Testable claim. For example science says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism says there has to be one, and Stipe claims he has one. And yet, in spite of repeated requests, he won't show us what it is.
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
Testable claim. For example science says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism says there has to be one, and Stipe claims he has one. And yet, in spite of repeated requests, he won't show us what it is.
Ah, Stripe, turns out life is a little messier than you desire. There are apparently several working definitions of species, perhaps none of which will satisfy every situation. I know, I know, that is so difficult to wrap your head around when your basic thought process appears to be "If I don't believe every single word of The Bible, my god will send me for eternal punishment." You need everything to be black and white and set in concrete. Sorry, the real universe is just not that way.
As my old coach said "Tape it up and run on it."
6days
New member
Your nose is growing.
Because you say so? :idunno:
I know. I was hoping to have a scientific discussion. That requires you lot to sort your nonsense out and hold to actual definitions.
Evolutionists do not have a lot to offer, do they?
6days
New member
Actually... you send yourself there.
But He offers to save you from an eternity in Hell.
No...believing every word in the Bible is not going to save you. Salvation is accepting Christ as your Savior.
6days
New member
A good starting point would be to note that trees and fish don't breed with each other.
6days
New member
And I sense some frustration from you when a fellow atheist so succinctly explains why atheistic 'science' is really scientism...religion.alwight said:
Typically here in TOL, evolutionists cry 'quote mining' when one of their own, says something they disagree with.
More of evolutionary biologist, Leowontin's quote.....
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"
each: (My grandson wanted me to click the princess)
Last edited:
Answers in Genesis makes it appear as if by "patent absurdity", Lewontin means evolution, when he is really talking about astronomy.
Gitt makes it appear as if Lewontin thinks that materialism cannot be justified and is a personal decision. But in reality Lewontin gives a reason just after creationists stop quoting him.
Also, many scientists will disagree with him in the detail creationists are emphasizing, and say that methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science, giving exactly the reason Lewontin gave.
Gitt makes it appear as if Lewontin thinks that materialism cannot be justified and is a personal decision. But in reality Lewontin gives a reason just after creationists stop quoting him.
Also, many scientists will disagree with him in the detail creationists are emphasizing, and say that methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science, giving exactly the reason Lewontin gave.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Lewontin_on_materialism
The simple things escape evolutionists. :chuckle:
6days
New member
Nope... You couldn't be more wrong.
Science is about knowledge... truth... using the scientific method.
Ruling out one possible (and obvious) conclusion is religion.
6days
New member
Not enough coffee I guess.Only one out of ten for your formatting skills 6days, must try harder.
But zero out of ten for attributing quotes to the right person.
Corrected now
alwight
New member
The only thing that bothers me are your daft conclusions, not what your carefully selected "atheist" supposedly said.
Typically, in real life, scientists will say many things, sometimes enlightening and informative or sometimes not so. Sometimes they may have their own personal agenda. Science isn't populated by a homogenous group of people who all believe the same thing, but YEC's ears only seem to prick up if they think that some of their words can be turned against science or made to seem like they said something that in fact they did not intend.
Most scientists don't normally have to deal with YECs and thus don't normally choose to make sure that their words are carefully vetted so that they cannot be misinterpreted or quote mined.
I'm happy for your grandson but I already addressed the above in my previous post to which you haven't responded to, including a couple of unanswered questions, so I'll probably not bother casting any more pearls for the time being.More of evolutionary biologist, Leowontin's quote.....
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"
lain:
Barbarian observes:
For example science says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism says there has to be one,
6days tries again:
Well, let's take a look...
Practically, when a naturalist can unite two forms together by
others having intermediate characters, he treats the one as a
variety of the other, ranking the most common, but sometimes
the one first described, as the species, and the other as the
variety. But cases of great difficulty, which I will not here
enumerate, sometimes occur in deciding whether or not to rank
one form as a variety of another, even when they are closely
connected by intermediate links; nor will the commonly-assumed
hybrid nature of the intermediate links always remove the difficulty
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species
It should be unnecessary for anyone who's been here for more than a few days to realize that transitional forms have been repeatedly denied by creationists. In fact, one particularly dishonest creationist has repeatedly quote-mined Stephen Gould in an attempt to falsely claim that Gould said there were no transitonals.
For example science says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism says there has to be one,
6days tries again:
Well, let's take a look...
Practically, when a naturalist can unite two forms together by
others having intermediate characters, he treats the one as a
variety of the other, ranking the most common, but sometimes
the one first described, as the species, and the other as the
variety. But cases of great difficulty, which I will not here
enumerate, sometimes occur in deciding whether or not to rank
one form as a variety of another, even when they are closely
connected by intermediate links; nor will the commonly-assumed
hybrid nature of the intermediate links always remove the difficulty
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species
It should be unnecessary for anyone who's been here for more than a few days to realize that transitional forms have been repeatedly denied by creationists. In fact, one particularly dishonest creationist has repeatedly quote-mined Stephen Gould in an attempt to falsely claim that Gould said there were no transitonals.
popsthebuilder
New member
How to science rule out religion? That statement doesn't really make sense. You cannot even claim that science has ruled out God because the exact opposite is happening every day. Thank you.
What he meant was that evolutionists rule out the possibility that the Bible's account is accurate. They eliminate the Bible without good reason, which makes their evolutionism a religion; not science.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
And there's creationism for ya... "I dunno, it's just kinda obvious". That's a pretty short paper. :rotfl:
Jose Fly
New member
Then you better tell 6days, because he just posted that creationism is "And God said..."
Jose Fly
New member
So does that mean the criterion for "kind" is an inability to breed?
alwight
New member
Nonsense, there are plenty of good reasons to reject the Bible without somehow creating another religion, especially to reject it as being literally true.
Not so sure about the "Buble" though. :think: