Happy Evolution Sunday !

[Wessex Man]

There is no scientific proof for the creation theory at all,and whats more it is completely fanciful and goes against our God-given common sense.
To quote a great philospher;

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

 

[aharvey]

See my posting on the METHINKS IT IS (LIKE) A WEASEL. thread.

You seem particularly enamoured with your weasel thread. Does it answer the specific questions I asked you about how you reconcile your various recent comments about science and evolution? Specifically,

If you're going to declare ultimate origins off-limits to science, then doesn't that make the most fundamental scientific question "How can we best explain what happened after that?" How can you claim science is against evolution when all it does is explain "what happened after that," you know, the part that comes after the time you specifically excluded from scientific inquiry? I can't even apply bobblogic to that: "Evolution only examines questions that are appropriate to scientific inquiry, therefore science is against evolution."

Oh wait, I see, science is against evolution because of presuppositions made by evolutionists but (it must follow) not by other scientists. So what presuppositions does evolution, alone among scientific theories, make that turns science against it?

If your weasel thread does not explictly answer these questions, then it's nothing more than a red herring ploy to direct me to it.

 

[bob b]

You seem particularly enamoured with your weasel thread. Does it answer the specific questions I asked you about how you reconcile your various recent comments about science and evolution? Specifically,

If you're going to declare ultimate origins off-limits to science, then doesn't that make the most fundamental scientific question "How can we best explain what happened after that?" How can you claim science is against evolution when all it does is explain "what happened after that," you know, the part that comes after the time you specifically excluded from scientific inquiry? I can't even apply bobblogic to that: "Evolution only examines questions that are appropriate to scientific inquiry, therefore science is against evolution."

Oh wait, I see, science is against evolution because of presuppositions made by evolutionists but (it must follow) not by other scientists. So what presuppositions does evolution, alone among scientific theories, make that turns science against it?

You still don't "get it" do you?

Science is against evolution, because its proper employment shows that "molecules to man" is not true.

"Evolution" means many different things depending on the context in which it is being used.

If your weasel thread does not explictly answer these questions, then it's nothing more than a red herring ploy to direct me to it.

The WEASEL thread is not intended to be specific: it is more like a parable.

I direct you to it for two reasons; 1) you are one of the few unbelievers posting on this forum who have the necessary knowledge and smarts to see how profound this simple "parable" really is, and 2) I am still optimistic that despite your prior strong committment to certain ideas (illustrated by the "rising water" analogy) you can eventually uncover the truth.

 

[dataanapar]

Isn't Atheist day coming up soon too?

 

[aharvey]

You still don't "get it" do you?

Science is against evolution, because its proper employment shows that "molecules to man" is not true.

Sorry, bob, this statement alone tells me you understand neither science nor evolution. And after all this time, too. And what are we to make of your unrepentant, almost gleeful adoption of virtually every logical fallacy available in your anti-evolution crusade other than you will stop at nothing to convert the heathens, even if it means tricking them into believing something? I'm open to alternative explanations!

I do "get it," bob. That's why I continue the fruitless labor of calling you out every time you use the ole red herring tactic (like this post: changing the subject so you don't have to address your own self-contradictory claims), or set up a straw man (like this post, for example; equating "evolution" with "molecules to man" is something only creationists do; the rest of us understand that there is a relationship between the ideas, but they are not the same thing), or any of your various pet appeals (authority, ridicule, popularity, spite, etc.) and other games, like quote-mining and psychic parlor games (evolutionists do this because they hate God). On the other hand, you never respond to these challenges other than to continue to use the same tactics unabated, and I'm sorry but I've called you on it far too many times and matched your statements too clearly to the definitions of the fallacies for you to claim that you're ignoring them because I'm obviously wrong. Especially as around here, "obviously wrong" statements are the ones least likely to be ignored, wouldn't you say?

The WEASEL thread is not intended to be specific: it is more like a parable.

Thus leaving my original questions about how you reconcile your various statements unaddressed.

I direct you to it for two reasons; 1) you are one of the few unbelievers posting on this forum who have the necessary knowledge and smarts to see how profound this simple "parable" really is, and 2) I am still optimistic that despite your prior strong committment to certain ideas (illustrated by the "rising water" analogy) you can eventually uncover the truth.

