Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

Ok, I believe if you take that verse in context it means that he wants our love, because He made us. I assume he is saying He will not tolerate others. This is a demand, not a need, and hardly a want. God would not cease to exist if you started worshiping mud statues, although He would not like it.You said, "Jealousy is the need for something that someone else has/is receiving. In God's case, credit."I say, "Jealousy is the want for something that someone else has/is receiving. In God's case, credit."If your mother gave your brother a cookie and you wanted one, that would still be jealousy, yet that would be a want (not a need).
Still a very interesting way of interpreting it.[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004]

Guys, please read the topic title. This thread is for a scientific discussion. Please take the biblical references elsewhere. Thanks.

---

What goes? The Nose Knows!

OK, sorry.

Has Willowtree left the building?

I personaly would like to see more scientific evidence against evolution given that that was the purpose of this thread.

Don't hold your breath.

*fart*

*gulp*

You are the creator of this topic and you have yet to respond to the NEW material contained in post # 116.The ball is in your court, what have you been waiting for ?There is new evidence posted in thread # 116 and until someone replies to it we are where we are.

quote:

---

You are the creator of this topic and you have yet to respond to...post # 116.

---

I note that your post #116 has already received 4 responses from 4 different people and you have continued discussions on 3 of those responses. The other respondents have addressed all of the pertinent parts of your post #116, usually more intelligently and eloquently than I would be able to. Do you consider it necessary for me to respond to your post as well merely to reiterate similar arguments? If that is your requirement, perhaps you could directly address the proposal of a genetic comparison of Milton's supposely closely related placental and Tasmanian wolfs which I raised in message #1 and which you have never addressed. You don't want to be hypocritical, do you?

quote:

---

There is new evidence posted in thread # 116 and until someone replies to it we are where we are.

---

Hmmm. New evidence? Let's see. Lots of space on theology and philosophy and nonsense about godsense. No new scientific evidence there. Reiteration of Milton's assertion of similarity of mammalian wolf and Tasmanian wolf skulls. Nothing new there and it has already been debunked as scientific evidence. Reiteration of Milton's quote of Leakey and Pilbeam. Nothing new there and does not consititue scientific evidence, and has been debunked on another thread. Blah blah blah about WT's personal knowledge and things that he can't understand. No scientific evidence there. More Milton, this time talking about cuckoos. The discussion on this "scientific" evidence with Quetzal quickly ran out of steam and ended up merely as an argument from personal incredulity, not scientific evidence. Finally quotes from Johnson making assertions about irreduciibly complex molecular mechanisms which rely on Behe's assertions and examples which have been debunked. No new scientific evidence there.Perhaps WT could identify which "new evidence" remains to be addressed. BTW, note that the topic emphasises scientific evidence so please restrict to this type of evidence.[This message has been edited by wj, 01-28-2004]

^ bump ^

quote:

---

Then in response to this argument someone would always mention evolutionists who do credit God ultimately, then I would respond by saying that I am obviously addressing those who do not as I am now.

---

However both groups use methodological naturalism to come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact.Thus, your distinction is meaningless in this context.

quote:

---

The entire argument of "God sense" is that God must be considered as the ultimate Creator and to be thanked (Romans 1:18-25)(2 things) If not He disables your ability to recognize Him.

​

These arguments were the unique thing that my theism brought to the debate. Occasionally, when I have the opportunity to influence an impressionable agnostic, I will state the the "God sense" argument and watch their face light up when they finally ascertain the reason why so many brilliant people fail to see God in creation.

---

However, besides this admittedly esoteric perspective, the plain fact is that believers and non-believers alike can make the same observations and conduct and record the same results of scientific experiments to test the theory of evolution (or any theory for that matter). Your "godsense" nonesense is niether an observable trait, testable, nor falsifiable. If you wish to suffer delsions of grandeur then that is your choice but your musings hardly put you in the mainstream of Christians.

quote:

---

I submitted a lot of posts covering the preceding philosophical arguments, which said arguments (if true) automatically make defective all scientific evidence that anyone wants to offer as proof against a Creator/Intelligent Designer.

---

This again shows you have absolutely no familiarity with science whatsoever. Science and scientists do not try to prove or disprove god/gods/ intelligent designers/pink unicorns or anything else. Look up methodological naturalism and then maybe you will understand a bit better.

quote:

---

I reject theistic evolution because they fail to differentiate how exactly their theism affects the claims of evolution and its terminology. Since when does theism seek a lower seat and become subordinate to any entity and ideology ? When the pseudo-peacemakers of TE misrepresent the God of the Bible by seeking the acceptance of the atheists of neo-Darwinism through their despicable brown-nosing at the expense of genuine theism which is not compatible with the philosophy that under girds evolution.

