The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

No. I did not deem it INFERIOR. It was WRONG. The Idea Center source commike used claimed that the Scientific American article states exactly the opposite of what it did state, and used deliberately dishonest quote-mining to make its point. No, it was NOT a matter of ANALYSIS, it was a matter of pure DISHONESTY.The Idea Center article claimed that the Theory of Evolution prevented/prolonged the discovery of functional "junk" DNA, and they were stupid enough to repeatedly cite the Scientific American article describing the research.The Scientific American article clearly states that the Theory of Evolution was used as the basis of the discovery, so it could not have been a hindrance. It is not a matter of "analysis" when someone directly contradicts the content of its sources.The Idea Center insults anyone who follows their writings - they fill their essays with boldface lies, yet reference the truth. Anyone checking their references will easily find the misrepresentation.In fact, why don't you do that?: Here is the Idea Center source.Here is the Scientific American article they base it upon.Here is my analysis pointing out the dishonesty.Faith - I am not trying to trick you; I am not trying to make some point about different types of sources; I am not dismissing ID claims.I am simply trying to let you know that at least one ID organization, The Idea Center, is a dishonest propaganda machine that lies to make its points.Admitting this point in no way refutes your beliefs/philosophy on the point of ID - but I hope it will open your eyes to the deceitful tactics used by many ID groups.

Can I suggest that you give people more reason to believe you're right than just making clear that you're upset? No matter who is right or wrong, it is the person in a rage whose words carry the least weight with onlookers. There are effective ways to make a point. If the point you're making is that you're upset, I think that point has been communicated. If you're trying to show that Christians cam be impassioned, you've again succeeded. But if you're trying to present the Christian viewpoint as sound, rational and carefully considered then you have to begin behaving in a way consistent with that image. Railing against all and sundry only gives evangelical Christianity a black eye and you the appearance of a loon.Administrative forbearance is not infinite. I'm inclined to let you run on in your current manner for a while because it's the weekend, the weather's finally warm (at least here in the northeast), and everyone should have some fun by being able to kick loose in a freer debate than we usually allow here. But someone with your gifts should not be squandering them as you're now doing. People get to remain here by what they actually bring to the party, not by what they had the potential to bring.This message has been edited by Admin, 04-08-2005 08:33 PM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi, Faith, you seem to have based your time here on a 'Them vs Us' rationale. I don`t think you realise many here come from a Christian background, who, after years of study, assessing and soul-searching, have moved to their present stance. While the journey may have been in vain from a certain viewpoint, most regard it as as a triumph of rationality over irrationality. Many of the arguments you present have been part of the journey so it`s merely rehashing old long-settled points. Now, you can make that trip yourself with the help of short-cuts from those who went before, or you can find your own way. But don`t waste the mind you have defending the indefensible, at least to those who have made the transition.

You're quite right; I didn't draw as clear a distinction between accepting a theory and the theory itself as I might have liked.I mean, lets say this. Pretend that its the 50's, and I'm advancing my new theory of Continental Drift, and opposing all the Continental Non-drifters, and the reason that I support this view is because it came to me in a vision.Now, my theory might very well turn out to be correct, but isn't my acceptance of it, on nothing more than the basis of a really bad reaction to some mushrooms, fairly unscientific? And would anyone really be blamed for telling me that my Continental Drift theory simply wasn't scientific, either?

Faith, did it ever occur to you that your anger and discomfort is because of the weakness of your arguments? And which mental sets are those? Is it everyone else who is wrong again?

