Scientists believe in God!!

Originally posted by Lasheic


many many of the most celebrated Scientists today say "Dogmatism" is now the Science of the day and you can't get around it.

What scientists? Who? If there's so many, perhaps you wouldn't mind putting up some sourced quotes.

OH Lash you are really starting to irritate me with your ignorance so let me just ask again.

ARE

YOU

A

Scientist?

Just answer yes or no as the rest of your posts are wrought with questions you can google your damn self in addition to clueing me in on your status as a Scientist. You people all put Science and Scientists on a pedastal and Ill bet most of you have less experience and less formal education in it than I do. You seem to ALL think that Science is so damn elastic and that the Scientific Method ( another myth) is what keeps it pure and self correcting. That Science is constantly changing its views which troubles me when you argue this point.

I would just ask then to quit trying to prove evolution until you finally figure it out until you know at least what I do about it. I understand why your claim Science should be so elastic because Darwinism is quite a stretch.

Prove me wrong then.

I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.

This is what I mean,, this is so indicative of a Child or someone who has a maturity level where they still play games like this.

First, I already told you mine, secondly Ill send you a u2u of an accomplished Physician and several other sources at Arizona State University former clients I have etc., that I will trust you to keep confidential as I don't enjoy giving out personal information but who I am may surprise you. Not so much that it proves I am any smarter than you are, I know you got your mind made up on that one but that anyone would actually buy tickets at $35 bucks a pop fly me into ther city at a grand a day plus expenses and per-deim to teach a damn thing much less have more to show than a 6th grade science fair project.

Having said that, I will withdraw my original request asking you if you are a Scientist. You have convinced me you are NOT nor have you ever engaged in anything more scientific than what you can google supporting your argument on a forum board.

The idea that anyone reading this would see me asking you a simple question with you answering "Ill show you mine if you show me yours" won't have the customary "I asked first" card played.

I now realise who or what I am talking to. My only regret is you are not worth the exercise explaining this to you in addition the time I have wasted reading your posts.

It would be more appropriate to just put a lable on it but ad-homs like that placed on someone who would undoubteldy reply saying " I'm rubber you're glue" or " I know you are but what am I" is not the level of discussion I will avail myself to. My first loss is my best and Ill cut my losses where you said "Ill tell you mine if you tell me yours"

You wanted proof about the Dogma?
READ YOUR POSTS.

That would be your first clue but take it from these renown members of the Science community.
There is plenty and I mean plenty of reasons for anyone to see Science has a BIG problem with it.

You need lots of proof? Here ya go Atheist, see your argument isn't with me,, it's WITH SCIENTISTS

" We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2

EVIDENCE A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, PLANT LIFE THROUGH THE AGES, p.561, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize."

'We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. . .'

Professor Jerome Lejeune: From a French recording of internationally recognized geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"

Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.

I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

H. S. Lipson; Prof of Physics, University of Manchester, A paper published by The Institute of Physics, IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980

Evolutionists purport to explain where we came from and how we developed into the complex organisms that we are. Physicists, by and large, do not. So, the study of evolution trespasses on the bailiwick of religion. And it has something else in common with religion. It is almost as hard for scientists to demonstrate evolution to the lay public as it would be for churchmen to prove transubstantiation or the virginity of Mary."

Wills, Christopher [Professor of Biology, University of California, San Diego], "The Wisdom of the Genes: New Pathways in Evolution," Basic Books: New York NY, 1989, p.9.

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "....innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ....why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.



MORE EMBARRASSING, DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of N.H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

GOOD RECORD-BAD PREDICTION, NILES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., "He (Darwin) prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

Then we have all the Proposed Links "Debunked"

STORY TIME OVER, DEREK AGER, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS", Nature, Vol. 322, 1986 p.677, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found. ...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds."

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS Vol. 1, p.1.

Then there are the Systematic Gaps

ORDERS, CLASSES, & PHYLA, GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON, Harvard, "Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p. 149

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.", Evolution, Vol. 28, p. 467

NOT ONE ! D.S. WOODROFF, Univ. of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716

That's right NOT ONE!

Bats still look like Bats for 50 million years

Alligators?

Nope No change

Sharks?

NOTTA!

Cock Roach?

