Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

At least you have the decency to respond, many others just posted common insults which anyone can do.Your replies would also be more effective minus the grade school put-downs.I am going to respond to this post of yours ASAP.There are not any words in post #116 that need spelling correction, or enough of them to warrant your last accusation. What are you talking about ?

The claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry say that no position is taken concerning the Divine.God, in the book of Romans says the true intent of MN and RE is to take a position concerning Him. God saw the true intent of those who subscribe to these methods and He tells on them.You can claim that MN and RE are God neutral but Romans says they are not.On one hand, when challenged about making conclusions about the Divine you quickly point to these methods and their definitions, then as soon as this falsehood is invoked the deception continues under this disguise. God isn't fooled and neither am I thanks to Romans.
Every atheist paleontolgist offers their evidence as evidence that God is not the Creator, and this fact is not nullified because of the defintions contained in MN and RE.God only demands that He be credited as the ultimate Creator. But the pseudo claims of MN and RE will not even allow that. By saying no position is taken, a position is being taken. That position excludes God as a possibility, and this position is what triggers God's response of insight removal - the inner ability to recognize His fingerprints in what is made.MN and RE are sound methods to determine truth. I am only arguing against their ridiculous God neutral declarations. What about TE ?
What about them ? They credit God and thats all He demands/asks.
I criticize TE for not having the courage to claim the scientific discoveries for God without qualification. Instead they let the atheists of neo Darwinism get away with their silly MN and RE claims."God sense" and your description of it as nonsense reveals you have none. Mainstream christianity is just like the majorities found in the Bible - they are always wrong.Francis Crick doesn't have any God sense either. Space aliens ? Come on !Stephen Hawking's imaginary time ?Carl Sagan's "....cosmos is all there ever was..."They will conclude anything and everything BUT God. That is God senselessness demonstrated.The ONLY conclusion I ever made was to declare defective any claim of certainty that is offered as proof that God does not exist, and any claim of certainty offered by a person with no God sense. And I explained the defect and its cause.I have to get off line, I will respond to the rest of your post ASAP.

Could you show me where in the scientific literature it says "There is no God"? Search PubMed and see if you can find a peer-reviewed article on the existence of God.

Me thinks WT is actually pulling the ol' "If they're not for us they're against us" routine. By virtue of mn NOT including anything concerning god it automatically is discluding him/her. That must make it extremely easy to debate..."the fact that you don't agree with me means you are anti-god".

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

You missed my point.Romans says it and Romans was written by Paul under the inspiration of God.What don't you understand ?

We seem to be back to the Bible. Did you have any real, scientific evidence? It seems you are going to go on making unsupported assertions.This thread isn't concerned with God's existance or lack thereof. It is supposed to be an opportunity for you to show how evolution is wrong with good, solid, verifiable, independent, scientific evidence. What it has done instead is show that you have none.

---

Common sense isn't

The Bible isn't evidence, because the Bible wasn't written by God. So the fact that evolution refutes the Bible is hardly evidence that evolution means no God.What don't you understand?

Perhaps Willowtree wishes the name be changed from methodological naturalism to methodological supernaturalism?What would be the change needed for rational enquiry? Irrational supposition?Ignorance is always ready to admire itself. Procure yourself
critical friends.
Nicolas Boileau, 1674[This message has been edited by sidelined, 02-01-2004]

I agree with Ned, this thread was made to address scientific evidence against evolution. Let's keep bible discussions and the existence of god to the other threads.

Hi Willowtree,
If I responded in some parts of my post with sarcasm, it is because you too often make absolute statements about science while at the same time, admitting in some instances, that your background in the subject is not strong. But in any case, glad to see you are interested in the subject.

quote:

---

The claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry say that no position is taken concerning the Divine.
God, in the book of Romans says the true intent of MN and RE is to take a position concerning Him. God saw the true intent of those who subscribe to these methods and He tells on them.

​

You can claim that MN and RE are God neutral but Romans says they are not.

---

The problem with this is the bible has nothing to say about methodological naturalism. Do you know that methodological naturalism is just another way of saying science? It is not a philosophical position. It is a tool for finding the best, evidence supported, testable and falsifiable explanation for natural observations. That is why the supernatural is not included.

quote:

---

On one hand, when challenged about making conclusions about the Divine you quickly point to these methods and their definitions, then as soon as this falsehood is invoked the deception continues under this disguise. God isn't fooled and neither am I thanks to Romans.
Every atheist paleontolgist offers their evidence as evidence that God is not the Creator, and this fact is not nullified because of the defintions contained in MN and RE.

---

I am not sure where you get this either. Scientists in the scientific literature make no statements about the divine. Paleontologists, in the primary literature, write primarily descriptive works i.e. this fossil has characteristic X,Y, and Z. Same with molecular biolgists though the description tends to be about a process rather than a single event i.e. one fossil..unless one describes a gene and its structure/function. I challenge you to open any issue of Science or Nature and find an article on paleontology that claims that there is no creator.

quote:

---

God only demands that He be credited as the ultimate Creator. But the pseudo claims of MN and RE will not even allow that. By saying no position is taken, a position is being taken. That position excludes God as a possibility, and this position is what triggers God's response of insight removal - the inner ability to recognize His fingerprints in what is made.

