Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[PatrickHenry]

Is free will a manifestation or result of matter/energy?

Only living beings have free will. As far as anyone knows, all aspects of living beings are manifestations of matter/energy. If free will is derived from something other than matter/energy, I don't know what that would be.

[Physicist]

So for the unbound electron, I was reasoning that since it couldn't get to zero temperature, the classical picture of it would mean it still had velocity.

But classically, an observer could always adjust his own velocity until he was comoving with the electron. (Quantum mechanically, you can think of a single electron as having a velocity distribution, rather than a velocity.)

[AndrewC]

I've already told you. Twice. We have evidence of consciousness. Clear now?

I do not accept electricity as proof of consciousness, as I would not accept it as proof of "War and Peace".

[xzins]

not obvious...did Adam and Eve have the possibilty to not sin?

Well, the original question is different than this one. The original was: were Adam and Eve free to sin? They did sin, so that makes the answer obvious. They were free to sin; i.e., not prevented from sinning.

Did Adam and Eve have the possibility to not sin? The answer is yes. But it's my perspective. Yes, because God granted true, complete free choice.

[gore3000]

"I would've said that a TV works because engineers used a set of well-conceived theories based on observational evidence. Cathode ray tubes operate by heating them until the electrons boil off, then applying a negative charge to propel them away. This is just an observation. The theory came later. "

The above shows how wrong you are. If they did not know the theory behind it, they never would have been able to make a working cathode ray tube. It takes years from the idea of an application to success in almost all fields. The theory always comes first, then the experiments, then the working models, then the practical applications. Reason engineers use (used?) slide rules was so they could use the theories to test what they were building before they built it. If everyone worked the way you say, we would have a lot of bridges, buildings, roads, dams, etc. coming apart.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Consciousness" isn't matter.

Only partially true. The "brain dead" do seem to lack conciousness. If conciousness isn't matter, it is strongly linked to matter. I (so far) am unaware of any conciousness existing apart from matter. (Miss Cleo and other spiritualists aside, but they knew I would say that.)

[Scully]

I believe the Creator made us in His image. By this I mean our ability to think and how we do it, our emotions, everything that gives us our individual personalities. I do not believe He has a physical body...but our essence, all that makes us who we are, has come from Him. And most likely these are the thoughts which allow me to embrace evolution. The physical evolved, while humanity was bestowed on us at some point in the distant past. I am unconcerned with the "when", but very satisfied to know that He did.

[gore3000]

There were a few other famous scientists in that list. Since you cannot disprove their statements when shown proof that what you have been saying is total bunk, in typical Clintonian way, you attack the messenger and try to smear their character.

One of the people quoted in that list was the guy all you evos have orgasms about - Stephen Jay Gould. He himself says that the fossil evidence does not support evolution. There were several quotes from him there. You defaming your own hero. Well, anything for the cause eh?

[gore3000]

The ear bones.

This is typical evolutionist nonsense. There is absolutely no connection between ears and the mammary glands. One cannot surmise from a coincidental feature another totally unrelated feature. It is called jumping to conclusions. Something which evolutionists are very good at. They build whole animals from a footprint. Such surmissals are not called science, they are called wishful thinking.

[Scully]

How do you squeeze hundreds of millions of years of supposed evolutionary gradualism (or happy-monsterism, depending on your brew of choice), into six literal 24-hour days, as demanded by the text your professed Lord affirmed as the inerrant word of God?

Because God exists outside of time, and He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants...or not at all. He does not need our permission, nor is He required to let us in on all the details. I believe and trust that God reveals the correct interpretation of Scripture to each believer that asks for His guidance. I trust Him far more than I trust humans.

[Scully]

I believe the Bible says God is spirit. When God created man in his image, I believe that means he created man a spiritual being.

And I agree with you.

[gore3000]

Yes Vade, I remember that thread quite well. I remember my telling you that those drawings were altered by the author to "show the point" he was trying to make. The man did not use the bones because of course they would not have given the proof he was seeking.