ZIP

Horseshoe Crab

Not a damn thing has changed

"WE KNEW BETTER", NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

Of course, since nature cannot tell the difference between two meaningless genetic sequences, it cannot select between them, making natural selection blind to such neutral changes. Since there are no recognizable “steppingstones” close by, all that nature has left, to find new beneficial sequences, is a blind random walk through enormous piles of junk sequences. Of course, this random, curvy walk takes a lot longer than a direct walk would take, and the time involved increases exponentially with each increase in the minimum sequence and specificity requirements for a particular function. This prediction is reflected in real life by an exponential decline in the ability of mindless evolutionary processes to evolve anything beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity.

Many simple functions, such as de novo antibiotic resistance, are easy to evolve for any bacterial colony in short order. Moving up a level of complexity, there are far fewer examples of single protein enzymes evolving where a few hundred amino acids at minimum are required to work together at the same time (and many types of bacteria cannot evolve even at this level). However, there are absolutely no examples in the scientific literature of any function requiring more than a thousand or so amino acids working at the same time (as in the simplest bacterial motility system) ever evolving — period. The beneficial “stepping-stones” are just too far apart due to all the junk that separates the few beneficial islands of function from every other island in the vast universe of junk sequences at such levels of informational complexity. The average time needed to randomly sort through enough junk sequences to find any other beneficial function at such a level of complexity quickly works its way into trillions upon trillions of years — even for an enormous population of bacteria with a high mutation rate.

At this point the mindless processes of evolution simply become untenable as any sort of viable explanation for the high levels of diverse complexity that we see within all living things. The only process left that is known to give rise to functional systems at comparable levels of complexity involves human intelligence or beyond. No lesser intelligence, and certainly no other known mindless processes, have ever come close to producing something like the informational complexity found in the simplest bacterial motility system.8

I could go on risking a quote infraction if I haven't crossed the line already but I seem to be dealing with someone who just doesn't get it. Science is KNOWN for their Dogmatism no less than Religion. Who do you think you are talking to? Someone who just got off the turnip truck? I ask you a simple question, rather than answer me you respond with another question this time asking for proof, all the while positioning yourself as if speaking from Science.

Most of them aren't snobs, but they do tend to have a short tolerance for anti-intellectualism. It doesn't matter anyhow.

There you go again! "Most" of them??

where did you arrive at this? Hard Copy? Entertainment tonight? Cosmopolitian Magazine?

Allow me to introduce you to yourself by telling you that you Don't know what 1% of them are like and I would doubt seriously you have had as many over for dinner as I have much less know what "Most" of them are like.

I get so tired of Atheists assuming they are all qualified to speak on behalf of Science and Scientists and know plenty of Scientists that are also getting pretty disgusted with it also.

I see. You want to reap the benefits of science only where it's convenient for you

Naturally, don't you? aren't YOU the center of your world? are you not more fond of your opinions as others?

but you will simply throw out decades of research and libraries worth of knowledge on the subject just because you don't like it what it has to say.

Exactly but for a good reason,
It's BUNK and the sooner they get it out of our public school system the better. They have had control of Science for decades and haven't produced Jack Squat and have been riding on the coat tails of other advancements in other areas of Science using the word evolution symantically with the word "Science" and I am not buying that crap anymore.

despite testable, observable, and reproducible results.

You mean "In spite" don't you? After all I am still waiting for all that just like all the other Scientists and honest Atheists who have come forward asking the same questions.

Where's the Beef? Show me the money!

but Nuclear Physicists... you're A-OK with that, huh, probably without even looking into the matters they research either.

Yep, they don't have an Atheist agenda and a document called the "Manifesto" to advance Atheism via Darwinian evolution such as the Host of PBS's TV Show NOVA's Tyson has been quoted as saying.

Or perhaps you may have seen the memo

"Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It's the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood... So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority---that's why they're so vicious towards critics."

Phillip Johnson, On the PBS documentary "In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy" [May 1995]



"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.

"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."

Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156


PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H., "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. ", Quoted in: DARWIN'S ENIGMA, p. 100

You claim that I make a blanket statement about dogma in science, yet you make the blanket statement that "All Evolutionists are Atheists". Hypocracy much? Further, what would it matter if some of the are Atheists or not? Are you bias against Atheists?

Oh I see? yes yes you are so right! White men CAN Jump and Japanese in Calif DON'T all have a camera around there neck, and Blacks CAN'T DANCE and Gays don't know Jack about interior decorating, Jews are ALWAYS willing to pick up the tab! Rednecks LOVE driving two seat sports cars and not pick up trucks. Convicted Felons ALL get out staying rehabilitated. Woman are NOT Bitchy during there period. Scientists are ALL Objective and Darwin Debates Never Attract hordes of Atheists to defend evolution!