---

The human genome project was a public and privately funded undertaking to develope sequencing methods and then determine the sequence of the entire human genome. This was followed by annotation of the genome (still in progress). What about this project is a "pseudo claim" of MN? In what way would the science benefit from running around praying? How has religion ever made a single contribution to any scientific endeavor?You claim you have some "godsense" that gives you a better insight into science than I could have as a scientist or anyone else. So please use you godsense to tell me the precise number, distribution, and frequency of recomibination of HERV-K elements near centromeres in the human genome. I would really like to know this for my own research and since you claim that MN is insufficient to make any determination, I assume your super powered sense should allow you to provide the evidence right away.

quote:

---

MN and RE are sound methods to determine truth. I am only arguing against their ridiculous God neutral declarations. What about TE ?
What about them ? They credit God and thats all He demands/asks.
I criticize TE for not having the courage to claim the scientific discoveries for God without qualification. Instead they let the atheists of neo Darwinism get away with their silly MN and RE claims.

---

You have still to provide a single example where the merely stating that a creator exists has any benefit for any descriptive science. It seems you are making an appeal just to make yourself feel better by having other people acknowledge your diety..this makes your faith sound extremely weak. There are no scientific discoveries for god/gods/demi-gods etc because they are not amendable to test or falsifiablilty and thus no evidence can be gleaned to support or refute their existence. Hence, the supernatural is ignored and not just be neo-Darwinists but but by chemists, physicists, engineers, and every other flavor of scientist.

quote:

---

"God sense" and your description of it as nonsense reveals you have none. Mainstream christianity is just like the majorities found in the Bible - they are always wrong.

---

You have no objective way to evaluate this bizarre statement.

quote:

---

The ONLY conclusion I ever made was to declare defective any claim of certainty that is offered as proof that God does not exist, and any claim of certainty offered by a person with no God sense. And I explained the defect and its cause.

---

1. science has no way of making any claims regarding god so there is no real science that has the aim of proving that god does not exist. This seems to be a fear of yours regarding scientists that stems directly from your lack of experience and background with scientific work.
2. I cannot take your claims of certainty when you clearly do not even know what scientists are doing. You are able to type on a computer because of MN and not "godsense". You also have completely failed to show that you have any unique insight into any aspect of science (though I am waiting for your report on HERV-K element distribution).

quote:

---

I have to get off line, I will respond to the rest of your post ASAP.

---

No problem, thake you time.cheers,
M

willowtree, where is your scientific evidence against evolution? No more nonsense about godsense.

The evidence against evolution is found primarily in Genesis. However, there are some excellent peer reviewed literature sources such as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and of course the Intelligent Design movement. I think you'll find some excellent refuation of evolutionary claims there. But specifically, observe that the created kinds have never been known to give rise to some other kind. Were that not the case, we'd have to accept evolution. Observe secondly that the fossils we have found for animals that are extinct can not be shown to be members of extant kinds. Thus, there has been no establishment that there is a factual evidenciary basis for evolutionary theory on the fossil record. I might add that since the Ark was found we have positively confirmed the flood episode and put to rest the claim that Noah was a myth.There's some things for starters.

We are after scientific evidence that is, things we can look at and test. Things that explain all the facts that we have. It is amazing that this didn't make CNN.Additionally you might want to read this site that Answers in Genesis references.
Has anyone discovered Noah's Ark? - ChristianAnswers.Netand I quote:

quote:

---

Due to a popular Hollywood movie released in theaters in 1976 ("In Search of Noah's Ark"), many people remain under the impression that Noah's Ark has definitely been found. Particularly memorable to many people was a fuzzy telephoto photograph of what some thought might be the Ark. Later expeditions proved that the object was simply a large rock formation.

​

In the 1980s and 90s, many were misled by network news stories and newspaper articles that claimed the Ark had been found at a completely different location. Reports were of a ship-shaped structure 15 miles from Mt. Ararat. Unfortunately, various exaggerated claims about this site were spread. This location is often referred to as the Durupinar Site. It was internationally promoted by an American nurse anesthetist named Ron Wyatt, known for making inaccurate claims. Geologic surveys, subsurface radar and core-drilling data later confirmed beyond any doubt that this odd formation is not the Ark. It is merely a geologic feature common throughout the Ararat region. [More Information]

---

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-03-2004]

---

Common sense isn't

Hi Nosy Ned. yes I think wyatt is the name of the archaeologist who has found it:http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-07.htmThey have a visitors center there. They also found pieces of wood that were deck timbers.

I suggest you do a bit of investigation at some of the creationist sites to see what they tell you about Wyatt. It seems he may not have been exactly truthful, according them anyway.

---

Common sense isn't