dating.

[PatrickHenry]

Doesn't matter. It's good enough for creation "science."

[ALS]

Ok, so he admits the rest of your ilk lie. Satisfied with that?

[ALS]

Having trouble telling us if you believe in evolution or are you just too dumb to read complete sentences?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Whose ilk would that be? The person he was quoting was an archaeologist, not an evolutionist or paleontologist, and was being criticized for not accepting the accuracy of carbon dating. The only people lying on this thread are the creationist quote-doctors.

[Junior]

But, you have to admit, evolutionists do not make a habit out of taking quotes out of context or deliberately misquoting a source to make their cases. What can you say about a movement that relies on lies to make its point?

[ALS]

"What can you say about a movement that relies on lies to make its point? "

You mean like evoloonists?

[ALS]

show us a lie

[ALS]

btw - do you believe in evolution?

[Stultis]

Total strawman. This [Johnson's formulation] is not the theory of evolution. Some evolutionists are atheists, but many are believers.

Exactly, however something further is worthy of notice: Both the formulation of "evolution," and the framing of the issues concerning it, are shared by the jingoistic "scientific" atheist Dini, and creationists the like of Philip Johnson and the authors of this article. They are in full and nearly exact agreement as to the philosophical signficance of evolution and creation, the relationship between the two, and the consequences of the truth or falsity of each.

IOW, creationists (of the virulently anti-evolutionary variety) think like the most naive and extreme sort of athiest, and vice-versa. They agree on nearly every important matter of principle and philosophy, and only disagree as to a mere matter of fact (whether or not evolution is true).

The majority of Americans, whatever they may think about the truth status of evolution, recognize that the shared thinking and assumptions of both "scientific" atheists and anti-evolutionary creationists are laced with false dilemmas, false dichotomies and false logic.

[ALS]

do you believe in evolution?

[Dark Knight]

>>Doctors have a better understanding of the machine they're studying if they recognize that the vagus nerve is located where it is because it started out in a similar place in fish a long long time ago.<<

This is an example of the problem in this debate. Give a couple of reasonable and non controversial examples and then put in a ringer. Believing that the vagus nerve started out in a fish, millions of years ago, neither helps determine who should be a physician, or even who should be a vet.

If you restated this example in the reasonable fashion of your others, you would have a statement like:

Doctors have a better understanding of the machine they're studying if they recognize that the vagus nerve is located where it is located in a similar place in fish.

Adding your other criteria is only applicable if the doctor is going to examine another species, similar to man and fish.

Is the neurochemistry more important? Probably. Is the actual structure more important? Probably. Are past experiments on that structure more important? Probably. Are they likely to evolve in a patient? I'll leave that to you.

The more important questions were available to Dr. Dini and he chose to ignore them. Draw your own conclusions.

DK

[Lurking Libertarian]

btw - do you believe in evolution?

I believe, as a matter of faith, that God created the heavens and the earth. I am tentatively convinced, based on the evidence (and therefore subject to change if new evidence appears) that evolution is the best explanation of how God created the abundance of living things on His earth.

[Aric2000]

And just for fun, I will answer your question.

You BELIEVE in creationism....

I on the other hand, after looking at the preponderance of the evidence, and looking at the other sides argument, KNOW that evolution is the best scientific theory to explain the evidence as it exists to this point.

When a theory comes along that explains that evidence BETTER and more thoroughly and is accepted by a large percentage of scientists, then I will change my thoughts, and will accept the new theory.

[ALS]

How did evolution make the jump from no life to life?