Get REAL guy
the stereotype fits because it is TRUE

Here, try an wrap this around your mind, again it isn't me your argument is with, it is Scientists

Um, there is no evidence to support a creator. Sorry, I thought you got the memo.

Dogma is when the evidence supporting it gets denied and called the "Illusion" of being created or is cast off as not good evidence as we can not afford to let a divine foot in the door - Dawkins

So much for your memo

Bad science is bad science - whether it's in biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It gets weeded out. A lot. If "creationist science" hadn't been bad science to begin with, it wouldn't have been discredited.

Atheists,, sheesh like they got room to talk.
First you need a history lesson, Creationism is NOT in Schools for being discredited against but being Discriminated against. Got it? Atheist's and their disdain for God cooties, make the claim that ANYTHING whether it is a creator, an advanced civilization out in another galaxy or a nomadic ET that spilled his chicken soup traveling by this planet on his lunch break. ALL of them are to be considered a religion according to the powers of separation which is just another Myth Atheist have created to remove God from our existence.

I would cite George Bush as an example, although he has far more education than most creationists. Simple minded folk flock around simple slogans and simple answers which don't require them to think much. These same "simple" people tend to vote and raise "simple" kids. I'm sure you realize the danger of a generation of uneducated, anti-intellectual, children has for the future.

Yes I think I just finished responding to one

We're done here son

- Con



[edit on 23-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Just answer yes or no as the rest of your posts are wrought with questions you can google your damn self in addition to clueing me in on your status as a Scientist

Am I a scientist? No. Do I know scientists? Yes, many from various fields including Chemistry, Evolutionary Biology, and Anthropology, as I am still enrolled in collage at Purdue University (albeit, not for Biology related classes). They have some wonderful and open minded professors there such as Stanton Gelvin. So yes, while not a scientists myself, I do often discourse with them. One need not be Cesar to understand Cesar, as the saying goes.

You people all put Science and Scientists on a pedastal and Ill bet most of you have less experience and less formal education in it than I do.

Well, Science DOES has a proven track record of success.

You seem to ALL think that Science is so damn elastic and that the Scientific Method ( another myth) is what keeps it pure and self correcting. That Science is constantly changing its views which troubles me when you argue this point.

Scientists do often change their views, even against their own bias. Albert Einstein, one of the most well known examples, couldn't wrap his head around an expanding universe and struggled with his Theory of Relativity which strongly suggested that it was, indeed, expanding. When Edwin Hubble found physical evidence for the Universes expansion - Einstein changed his mind and accepted it, later calling the Cosmological Constant one of his greatest blunders.

I would just ask then to quit trying to prove evolution until you finally figure it out until you know at least what I do about it. I understand why your claim Science should be so elastic because Darwinism is quite a stretch.

Darwinism? There really is no such thing as "Darwinism". It's a term that's used basically in two contexts. Either as a Creationist slander against evolutionary theory, and as a reference to the original framework of Darwin's theory of Evolution as defined in On the Origin of Species. Science has known "Darwinian" Evolution to be incorrect long ago, and has since modified the theory in light of new evidence.

But of course, someone who knew so much about the subject would know that already - wouldn't they?

This is what I mean,, this is so indicative of a Child or someone who has a maturity level where they still play games like this.

I'm sorry, but I do find this entertaining.

First, I already told you mine

Ah yes, Redken Labratories based in Canoga Park California was it? Actually, you never really said what your job there was, whether you were a researcher or a sales representative. However, I do like your companies slogan. About chemistry being the beauty of life. It's true, and so fitting also for a company that produces haircare products. What working at a shampoo manufacturer has to do with your standing on the knowledge base of Evolutionary Biology or the scientists who work in those fields I can't really fathom at this time.

Redkem Labratories

I could also say that I worked closely with the USDA in identifying food-born pathogens, and talked to many of the scientists there - as well as the biologists who worked in the plant and at the companies biotech labs creating new nutrients, steroids, antibiotics, etc, for the livestock. Which is true, but it would be more accurate to say that I pretty much just cooked the ducks and went out drinking with my friends who were in those departments. The same applies to the professors at my collage in the above example who I talk to.