Pink Sasquatch has challenged me a number of times to address his/her claim that the ID Idea Center lied. So I finally went and read through the posts and the link, and my answer in a nutshell is that this is typical of the evo attitude toward creationists. You MUST accuse them of evil motives. There is no such thing as giving the benefit of the doubt. If someone says something you consider to be wrong, your immediate conclusion is that they are committing an intentional moral evil.This is the MAIN kind of response I've encountered to me throughout my exchanges here that has driven me to my recent meltdown, by the way, so this needs to be explained. This is a fallacious way of dealing with Commike's point, and the ID Idea Center's: The point was that scientists with ToE assumptions determined that the DNA called "junk DNA" was indeed junk, that is, nonfunctional. That is, the ToE influenced this view of junk DNA because it was evolutionists who came up with that view of it. Very strange misrepresentation you give that the FORMULATION of the ToE had anything to do with his remarks. Bad bad thinking here. You have utterly misrepresented both Commike and the Idea Center. The point was that it was evolutionist assumptions that originated the idea of junk DNA or nonfunctional DNA, and that it is possible that scientists with design assumptions rather than evolutionist assumptions would not have made that mistake in the first place.Yes, eventually the evolutionists got around to discovering their mistake, but it is that very fact that leads the ID people to consider that scientists with design assumptions would have made the discovery a lot sooner, and that in fact the very concept of "junk DNA" might not ever have been thought up, as it seems to be more in keeping with evo assumptions than ID assumptions. Yes, FINALLY, but the very concept of "junk" DNA was an evolutionist assumption in the first place. THAT is the point. FINALLY the evolutionists get around to seeing functionality in what they previously defined as "junk," but again, the point is that an ID scientist could very well have arrived at this idea in the first place and there never would have been such a concept as "junk" DNA.This is not lying. All that has happened here is that you have completely misread the information and jumped to the meanest conclusion, that they lied, when it was really nothing but your own mistake. How Commike feels I have no idea, but how I happen to feel is that evos such as yourself are only too eager to accuse a creationist of lying and other scurrilous behavior.If you'd stopped to think for half a minute you might have discovered how wrong you were about the meaning of this information. In fact the first clue OUGHT to be that NOBODY is "moronic enough" to assume that others are "moronic enough" not to follow up. The first thing that SHOULD have crossed your mind is that they would KNOW that bloodthirsty evos are always lying in wait to catch out any mistake by creationists and call it something evil, like lying. How eager you are to consider creationists both moronic and evil.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-09-2005 01:03 AM

Well......why didn't they? Why is it that all - I do mean 100% - of the information and research cited by creationists and ID'ists for their position had to be uncovered by evolutionists?I mean, that's pretty much the biggest indication that creationism and ID, if there's even a difference, aren't science at all, but just ideology and poor argumentation that would simply fade away if they didn't have evolution to both kick around and do their homework for them.

quote:

---

It wasn't WRONG, it was merely deemed INFERIOR.

​

No. I did not deem it INFERIOR. It was WRONG. The Idea Center source commike used claimed that the Scientific American article states exactly the opposite of what it did state, and used deliberately dishonest quote-mining to make its point.

---

It may not have been you who complained about the reference being a popular science magazine rather than a major journal article, I don't remember, but the idea was that such a reference is inferior evidence.And as I just got through proving, the article is quite clear and is exactly as the ID Idea Center represented it and as Commike represented it. It is you who mistook what it is saying. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty but if a creationist made such a mistake as you just made that's what you would do. You have a very low threshold for believing an opponent of yours is stupid enough to do such a thing. Funny it never occurred to you that you were misunderstanding this whole thing. No, ID people are both stupid and morally bankrupt. That kind of accusation gets pretty hard to take after a while. Interesting how rapidly the evos gravitate to that explanation for everything they find wrong with creationist behavior. In fact they gravitate to finding things wrong in the first place, explanations aside, with an amazing alacrity instead of giving the benefit of the doubt. Well, in case you've missed the point I've made many times already, I'll make it again: It was a hindrance to the recognition of the functionality of the "junk" DNA in the first place, which is why they CALLED it "junk DNA"Then eventually it was evolutionists who did discover that it has some functionality (of course -- who else would be doing that kind of science?). Eventually.And it's not so clear to me that it was the evolutionist assumptions that led them to their new understanding of it, just some tests they decided to do to check the functionality of these sections of DNA -- but this isn't an important point so please don't get hung up on it. What would you call it when somebody such as yourself insists something was a direct contradiction which wasn't at all and accuses people of an awful breach of ethics based only on your own mistake? Yes, well I have. I hope you are getting the point finally. Well, my dear, you are very very wrong and I hope you will own up to it and apologize to Commike. Well I start from the premise that creationists are neither stupid enough nor morally corrupt enough to do the kinds of things evos so readily accuse them of. A little benefit of the doubt, putting yourself in their shoes, that sort of thing, would go a long way to disabusing you guys of this unfair attitude of yours.Actually I don't agree with ID and in fact I have completely different suspicions about the meaning of junk DNA.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-09-2005 01:36 AM