It is my dogged determination to uncover the truth that makes your selectiveness and evasiveness so disappointing, bob. Believe it or not, I think it is in the best interests of all concerned for creationists and intelligent design advocates to bring their very strongest case to the table. Proclaiming something, no matter how loudly or boldly, is not the same as making a case for it (and please don't waste your keyboard strokes by typing that I'm just as guilty of making bold claims without ever backing them up).

 

[bob b]

Sorry, bob, this statement alone tells me you understand neither science nor evolution. And after all this time, too. And what are we to make of your unrepentant, almost gleeful adoption of virtually every logical fallacy available in your anti-evolution crusade other than you will stop at nothing to convert the heathens, even if it means tricking them into believing something? I'm open to alternative explanations!

I do "get it," bob. That's why I continue the fruitless labor of calling you out every time you use the ole red herring tactic (like this post: changing the subject so you don't have to address your own self-contradictory claims), or set up a straw man (like this post, for example; equating "evolution" with "molecules to man" is something only creationists do; the rest of us understand that there is a relationship between the ideas, but they are not the same thing), or any of your various pet appeals (authority, ridicule, popularity, spite, etc.) and other games, like quote-mining and psychic parlor games (evolutionists do this because they hate God). On the other hand, you never respond to these challenges other than to continue to use the same tactics unabated, and I'm sorry but I've called you on it far too many times and matched your statements too clearly to the definitions of the fallacies for you to claim that you're ignoring them because I'm obviously wrong. Especially as around here, "obviously wrong" statements are the ones least likely to be ignored, wouldn't you say?

Thus leaving my original questions about how you reconcile your various statements unaddressed.

It is my dogged determination to uncover the truth that makes your selectiveness and evasiveness so disappointing, bob. Believe it or not, I think it is in the best interests of all concerned for creationists and intelligent design advocates to bring their very strongest case to the table. Proclaiming something, no matter how loudly or boldly, is not the same as making a case for it (and please don't waste your keyboard strokes by typing that I'm just as guilty of making bold claims without ever backing them up).

I am still hopeful that the parable will enter your subconscious and someday cause you to announce Eureka.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Evolution Sunday Event at Denver Bible Church

Evolution Sunday Event at Denver Bible Church

Hey Bob B, you might have missed this at KGOV, but prompted by your Evolution Sunday thread, at Denver Bible Church, we did this:

Denver Bible Church holds Evolution Sunday Event with
BC Tours! Bill Jack and Rusty Carter gave 70 DBC members
a tour of Denver's Museum of Nature & Science.

The resulting radio show, Mon. 2-13-06 #31, was titled:
Museum Curator Dr. Kirk Johnson: I Might Not Exist!

And that led to this fun thread and at post 12, CuratorExists Questions 1 & 2 to Johnny, Jukia, and ThePhy, and CEQ2 they have so far not answered.

-Bob

ps. Those questions are:

CuratorExistsQ1: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy (each separately): Can you, without equivocation, indicate whether or not you exist?

So far, Jukia & Phy answered: Yes, they acknowledge that they exist. (But Phy went on to indicate that such an answer is not straightforward, as I assume.) And no answers so far from any of the three to these:

CuratorExistsQ2: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy: If my report is accurate (that curator of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Dr. Kirk Johnson, when asked repeatedly, could not affirm that he exists), does this undermine Dr. Johnson's credibility as a scientist?

CuratorExistsQ2a: If Doctor Kirk cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?

CuratorExistsQ2b: If any scientist cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?
Please circle one: Yes / No / I don't know

-BE

 

[bob b]

Thanks Bob.

That thread was hilarious!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

 

[Bob Enyart]

Thanks Bob.

That thread was hilarious!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Yes, I'm thoroughly enjoying it!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-Bob Enyart

 

[Letsargue]

then tell me were the scientific proof is for creationism?Where outside of the bible is there a scrap of evidence for creatism.

---How does the Dandelion know to put fluff on its seeds so they can travel with the MOVING WIND??? - The Cattail, the Milk Weed does the same, along with dozens of other plants. --- How do all the different types of Burs and Beggar Lice, know to put little hooks on its seed to catch hold of any passing Animals??? – How do the Pine trees, and the Maple trees, and the Box Elder trees know to put wings on their seeds to catch the wind??? – How do these plants KNOW that the air MOVES??? - Or that an animal may pass by??? – NO, -- that’s knowledge, Knowledge is taught, not guessed at.
*
--------------Paul---
*