Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong (now this is weird)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong ^

[chessplayer]

What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?

[LeGrande]

TS. Your definitions simply don't match his, or what he wants them to be, ergo he considers them not valid.

TS rejected the Biblical definition of Creationism (those were what my questions were obviously based on) and instead gave three different definitions for Creationism.

Are all Creationists so confused?

[allmendream]

If their skepticism were based upon knowledge, or the search for knowledge, then I wouldn't disparage it.

Creationist “skepticism” of science seems to predominantly take the form of ignorance like “if humans came from apes, why are there still apes?”.

Am I supposed to take the “skepticism” of someone as ill informed and ignorant of the actual subject as this seriously?

Valid scrutiny of science can only come from someone who understands the subject.

‘Piltdown man was a hoax so I don't have to even consider any discovery in evolutionary biology’ is the typical sort of “skepticism” that creationists engage in.

[Fichori]

“Sure, Science produces things of value. Creationists produce nothing of value.

Industry values science education and pays people if they know and understand science and can produce things of value.

Industry has no use for creationists. They produce nothing of value.”

Someone is either dishonest or ignorant, the latter being absurdly unlikely.

In fact, the above quoted statement is not even objective.

Once again, a sweeping assertion from an Evolutionist with nothing to back it up.

<pod name="Science™" funding="Government" peer_reviewed="TRUE®" dissent="NONE®">
    <pea>Evolution™</pea>
    <pea>Anthropic Global Warming™</pea>
</pod>


Yes, its True®, Creationists produce nothing of value.

So, where can I get my free MRI machine?

[Texas Songwriter]

TS rejected the Biblical definition of Creationism (those were what my questions were obviously based on) and instead gave three different definitions for Creationism.

Although your comment was directed at Metmom it was regarding my comments. Here you show your ignorance and inability contend with the issue. To say I believe in Creatio ex nihilo is to affirm without hesitation, without reservation, and without apology the Biblical account for creation. You would call it the Big Bang. The Bible says, 'In the begnning, God.....'. Your dissembling seems to arise with each post you make. It seems to be the tool of choice for you. Argue the issues. If you continue to lie I will point them out repeatedly.

[allmendream]

The guy who made the MRI machine didn't use creationism to do it.

Creationism is a dead end ideology.

It leads nowhere.

It produces nothing.

Meanwhile science is the preeminent means of gaining useful and reliable information about the physical world.

[Fichori]

“The guy who made the MRI machine didn't use creationism to do it.” [excerpt]

Your post that I responded to never used the word creationism, nor did my response.

Put yer weaselworded cardsharking baitswitching strawdudes away.

[metmom]

A creationist named Issac Newton gave us the scientific method based on the rationale that since God is a God of order the universe He created must be orderly and therefore capable of being studied in an orderly manner.

It’s too bad you evos so disparage the likes of Newton. It really gives a lot of insight to the size of the evo ego that anyone with the piddly little brains they and virtually everyone else have compared to him, have criticize someone of Newton’s genius.

[LeGrande]

I am going to try not to be angered by your ignorant statements. The world is not as simple as a single definition, and you stating I gave you 3 definitions for creation is not the same as saying I gave you three basic views of the origin of the universe. In a civil attempt to broach the subject of cosmologies I simply started a conversation with you. I cannot say all things in a single simple post.

They why try to complicate things? I initially assumed that as a creationist you would agree with the Biblical statements regarding the Creation, Obviously I was wrong. You rejected those questions out of hand and gave three different definitions for Creationism.

I will tell you that I believe in Creatio ex nihilo,

Finally, and I will concur. Everything is waves of nothing actually, or EM waves of the Quantum Field in other words : ) You know that belief is non Biblical?

I will tell you, moreover, that the Transendental argument of the existence of God is that without the existence of God you cannot prove anything.

Even with the Theory of God you can't prove anything.

Atheism and materialism cannot account for logic, reason, or rational thought, or conciousness, or any other abstract idea and therefore cannot materially account for even their claims of being logical and adherents to scientific inquiry and method cannot be accounted for.

That is flat out untrue. We can even measure thought.

When asked what is the chemical formula or the molecular weight of logic or consciousness, they feign outrage and begin with ad hominem attacks such as you have demonstrated in a thinly veiled attempt to avoid the questions which I put to you.

Hardly. Thought is simply EM radiation.

Tee it up, fellow. I will answer any serious question you put to me. I will not be as nice as I might otherwise have been. I will be blunt and to the point with you. I will not call names. I will not answer inane questions. I will dialogue with you, but I will not take the time to induldge your foolish comentary.

Okay then. What is your evidence that this is a Theistic Christian Universe?

[allmendream]

Issac Newton denied the trinity of God. He was not one who rejected the data in favor of his favorite Biblical interpretation, so I don't see how the title “creationist” is applicable.

Newton described how physical forces could account for physical phenomena. That is science, not creationism.

Newton describing how gravity moves the Earth around the Sun no more removes God as the mover of all things in heaven, than describing how life changes in response to natural selection removes God as the creator of life.

And as to “piddly little brains”, the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to be a creationist.

Creationism is statistically the refuge of the uneducated, the ignorant, and the less intelligent.