---

Who appointed you with the authority to reject the beliefs of other Christians (not to mention any other religion)? Those who subscribe to TE recognize that science has produced every single advancement in our undertanding of the natural world and that introducing tooth fairies or "godnonsense" has not produced anything of any use to the advancement of science. TE means one has a mature enough faith to believe in a higher power while recognizing the only way to understand the natural world and study it is via methodological naturalism.

quote:

---

There can be no peaceful co-existence between the God sense of theism and the God senseless evolutionary claims when the origin of species is at stake.

---

Ohh a threat is it? Let's see what you and your "godsense" can come up with in defining the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic imprinting...nothing you say..that's right..leave it to those of us who have a clue.

quote:

---

My point was : What you don't know can and will be used against you. Unless evolution can be explained practidemically ordinary people will be forced to trust the veracity of the sources and their mouthpieces. Exceed an ordinary persons ability to understand - you are "logidemicizing". However, in science discussions I acknowledge that the level of intelligent communication can only go so low before error is risked.

---

Did you learn English from Don King? You make a logical error here as well. Scientific jargon for the most part attempts to communicate extremely complex data or concepts to other INFORMED scientists or laypeople through the simplest terms possible. That you complain that you don't understand anything we say is not for us to correct. The burden is upon you to get an education. You are clearly very lazy if your attitude is that one must cater to the lowest denominator of understanding in science. Extra lazy actually because there are scientists who make the effort to communicate complex scientific concepts via popular books.

quote:

---

I am biased towards evidence that is consistent with my worldview (everyone is whether they admit it or not). This is why Richard Milton and his work carries an enormous weight of credibility in my eyes. He is not a creationist by his own vehement admission which makes the evidence he offers independant corroboration of my starting assumption : Evolution is not true.

---

Actually what you describe is not bias. It is willful ignorance. Ignoring all evidence that runs counter to your pre-concieved notions is exactly the kind of thinking of a non-scientific mind. It is also not a particularly intelligent way to go about anything in life. That you drool over charlatans who are only slightly less ignorant regarding science than you is therefore unsurprising.

quote:

---

But Milton's point is intac : Virtually identical creatures evolving on two different continents via random mutation ?

---

Except that besides NOT being identical to wolves, thylacines are also easy as pie to distinguish genetically form wolves or any other eutherian mammal...this was dealt with ages ago in this thread...are you that stupid?

quote:

---

Then there was the evidence of Milton's claim that Darwinists cannot demonstrate to a non-Darwinist conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory the same way the National Physical Laboratory can demonstrate physical constants, the College of Surgeons can demonstrate the circulation of the blood, or the Greenwich Observatory can demonstrate the expanding universe.

---

And evolution can be demonstrated both directly and indirectly as often as you like for exampleCooper TF, Rozen DE, Lenski RE. Parallel changes in gene expression after 20,000 generations of evolution in Escherichiacoli.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 4; 100(3): 1072-7.For any of your points can you provide a single primary literature article that supports yours or Milton's assertions?By the way, run your posts through a spell checker...you would not want to give everyone the impression you don't know what your are talking about

quote:

---

God, in the book of Romans, declares that His wrath is unleashed upon persons who deliberately exclude Him from the creation table. Contrary to the claim of contained in rational enquiry - that says no position is taken concerning the Divine - Dr. Scott interprets Romans to say you are taking a position concerning Him and God rats you off as to your true motive. Any person that claims this Divine neutrality under the disguise of the claim of rational enquiry is arbitrarily excluding God because they do not want to deal with a Creator. In response to this rejection God punishes these persons by removing their ability to see and deduce His fingerprints in creation.

---

This argument is perfectly circular, and thus invalid. It can be summarised in two parts:Why do people believe in evolution? Because their God-sense has been removed.How do we know that their God-sense has been removed? Because they believe in evolution.Not that these statement pairs can be read, and have the same meaning in either order - the test of circularity.

quote:

---

Whereas the removal of "God sense" is final and irrevocable. Simply stated, God wants nothing to do with you ever again. He will allow you to live out your natural life but you are essentially a walking dead man rejected by God for rejecting Him.

---

Thus negating the Biblical doctrine of a just and merciful God.

quote:

---

Then in response to this argument someone would always mention evolutionists who do credit God ultimately, then I would respond by saying that I am obviously addressing those who do not as I am now.

---

Thus negating your argument, for we now have two classes of believers in evolution, one of whom has the God-sense, but still rejects creationism.

quote:

---

These arguments were the unique thing that my theism brought to the debate. Occasionally, when I have the opportunity to influence an impressionable agnostic, I will state the the "God sense" argument and watch their face light up when they finally ascertain the reason why so many brilliant people fail to see God in creation.

