Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Darwinists are Liars
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 16 of 37 (379555)
01-24-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mick
01-23-2007 6:18 PM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
In what sense *do* biologists worship animals?
[I changed "to" to "do" - Ray]
Hi Mick:
Good phraseology to use the word "sense" which tells me that you know that I am NOT arguing that Darwinian biologists actually engage in ancient-style idol/animal worship.
I am saying that they contend that we (= humans) descend from apes who did the same from another animal who did the same from another - perpetually. In other words, Darwinists say animals are our maker and not the Genesis Creator.
Idol worship is ***anything*** that takes the place of God. Opposition thinks that just because they do not fashion an animal out of wood or bronze and bow down to it that they are not guilty of idol worship.
Modern idol worship is Darwinism (= macroevolution replacing special creation).
My second point is that "darwinists" are only liars if they "turn the truth of god into a lie". If I don't believe in God then I can hardly be lying when I say I think he doesn't exist. I may be mistaken but I'm being perfectly honest.
Darwinists DID know "the truth of God." Darwin and all Victorian naturalism science were (past tense) Creationists and Christians who accepted the Argument from Design (Paley's Watchmaker thesis).
They turned THAT truth into the lie of mindless (= God not involved) natural selection, which said NS means it is the creator and not God. Design is an illusion and not actual.
You probably do not agree but do you understand?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mick, posted 01-23-2007 6:18 PM mick has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 37 (379556)
01-24-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
01-24-2007 12:07 AM


When Paul said "to all that be at Rome" he was talking to the newly formed Church at Rome, which was the house of Caradoc (ex-king of Seluria) and his converted brother Rufus, a Roman Senator. Read Romans chapter 16 for a list of persons in that Church.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 01-24-2007 12:07 AM Taz has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 18 of 37 (379557)
01-24-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jon
01-24-2007 9:46 AM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
This is true, but you imply an almost religious adherence to the Darwinian theory--a sort of Darwin worshipping--simply because scientists use his name to give him his due credit (such as: Ptolemaic System, Copernican Principle, Brownian Motion, etc.).
Negative.
I do not imply it; I say it explicitly because Darwinism is a religion. Their deity is Natural Selection.
It DOES NOT serve the same purpose as Christian, for example, which is used to show the religious devotion of a particular people to their religion's founder (Christ).
I know that this is what you guys believe, but we know it is idol worship of a false prophet (Charles Darwin).
When scientists name ideas and theories after those who first came up with them, they do it out of respect, and to give credit; not in order that they may worship them!
True, but in this case Darwin is the exception. Darwinists worship Darwin and animals as our maker no matter how much you deny and mis-portray the idolatry as science.
Macroevolution is an assumption; assumptions are not evidence.
Okay, tell me this: where in the theory of evolution does it say anything about worshipping animals? SNIP....
By advocating common ancestry by macroevolution instead of God as Creator.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 01-24-2007 9:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 11:27 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 37 (379562)
01-24-2007 4:41 PM


Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin:
"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything."
"Testing the Theory of Natural Selection" Nature March 24, 1972 p.181
[colorization emphasis mine - Ray]
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 11:09 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 11:44 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 1:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 01-25-2007 6:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 37 (379725)
01-25-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
The power of a scientific theory is not only in what it can explain, but also in what it can predict. What predictions can the theory of God make? Will it help us to understand what sort of fossils we might find at a dig site?
Second, evolution does not explain everything. It simply explains the methods by which the Earth came to contain such a vast array of species, i.e., biological diversity. It doesn't explain the origins of the Universe, the workings of an internal combustion engine, the circuitry of a computer chip. While the theory of evolution is an important one, it only explains one thing (and perhaps a few more) among the millions (billions?) of things that could be explained.
Such a theory can never be falsified...
Sure it can! We could make a REAL find of lets say, dinosaurs living with humans, or something else that would make evolution too remote of a possibility. The fact that we haven't yet proven it false does not mean the theory is non-falsifiable, it simply means that the theory is pretty damn good!
J0N
Edited by Jon, : Conventions!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 37 (379731)
01-25-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2007 4:35 PM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
...it is idol worship of a false prophet (Charles Darwin).
A prophet? A prophet of what? Charles Darwin discovered the evidence of evolution on his OWN! There was no supernatural being leading him through the Galopagos... it's not like the story of Moses at all!
True, but in this case Darwin is the exception. Darwinists worship Darwin and animals as our maker no matter how much you deny and mis-portray the idolatry as science.
You must prove this. You cannot simply restate it over and over again hoping that will make it true. Either back up your claim that evolution is a religion, or retract it. You will have to show the following:
1) Evolution holds a position in the minds of those who accept it similar to a position other religions would hold in the minds of their followers.
2) Evolution is primarily a faith-based system, relying only somewhat (if at all) on real, i.e., emperical, evidence.
3) Evolution, like most other religions, offers advice on how to live one's life (such as Christianity tells believers how to live by God's word, does evolution tell us how to act and behave on a day-to-day basis in order that we may feel closer to the belief of evolution?)
Those are all the things I can come up with for now, but I'm sure other people will think of some.
By advocating common ancestry by macroevolution instead of God as Creator.
Perhaps evolutionists do this because God isn't the creator (at least not the creator of biological diversity), and because macroevolution DID/DOES/IS happening, and because common ancestry is the BEST explanation to-date that explains the biological diversity of life on planet Earth.
Now, what evidence do YOU have that God is the creator? Maybe the Creatory is Zeus? Ammun-Re? If you have any evidence that points to a creator, what makes you so certain that it is YOUR creator? Wouldn't you be just as wrong as the evolutionists if you were worshipping the wrong God?
J0N