This is a change of subject. How about first acknowledging that I've made the point quite clearly that the accusation of lying was wrong?This message has been edited by Faith, 04-09-2005 01:42 AM

I have learned this from being here, and I have to say I consider it very sad. I'm sure they believe they have excellent reasons, but I believe the Biblical way to deal with these conflicts is always to trust God's written revealed word first and human reasoning when it accords with it or at least doesn't contradict it. I also have an advantage, perhaps, for holding to this position, in that I started out a pretty strong atheist who took evolution for granted and only began to consider creationist arguments after becoming a Christian.It IS "us vs. them" here, no getting around that. It is too bad but I find I have to be on the opposite side of Christians here. They are "them" to me unfortunately.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-09-2005 02:17 AM

Thank you. You sobered me up. I had simply given up on anything making any sense, but you are right it is still worth a try.

How about not? In my book, when you make assertions that you know aren't true, that's lying. Either we're to presume that creationists like the Idea Center are unable to read text put in front of them, or else they're putting forth assertions that they know are wrong.That would either make them idiots or liars. It's up to you, I guess, which one we're supposed to consider them.Junk DNA being junk wasn't an evolutionary concusion; in fact, it's the opposite of an evolutionary conclusion. There's no evolutionary reason that an organism should have non-functional DNA sequences given that there's a non-zero metabolic cost for the constant replication of these sequences. They shouldn't exist. And as it turns out, they don't. They have functions. Evolution wins again.Personally I think PS gives them too much credit; he assumes that the Idea Center actually bothered to find out the truth before spouting their falsehoods. I doubt they did any more work than opening a magazine. So while PS feels that they're liars, I disagree. My view is the alternative; they're idiots.Yeah, I know you're going to have a big hissy-fit about it. Well, that's tough. That's what comes of advocating a position so obviously and thouroughly wrong.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone for whom this isn't true? Is there anybody that was convinced by creationism's own "scientific" or evidentiary merits, rather than being forced into creationism as a point of dogma stemming from a conversion to or upbringing in faith?

quote:

---

Ok, last post from me about this, I swear. Although I understand why you think my comment was a cheap shot, I assure you that it came from pure frustration rather than malice.
Faith, and many others (mainly creationists) tend to make cheap shot comments as they go along and when someone asks them to support they either disappear for a few days or say "it's off-topic..."

---

I suspect you are misunderstanding my motives and others' motives for this apparent behavior, if in fact you are describing anything real or typical at all rather than exaggerating. Sometimes a challenge hits me as really not worth responding to. Unfortunately you may think it is. Sometimes I have other things I have to do, and just never get back to a thread. Lately I've become fed up with the whole situation and have left many threads dangling. This isn't some kind of conspiracy on my part to frustrate you. I've been pretty conscientious about following out threads. It's only recently that attitudes here have led me to think the whole thing isn't worth the effort. I'm surprised that anybody would drop the ball on this one. In Leviticus 20 God condemns male homosexuality ("to lie with a man as with a woman") with a sentence of death; Genesis 19 describes the men of Sodom's attempted homosexual assault on Lot's angelic guests and God's judgment against the city for that and their other sins; and Romans 1 is the New Testament's condemnation of homosexuality including female homosexuality. I could post them all but you could also look them up at Blue Letter Bible if you like. I'm not aware of doing this, but lately I have given up being very careful so it may be true of me lately. Are you sure this is a fair assessment of me or is this just the typical evo inability to make sense of why creationists say what they say? This sort of thing is in fact done all the time here, and I end up having to remind people of getting off topic. And, although you and others may have a different impression, I insist that I do NOT put my comments in "inappropriately" but where they belong in context.

quote:

---

How about first acknowledging that I've made the point quite clearly that the accusation of lying was wrong?

​

How about not? In my book, when you make assertions that you know aren't true, that's lying. Either we're to presume that creationists like the Idea Center are unable to read text put in front of them, or else they're putting forth assertions that they know are wrong.

---

Well I've proved you absolutely wrong about their reading, their reasoning and their motives and until you acknowledge this I am simply not discussing it further with you. I made the point. It's made. Apparently you can't think through my post which makes it extremely clear that PS was absolutely wrong, and so are you. Well, I'm sorry, but that makes you someone I have no reason to discuss any of this with.