But, at least, those examples actually are tied quite closely in with Biology.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Conspiriology



As for your quotes, they appear quite a jumble of out of context, out of date, or not really in support of your position. I would appreciate links to these sources so that I can read up on them and get a better understanding of their position on the matter. I will, of course, provide links to quotes I cite to more in-depth material if you wish as well. If you don't feel the need to trouble yourself, I will search them when I have a free moment, as well as shoot off a few emails to the authors of a few of the more recent ones.

Only one of those quotes refers to Evolutionary science as "Dogma" - and it wasn't from a scientist, but rather an author who was apparently providing a dissection of earlier works by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard himself, by the way, accepted Evolution and in his quest to unite Science with Faith drew great ire from the Vatican.

An illustration in the problem of Quote Mining.

If we Christians wish to retain in Christ the very qualities on which his power and our worship are based, we have no better way - no other way, even - of doing so than fully to accept the most modern concepts of evolution. . . . Surely the solution for which modern mankind is seeking must essentially be exactly the solution which I have come upon. ~ Teilhard, Ibid pg. 127

God and Science Ch 5.

This is in direct contradiction to the quote you posted.

Now, Teilhard was ostracized by both the religious and the scientific communities. The religious community, for obvious reasons. The Scientific community because he was attempting to combine metaphysical philosophy into a study of ONLY what is natural. Indeed, Science would have no problem factoring in god if he were a part of the physical universe. As he was coming from a religious background, he was trying to integrate his religion into science, a religion that has no solid proof of being factual. If you wish to read further on a similar ostricization, then I suggest you research Immanual Velikovsky who also tried to couple religion and science - particularly Astronomy. Actually READ his works, which are fascinating, but are known to be wrong. Worlds in Collision is probably his most famous, but Ages of Chaos and Earth in Upheaval are rather good too.

Going back to the quotes, in either case, I really doesn't matter because it supports my position. Scientists DO disagree, even about Evolution. Even about whether or not it has taken place at all or if it was some other mechanism. They may be lonely voices in the wilderness, but if they happen to come up with solid proof of an alternative phenomena which better explains the diversity of life - they will have their voice heard. They will be opposed, and at the end of the day, the side with the weight of evidence and reason will emerge victorious. These are called Paradigm shifts.

Now, as for your quotes on fossils and the fossil record, you do realize that most all of the sources you cite are known to be proponents of Evolution, and thus, are not suggesting that any of this invalidates Evolution in any way. It may force us to rethink Evolution - but then again, I guess that wouldn't be possible in a "Dogmatic" system now would it? If your citations were truly invalidations to Evolution, and Science (the atheist conspiracy) is so dogmatic as to not change it's views on the subject, why would proponents of Evolution publish such "damaging" articles?

Non sequitur. They're not, and you're misrepresenting.

Once again, it shows that you only accept the science and evidence you WANT to hear - and the ignore the rest. Science doesn't work that way.

That's right NOT ONE!

O RLY?



[edit on 24-6-2008 by Lasheic]

Further, some of the more striking evidence for Evolution doesn't even come from the fossil record, but from biology and genetics. Take for instance, Atavisms and vestigial organs? What is the Creationist answer to these phenomena? Please, fill me in, because I have yet to hear any explanation other than "same genes, same designer" - which doesn't work because Atavisms only follow what appears to be lines of descent. For example, you will never find a bird with nipples, but you do find them with teeth occasionally. And how would an intelligent designer explain the Blind Mole Rat who has small non-functioning eyes that are covered with a layer of skin? If it's blind, why give it eyes at all? And why is around 95% of our DNA complete junk that can (if studies in mice transfer over to humans) be safely removed with no apparent side effects? Would you consider someone intelligent if they're "perfect creation" was 95% unnecessary junk? I'd say that's pretty sloppy craftsmanship.

All of this is accounted for in Evolution.

Who do you think you are talking to?

Conspiriology

are you not more fond of your opinions as others?

Opinions are not facts. When new facts present themselves, it would necessitate a re-evaluation or a shift in my opinion.

They have had control of Science for decades and haven't produced Jack Squat and have been riding on the coat tails of other advancements in other areas of Science using the word evolution symantically with the word "Science" and I am not buying that crap anymore.

Who is "They"? Evolutionists? Atheists? Grey Aliens and the NWO? (we are on ATS) You speak as if there is this great cabal of evil god-haters who wish nothing more than destroy religion. Sadly, there is none. They do not meet in darkened rooms, smoking cigarettes, plotting how to destroy the faiths of innocent people.

You mean "In spite" don't you?

No.