This is one thing about evolutionists, they are very wary of showing the bones on which their statements are based because any normal human being will see that the whole "proof" is not based on anything but the author's imagination. For example, the face of the famous "Lucy" which the evos call our ancestor, is more plaster than bone. It was made in the image the finders wanted, and whether it is anything like what the individual really looked like is indeed very doubtful. In the bones shown in post 87 from the link provided as "proof" by lexcorp you will note that most of the bones are not in any way connected and easily could have been assembled in more than one way, therefore whether they are what the animal looked like, whether they are a composite of different animals, or whether they are the wishful thinking of the paleontologist, no one can say.

[AndrewC]

Only partially true. The "brain dead" do seem to lack conciousness. If conciousness isn't matter, it is strongly linked to matter. I (so far) am unaware of any conciousness existing apart from matter.

While not running away from the words eliciting your response, I wish to make it clear that the statement was a modification of one made by someone else in order to illustrate something that was neither matter nor energy yet obviously real.

Now as to the question of consciousness and matter, put a human into a large matter-tight blender(figuratively of course) set to high. Is the result conscious?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Matter doesn't imply conciousness, but conciousness seems to imply matter. The blender example asks the wrong question.

[AndrewC]

but conciousness seems to imply matter.

Not to those who believe in God.

[gore3000]

"You misspelled "whenever I examine a link said to "prove" evolution I do not understand the evidence and its implications.

Perhaps since you are so smart and like to insert words I never said into my statements, you can explain how A picture of the top of the heads of two whales, a picture of the top of the head of a coyote, and two partial reconstructions of the bone structures of two land animals "prove" that whales descended from those animals.

I set this challenge to evolutionists on post 87 of this thread, as yet, the only responses have been insults.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Since you cannot disprove their statements when shown proof that what you have been saying is total bunk, in typical Clintonian way, you attack the messenger and try to smear their character.

Ouch. No fair. I was busy reviewing my thermodynamics. So far I have seen very little evidence, much less "proof". Plus I have to put up with seeing a couple hundred scientists every day and they say all kinds of things. They still need evidence.

The above shows how wrong you are. If they did not know the theory behind it, they never would have been able to make a working cathode ray tube.

The cathode ray tube was invented by Sir William Crookes in 1855. Sir J.J. Thompson discovered electrons in 1897. Fortunately I can still keep track of the calendar.

One of the people quoted in that list was the guy all you evos have orgasms about - Stephen Jay Gould. He himself says that the fossil evidence does not support evolution.

I think we covered this mis-quote on the last thread. Actually the guy I have orgasms about is Brian McGuire. In 1982, he discovered evidence that frogs were replacing neurons during his graduate work at Vanderbilt. Unfortunately, he didn't publish because everybody knows "organisms don't grow new neurons." Some days you're the dog, and some days you're the hydrant.

[gore3000]

"The total absence of any argument that the fossils are not mammals (what else would they be, and where is the evidence for that?).

Surmissions, suppositions, and extrapolation are not facts. Bats can fly, yet they are not birds. Whales can swim, yet they are mammals. These and many other animals "break the mold" set for them. Surmissions, suppositions and extrapolations are a procrustean bed which not only proves nothing, but in fact is inimical to true science. Science relies on facts, not wishful thinking.

[gore3000]

The total absence of any argument that the fossils are not mammals (what else would they be, and where is the evidence for that?).

Your only hope is to insult the messenger. I do not see you giving proof against the statements made by well known scientists on Medved's post #99. I do not see any evolutionist presenting evidence contradicting any of the evidence presented there. If there is so much proof in your numerous links - why don't you and your fellow evos present it here instead of going around insulting people?

[gore3000]

"We might as well mention the lower jaw bone as well. The lower jaw of mammals is a single, seamless bone. "

So what is the necessary connection between a single bone and the presence of mammary glands? Are you going to tell us that these two completely different, and totally unrelated features developed simultaneously in all species? You are not that silly - or are you? Furthermore, if they did indeed develop simultaneously, what eveolutionary explanation could there be for such a thing occurring? Simultaneous developmental mutations of two different features? You should think before you post.