[metmom]

http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
DISCIPLINE -— SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY -— JOSEPH LISTER(1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY -— LOUIS PASTEUR(1822-1895)
CALCULUS -— ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS -— JOHANN KEPLER(1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY -— ROBERT BOYLE(1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY -— GEORGES CUVIER(1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE -— CHARLES BABBAGE(1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS -— LORD RAYLEIGH(1842-1919)
DYNAMICS -— ISAAC NEWTON(1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS -— JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING(1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS -— JAMES CLERK MAXWELL(1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS -— MICHAEL FARADAY(1791-1867)
ENERGETICS -— LORD KELVIN(1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS -— HENRI FABRE(1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY -— MICHAEL FARADAY(1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS -— GEORGE STOKES(1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY -— WILLIAM HERSCHEL(1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS —— ROBERT BOYLE(1627-1691)
GENETICS -— GREGOR MENDEL(1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY -— LOUIS AGASSIZ(1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY-— JAMES SIMPSON(1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS-— LEONARDO DA VINCI(1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY -— MATTHEW MAURY(1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS -— BLAISE PASCAL(1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY -— LOUIS AGASSIZ(1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY -— WILLIAM RAMSAY(1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS -— LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY -— JOHN RAY(1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY -— BERNHARD RIEMANN(1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY -— MATTHEW MAURY(1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY -— DAVID BREWSTER(1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY -— JOHN WOODWARD(1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY -— RUDOLPH VIRCHOW(1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY -— JOHANN KEPLER(1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS -— JAMES JOULE(1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS-— JAMES CLERK MAXWELL(1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY -— NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY -— CAROLUS LINNAEUS(1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS -— LORD KELVIN(1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS -— HUMPHREY DAVY(1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY -— GEORGES CUVIER(1769-1832)

**************************************************************

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

CONTRIBUTION -— SCIENTIST
ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE -— LORD KELVIN(1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES —— CHARLES BABBAGE(1792-1871)
BAROMETER -— BLAISE PASCAL(1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW -— LOUIS PASTEUR(1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE -— CHARLES BABBAGE(1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM -— JAMES SIMPSON(1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM -— CAROLUS LINNAEUS(1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS -— WILLIAM HERSCHEL(1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR -— MICHAEL FARADAY(1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR -— JOSEPH HENRY(1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES -— JOHANN KEPLER(1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL -— LOUIS PASTEUR(1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER -— JOSEPH HENRY(1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG -— JOHN HERSCHEL(1792-1871)
INERT GASES -— WILLIAM RAMSAY(1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE -— DAVID BREWSTER(1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY -— ISAAC NEWTON(1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP-— HUMPHREY DAVY(1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION -— LOUIS PASTEUR(1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE -— ISAAC NEWTON(1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD-— FRANCIS BACON(1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION -— JOSEPH HENRY(1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH -— SAMUEL F.B. MORSE(1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE -— AMBROSE FLEMING(1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE -— LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION-— LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

[Texas Songwriter]

It is interesting that science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and, therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and logic and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. That assumption cannot be proven by science itself. You cannot prove the tools of logic - the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of uniformity, or the reliability of observaation and uniformity of nature - by running some kind of experiment. You have to assume those things are true in order to do experimentations.

In the final analysis science does not say anything - scientists do. Here we see the Scientific 'Hare Chrishna' devotees to their own own worldview, which they cannot philosophically account for, make repeated, in their own worldview which denies abstract entities are real, use of those very abstractions in order to attempt validation of their assertion. It is like trying to make virtue into vice. Hypocrisy is their tool of choice in attempts to validate that which their own worldview will not allow. It is hubris of the highest order.

[LeGrande]

Although your comment was directed at Metmom it was regarding my comments. Here you show your ignorance and inability contend with the issue. To say I believe in Creatio ex nihilo is to affirm without hesitation, without reservation, and without apology the Biblical account for creation. You would call it the Big Bang. The Bible says, 'In the begnning, God.....'. Your dissembling seems to arise with each post you make. It seems to be the tool of choice for you. Argue the issues. If you continue to lie I will point them out repeatedly.

Yes the Bible explains how in the Beginning God made Heaven and Earth from the waters. Which just so happens to be the very first question I asked you. What happened to all the water that he made the Firmament (Heaven) and Dry land from? Clearly the Bible is not making a creation ex nihilo argument. You must be arguing from some other position, not based on the Bible, hence my comment.

[metmom]

You disparages CREATIONISTS. You clearly used the term *creationist* and said, and I quote (copy and paste here) from post 112.....

“Creationists produce nothing of value.”

“Industry values science education and pays people if they know and understand science and can produce things of value.”

“Industry has no use for creationists. They produce nothing of value. “

[metmom]

So much for their claims of objectivity.

[celmak]

"I didn't say that I could falsify a 'moral' truth. Morality is not 'truth'. Can you even define a morality that is true in all circumstances?"

Yes, I can. But first answer my question, and I'll try to make it simpler to understand. You stated; "Only 'truth' that can be falsified (tested) can have any meaning;”

So name 'truth' that cannot be falsified (tested) and has no meaning;”

[Judith Anne]

10,000 year old coins? Fascinating.

[allmendream]

Fine.

Creationists doing Creationism produce nothing of value.

When they do something that is not Creationism they may well produce something of value.

If I said “acupuncturists do nothing of value” would you pointing out that an acupuncturist who is your carpenter built your house be relevant?

Please.

You know what I meant, quibbling just makes you look petty.

[valkyry1]

You ever notice the only thing the evos can ever offer up is derision of ‘the creationist’

[metmom]

Issac Newton denied the trinity of God.

So what? How is that relevant to the fact that he believed that God created the universe?

How are any of the points you make relevant to Newton believing that God created the universe?

[metmom]

Quibbling?

They were YOUR words you repeated for emphasis.

Considering your condescending, disparaging attitude towards creationists, nobody really believes it was a slip of the tongue.