After all I am still waiting for all that just like all the other Scientists

testable
Evolution is tested against every time a new discovery which relates to it is made. This includes genetics, the fossil record, etc. Since Evolution is open to falsification. The discovery of DNA and RNA, for instance, would have been a disasterous blow to Evolution if it turned out that the genetic structures of creatures on earth did not match up in the way that we see them do - indicating special creation. Instead, we not only see verification - we discover even MORE evidence that allows us to trace back lineages like genetic markers and retroviruses.

observable
Observed instances of speciation

and reproducible
Evolutionary principals train robots to preform
Now, granted, in the above link the subject matter is a behavioral adaptation which involves machines, not biological creatures. However, the basic tenets of Evolution are there. Reproduction with mutation being selected against by the environment. In this case, humans represent the environmental niche by having a set behavior selected for and then reproduced.

This is called an Evolutionary Algorithm, and it's actually fueling another contention. Not between Evolution and ID, but between Evolution and Human Designers. Indeed, EA's have gotten so good lately, that they have even surpassed the skills of many human designers. The automobile and aeronautics industries have been using them for years. All based on the same Evolutionary principal as Biology. So you see... Evolution is MORE than even what you think you're railing against.

Evolution a more efficient designer than man?

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Yep, they don't have an Atheist agenda and a document called the "Manifesto" to advance Atheism via Darwinian evolution

You do know there's more than one, right? Which one are you referring to? And further, what does this have to do with Biology? Besides, it's not like Creationism doesn't have their own manifesto, I.E. The Infamous Wedge Document. And here's a little tip for you, the "Discovery" Institute is anything but. They are a religious political organization aimed and injecting their brand of religion into schools.

This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism.

I have severe disagreements with this statement. While Evolution and science in general may indeed prove literal interpretations of Genesis and other other accounts false or inaccurate - it does not in any fashion discredit the existence of a god or negate faith in that being. Science, simply put, has absolutely NO stance on God or the Supernatural what-so-ever because these are insubstantial metaphysical phenomena. They are NOT a part of the physical world that we have been able to detect. Science is the study of the physical realm, and so, cannot make any statements on god unless god makes himself a part of this physical reality. At which point, we can test, observe, and... well, perhaps not reproduce him - but maybe some of his feats by understanding HOW he did it. This is a problem with Creationism, because they offer NO solutions other than pure magic or spoken incantations.

As Thomas Paine once commented:

The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.

the stereotype fits because it is TRUE

I hope you're ready to back that up by saying that every negative stereotype is true as well. That would make you quite the racist. I would disagree, and condemn you for that view, but at least you'd have the guts to stand by your convictions - which I can at least respect if nothing else.

Dogma is when the evidence supporting it gets denied and called the "Illusion" of being created or is cast off as not good evidence as we can not afford to let a divine foot in the door - Dawkins

Weak.

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Science doesn't fit this mold, because it (evolution included) remain falsifiable.

Creationism is NOT in Schools for being discredited against but being Discriminated against.

Creationism isn't in Schools because it's not science. God (whatever you want to call him) isn't falsifiable and it offers no workable or practical alternative. Not to mention it is grounded in religion, which our Constitution prohibits any government institution from endorsing. This is why PUBLIC schools cannot teach Creationism, but PRIVATE schools can.

Atheist's and their disdain for God cooties, make the claim that ANYTHING whether it is a creator, an advanced civilization out in another galaxy or a nomadic ET that spilled his chicken soup traveling by this planet on his lunch break.

Atheists, in a strict definition, don't "Deny" or "Hate" any of that. They only lack a belief in it, at least, until such evidence shows up to convince them otherwise. Many of them are quite vocal in their opinions, especially militant Atheists (a poor label for them, as they're not even close to being "militant" like say - the Catholics or the Muslims or any number of other "God's Warriors" have proven to be in the past) who, I think, have some major issues they need to sort out.

None of this has to do with Biology anyhow.

So:

1. Science says nothing about god, because god is not within the realm of physical reality that we can currently perceive.

2. Super Civilizations creating us has about as much evidence as Creationism. I.E., nothing substantial. A Super Civilization creator would not negate Evolution anyhow, because we have seen speciation occur without a physical creator and they themselves would still be subject to the question of how THEY evolved or otherwise came into being.

3. ET spilled Chicken Soup? Well, I think technically that particular scenario falls into the category of the first two. However, you might want to look up the valid hypothesis of Panspermia / Exogenesis The reason why this hypothesis is proposed seriously, while creationism is not, is because we have volumes of data about the Cosmos and what it is comprised of. We OURSELVES have left our planet, and our probes to Mars we think may have been contaminated with bacteria. If said bacteria could adapt to Mars and culture, it would validate the premise of Exogenesis.