---

Or perhaps they "fail to see God in creation" because of the evidence.

quote:

---

I submitted a lot of posts covering the preceding philosophical arguments, which said arguments (if true) automatically make defective all scientific evidence that anyone wants to offer as proof against a Creator/Intelligent Designer. The preceding arguments also explains the defect : which is the ineligibility of a Designer being involved. Other than this the evidence is legit and brilliant.

---

But philosophical debate is irrelevant to science. You mentioned some philosophers, I think. Here's another two:Immanual Kant, in his "Critique of Pure Reason" demonstrated that metaphysics is incapable of solving real-world problems, since for an set of data it is possible to construct (at least) two explanations: the thesis and the antithesis, and that it is impossible to distinguish which one is correct.Fred Ayer in his "Language, Truth and Logic" further strengthened this doctrine by demonstrating that all statements can be divided into three, and only three categories, based on the Principle of Verification: "A statement is meaningful if and only if it is verifiable"Logical truths, where the truth or falsity can be deduced from the a priori assumptions.Empirical observations, where the truth is validated by observation (or is potentially capable of verification).All other statements, including those from theology and metaphyisics, are empty of meaning.

quote:

---

I reject theistic evolution because they fail to differentiate how exactly their theism affects the claims of evolution and its terminology. Since when does theism seek a lower seat and become subordinate to any entity and ideology ? When the pseudo-peacemakers of TE misrepresent the God of the Bible by seeking the acceptance of the atheists of neo-Darwinism through their despicable brown-nosing at the expense of genuine theism which is not compatible with the philosophy that under girds evolution.

​

There can be no peaceful co-existence between the God sense of theism and the God senseless evolutionary claims when the origin of species is at stake.

---

These statements fall into category 3.

quote:

---

Also contained in the previous arguments was my accusation that evolution intentionally uses logidemic language to impress ordinary persons for the purpose of gaining trust and credibilty. One poster misunderstood this argument by offering to decode any "opaque jargon" that I didn't understand. My point was : What you don't know can and will be used against you. Unless evolution can be explained practidemically ordinary people will be forced to trust the veracity of the sources and their mouthpieces. Exceed an ordinary persons ability to understand - you are "logidemicizing". However, in science discussions I acknowledge that the level of intelligent communication can only go so low before error is risked.

---

Please explain the terms logidemic and practidemically. A Google search only turned up refrences to this fourm.

quote:

---

I am biased towards evidence that is consistent with my worldview (everyone is whether they admit it or not). This is why Richard Milton and his work carries an enormous weight of credibility in my eyes. He is not a creationist by his own vehement admission which makes the evidence he offers independant corroboration of my starting assumption : Evolution is not true.

---

Only to those already biased. Everyone else who has studied it sees it as the rubbish it is.

quote:

---

Previously I posted some evidence from his book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", evidence that excited me like :

​

quote:

---

"How can a mouselike creature have evolved into two identical wolflike creatures (and two identical moles, etc.) on two different continents ? Doesn't this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations but miraculous ones ? "

---

---

But as has already been pointed out by many others, the differences are significant, and observable even by non-experts. They are not identical, or even virtually identical, even at the gross morphological level, and are grossly different at the molecular level.

quote:

---

Then there was the evidence of Milton's claim that Darwinists cannot demonstrate to a non-Darwinist conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory the same way the National Physical Laboratory can demonstrate physical constants, the College of Surgeons can demonstrate the circulation of the blood, or the Greenwich Observatory can demonstrate the expanding universe.

---

They managed fine with me. On hearing the theory explained, my reaction was similar to Huxleys: "How stupid of me not to have thought of it". Indeed, fior the theory to have become the dominatnt paradgrim, it must, by definition, have convinced non-Darwinists.There is none so blind as those who do not want to see.

quote:

---

I simply do not understand RM&NS enough to post evidence against it.

---

Then read a primer on evolution. The best ones are those written for intelligent 12-15 year-olds: they make fewer assumptions.The Argument from Ignorance is not acceptable here.Really it is quite simple:All individuals are mutants (IIRC 5-10 per human generation).
Most are neutral, some are harmful, a few confer a benefit. Mutations are random.If a mutation is beneficial, the owner of that gene will have a reproductive advantage.Computer studies have been done that show even a quite small advantage can become dominant very quickly.Edited to correct some screwed up ubb marks, a capitalisation error and some spelling mistakes caused by sending too soon.[This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 01-29-2004]

MarkAustin There is no explanation of these terms since they are made up presumably by a Dr. Gene Scott.I went into the same kind of a query over these words in the following topichttp://EvC Forum: Flaws in the ScripturesI have done a fairly extensive search of the web and medical dictionaries and come up empty.It is my feeling that they are bullshit terms designed to confuse the gullible.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

It is perfectly clear what he means people..his logidemics are confuseodomus because his intellectualemics are minimalestetic. He is practidemically flatulantelic!
Just listen to Mushmouth from the Fat Albert gang and Willotree's grammar will become instantly understandababble.