Realizing that Herepton has been using the term "Darwinism" (although in a cult-like way) to refer simply to the theory of evolution, I have chosen to refer to it as "evolution" through the rest of my posts. The same also applies to "evolutionists" (those who accept the evolutionary model), and other variations of the word(s).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 22 of 37 (379742)
01-25-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
Hi Ray,
Lewontin did not believe anything such as is stated in that paragraph. Not having access to the original article I can only guess what the actual context was. Possibly this paragraph was preceded by the sentence, "The usual argument against natural selection goes like this."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2007 3:12 PM Percy has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 37 (379793)
01-25-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2007 4:41 PM


To Sink so Low...
After reading Percy's post, I went in search of the article you stole that from:
bevets.com is for sale | HugeDomains
I can no longer participate in a debate where one of the members would sink so low as to use a tactic such as you have here. Dr. Lewontin never said these things, and they are not his own words. Not only did you mis-credit the information, but you misrepresented the opinion of a learned professor qualified to speak on the subject!
I can only assume that these tactics were in fact intentional, and not accidental. I am led to believe that you purposefully misquoted Lewontin for personal gain, or that the research techniques you used were pathetically inferior to those that would be expected of someone participating in an honestly academic debate!
You are not worthy of my time.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 2:01 PM Jon has replied
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2007 3:17 PM Jon has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 37 (379797)
01-25-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jon
01-25-2007 1:42 PM


Re: To Sink so Low...
Jon writes:
Dr. Lewontin never said these things, and they are not his own words.
I wasn't able to find any indication that those weren't Lewontin's words. Are you sure he didn't write them?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 1:42 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 4:52 PM Percy has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 25 of 37 (379826)
01-25-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
01-25-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
Lewontin did not believe anything such as is stated in that paragraph. Not having access to the original article I can only guess what the actual context was. Possibly this paragraph was preceded by the sentence, "The usual argument against natural selection goes like this."
Yeah, Hi Percy:
Lewontin is one of the few evolutionists who routinely let the cat out of the bag. I must admit that when I first read the quote I almost fell out of my chair. I posted the quote WITH SOURCE CITE. The outer and larger context of the quote was made in context of special pleading. Lewontin, who of course, is probably the most respected geneticist of the past century, was arguing that natural selection deserves an exemption to the falisification principle based on the alleged fact that it really does explain most everything and repels falsification.
Lewontin did not believe anything such as is stated in that paragraph.
Unsupported assertion.
Not having access to the original article I can only guess what the actual context was.
The context argues for an exemption to the falsification principle based on overwhelming scientific evidence.
No one can say he did not say it unless you have evidence, and if you assert he did not mean what he said then why did he say what he did not mean?
I could post the larger context, but opponents (JON) need to abandon "he didn't say it" nonsense since the source cite was provided. The onus is on JON and I acknowledge that you only doubted its overall meaning.
Do you have any interest in discussing NS with me?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 11:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 4:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 4:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 26 of 37 (379831)
01-25-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jon
01-25-2007 1:42 PM


Re: To Sink so Low...or the truth hurts?
I can no longer participate in a debate where one of the members would sink so low as to use a tactic such as you have here. Dr. Lewontin never said these things, and they are not his own words. Not only did you mis-credit the information, but you misrepresented the opinion of a learned professor qualified to speak on the subject!
I am sorry you view the evidence as an attack on your faith in Darwinian science. The quote was posted with reference. You have no issue or point or ground to stand on.
Please leave this Forum since I plan on posting even more quotes from Lewontin that will undoubtedly exacerbate your anger.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 1:42 PM Jon has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 27 of 37 (379844)
01-25-2007 3:41 PM


Special Pleading
Creationists say the appearance of design, at face value, logically corresponds to invisible Designer.
Darwinists say the same corresponds to the work of a mindless process (natural selection) which somehow produces the counter effectual appearances.
The latter is special pleading, the former straightforward deduction based on observation.
Creationists assume the appearance of design indicates the work of an invisible Designer.
Darwinists assume the appearances do not.
Romans 1:25 says the subjects changed the "truth OF God" (= appearance of design) "into a lie" (= the appearance does not mean Designer but an antonym). These same persons then say we came from "creatures" and not from the Creator.
This is why all Darwinists are liars.
Face value is asserted to represent something antonymic.
Appearance of design = Designer: what more does God have to do?
Ray

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 28 of 37 (379851)
01-25-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
01-25-2007 3:12 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
Herepton writes:
The outer and larger context of the quote was made in context of special pleading.
Can you provide that "outer and larger context" please?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2007 3:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2007 5:37 PM Percy has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 37 (379867)
01-25-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
01-25-2007 2:01 PM


Re: To Sink so Low...
You seem to be most-likely correct; I withdraw my statements about the miscrediting of quotes.
This, however, in no way makes taking such quotes out of context right, and Herepton should still, at the very least, apologize for misquoting.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 2:01 PM Percy has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 37 (379871)
01-25-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
01-25-2007 3:12 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
I posted the quote WITH SOURCE CITE.
I don't want to get too picky here, nor too off-topic, but unless you retyped the words that you saw in the physical edition of Nature on page 181, then you have not properly cited the source.
I am assuming that you got it off the Internet, in which case you should have also cited the website you copy-pasted it from. If this was not the case, then I apologize, but nevertheless, I will shut up now, as I no longer plan to participate in this debate.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2007 3:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024