Now, do you get a clearer picture of why Exogenesis is seriously contended as a alternative hypothesis to abiogenesis while Creationism isn't?

Further, you seem rather confused on the subject, and I'd like to clear this up. Evolution has NOTHING to say on the ORIGINS of life. Only the Diversity of Life.

Yes I think I just finished responding to one

As am I, for now.

We're done here son

Later pops.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to


Am I a scientist? No. Do I know scientists? Yes, many from various fields including Chemistry, Evolutionary Biology, and Cultural Studies, as I am still enrolled in collage at Purdue University (albeit, not for Biology related classes). They have some wonderful and open minded professors there such as Stanton Gelvin. So yes, while not a scientists myself, I do often discourse with them. One need not be Cesar to understand Cesar, as the saying goes.

So, you are NOT but have aspirations,. Very good but it doesn't do much for what you know about MOST of them to be making such sweeping statements.

Well, Science DOES has a proven track record of success.

Compared to what?

Scientists do often change their views, even against their own bias. Albert Einsteing, one of the most well known examples, couldn't wrap his head around an expanding universe and struggled with his Theory of Relativity which stated it was expanding. When Edwin Hubble found convincing evidence for the Universes expansion - Einstein changed his mind and accepted it.

Yeah, Einstein was a REAL Scientist but he didn't change his data to fit a theory. That is what I meant by elastic.

Science has known "Darwinian" Evolution to be incorrect long ago, and has since modified the theory in light of new evidence.
But of course, someone who knew so much about the subject would know that already - wouldn't they?

Depends on which side of the issue you are talking to. I knew you would say Creationists say it to slander but I just don't see how that happens using the word "creationists" as the qualifier. I find the irony in that strange they don't. Do you happen to know what they modified and according to what new evidence? I know they have many times but you seem to know of something specific and if it is what I think it is, it might put us on the same page

I'm sorry, but I do find this entertaining.

Yeah, it gets like that sometimes

Ah yes, Redken Labratories based in Canoga Park California was it? Actually, you never really said what your job there was, whether you were a researcher or a sales representative. However, I do like your companies slogan. About chemistry being the beauty of life. It's true, and so fitting also for a company that produces haircare products. What working at a shampoo manufacturer has to do with your standing on the knowledge base of Evolutionary Biology or the scientists who work in those fields I can't really fathom at this time.

Ha ha that's clever lash, you make it sound like that is all they make. Redken researches all kinds of things from molecular weight of coal tar derivatives, nucleic acid, humectant properties of celluar epoxy's like mucopolysacharides or poly = many, muco = moist protien, and the saccaride is an amino sugar. like snot for the skin and hair. I worked with electron microscopes doing field emmission scanning. They had developed drug testing kits for law inforcement, and had many Biologists, dermatologists, trichologist's, even entemologists, back then they still did animal testing but but basically I was into chemistry and pretty woman.

These days I am working on getting a Computer Science degree (looking doubtful) but I don't think I have the apptitude for it even if I love the idea of being in that field it is my own private hell, the story of my life, loving something and / or someone, I don't have any business being involved with. I taught High School for a while but that is a thankless job for the money and aggravation not to mention the politics. I didn't mention it in referance to anything specific about Biology, if you read my post it was in reference to Science in general.

I wouldn't want to be a biologist merely because it is the most "f'd" up area of Science in all major Science categories because of evolution. I would hate knowing a lot about lies and I also like to see things happen in my lifetime if you know what I mean. Also they were the most disliked bunch in all Science. The physics guys hated them the Chemistry professors hated them, the math teachers couldn't stand them and their was a revolving door for th Biology dept

I could also say that I worked closely with the USDA in identifying food-born pathogens, and talked to many of the scientists there - as well as the biologists who worked in the plant and at the companies biotech labs creating new nutrients, steroids, antibiotics, etc, for the livestock. Which is true, but it would be more accurate to say that I pretty much just cooked the ducks and went out drinking with my friends who were in those departments. The same applies to the professors at my collage in the above example who I talk to.

Yeah, ya see, thats what I mean though THAT is what they do! HA HA

But, at least, those examples actually are tied quite closely in with
Biology.

Perhaps but I could argue that but I only wish that could be said of Darwininan Evolution too.

- Con

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Conspiriology]