|
Post by Dan on Mar 18, 2020 23:45:31 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdfThere 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” ncse.ngo/project-steveMatt10
Evolution is only vital as a theory to disprove God, its only unifying in the sense that's its the only theory that addresses the variety of life forms, and its evidence is far from overwhelming. All things could also share a common Designer. Just because we have 98% DNA similarity with chimpanzees does not equate to common ancestry, 60 percent of our genes have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome, but its a far fetch idea to presume we are genetically linked to banana's via a common ancestor.. What's amusing is that evolutionist think that Creationist have active imaginations!!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 19, 2020 1:09:05 GMT -5
No sir, that totally requires the gift of faith. I was pretty sure you couldn’t. It’s always telling to note how believers apply different standards when it comes to testing the veracity of the beliefs of others as they do in relation to their own. The believer in the Christian God is quite content to use a scientific standard when scrutinising the beliefs of others but runs a mile at the thought of having their own beliefs scrutinised using the same plumb-line. Of course the reason for this is because Christian beliefs do not stand up to scientific scrutiny and the reason they do not stand up to scientific scrutiny is because they simply are not true. How, one might ask, can intelligent people believe things which from an engineer’s viewpoint can’t possibly be true and actually seem completely crazy? The answer is the gift of faith. The gift of faith is a convenient card to be played when the believer is having difficulty sustaining an argument. The gift of faith is a convenient way of explaining away belief in nonsense. How can you believe that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt? The gift of faith. How can you still believe that Jesus is coming back when it’s perfectly obvious that he’s not. The gift of faith. How can you believe that the world is a mere six thousand years old when the science clearly proves otherwise? The gift of faith. How can you possibly believe that God can regrow your foot given that there is not a single recorded example of this happening throughout human history? The gift of faith. The gift of faith comes only through severe religious conditioning and causes a distortion in how the believer views the world. Only two days ago my Christian neighbour claimed that the coronavirus was a sign that we were entering the last days. That was his gift of faith distorting his view of the world. Anyone with an ounce of wit knows that pandemics have been around for centuries right back to the time of the Antonine Plague, each one a sign to the believer of the end of the world no doubt, but still the world hasn’t ended. Anyone applying double standards cannot be relied upon to make an objective argument. And they certainly can’t be relied upon to make a scientific one. If one is willing to set aside the laws of physics as soon as they conflict with one’s own beliefs then one is not equipped to speak with any credibility on science or engineering. And I have to say it is ironic to be laying a change of ‘fairy tales which are “absurd in the highest possible degree”’ while claiming belief in a book which speaks of a beast with seven heads and a talking donkey. Matt10 Thank you, once more, Matt, -for laying out the essence of the matter so succinctly.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 19, 2020 1:25:08 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdfThere 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” ncse.ngo/project-steveMatt10
Evolution is only vital as a theory to disprove God, its only unifying in the sense that's its the only theory that addresses the variety of life forms, and its evidence is far from overwhelming.
All things could also share a common Designer.
Just because we have 98% DNA similarity with chimpanzees does not equate to common ancestry, 60 percent of our genes have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome, but its a far fetch idea to presume we are genetically linked to banana's via a common ancestor..
What's amusing is that evolutionist think that Creationist have active imaginations!!
Evolution purpose was NOT and is NOT to disprove a "god."
The only reason that people see it as such a purpose is that it threatens mankind's feeling of superiority in the scheme of life .
Just the same as mankind's feeling of not being special when they had to face the fact that the earth was NOT the center of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 19, 2020 5:02:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 19, 2020 6:00:03 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdfThere 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” ncse.ngo/project-steveMatt10 Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. “In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of” (From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.)
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 19, 2020 6:15:03 GMT -5
most people would call that levitation... Most would call it myth. Or stage magic.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2020 9:30:51 GMT -5
Really?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2020 9:31:18 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdfThere 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” ncse.ngo/project-steveMatt10 Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. “In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of” (From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.) Excellent
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2020 9:48:25 GMT -5
I've been looking at some weird sh- on the internet linking the virus to a greater conflict between Trump and the deep state, between good and evil.
Nathan....do you have anything to offer on this?
The weird internet sh- posits the virus was man-made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 11:07:31 GMT -5
In really glad this is not a serious discussion about science! I occasionally get bewildered by the ignorance on the philosophy of scientific reasoning.
A scientific consensus (obviously) isn't a means to avoid debate. It's a means for progressing forward while still collaborating. Since scientific methodology works best as a group effort, consensus allows is to get up in the morning and not have to determine whether cell theory is a workable assumption before we study cells (for example).
Imagine having to debate evolution as a concept before using it to create entirely new enzymes. It's absurd, and (thankfully) laughable outside of uneducated discussion.
That said, occasionally, an idea which was scientific consensus will be overturned or replaced entirely. Darwinian evolution "without Lamarckianism" was scientific consensus until (more or less) 70 years ago. Then, mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance began to come to light, and strict Darwinism is no longer even the scientific consensus (see "Modern Synthesis", "Neo-Darwinism" and now "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis").
This conversation seems as bizarre to a scientist as posting biblically backed refutations to binary code would seem to a computer analyst.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2020 11:36:05 GMT -5
It's not that bizarre. The risk of a consensus is it's potential to become orthodoxy.
So called science has changed its mind a few times.
Better to give credit where credit is due:
To an individual and quite often, her ability to think out of the box.
And last but not least to God himself, who is --- all the ideas we are only discovering.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 19, 2020 15:23:49 GMT -5
It's not that bizarre. The risk of a consensus is it's potential to become orthodoxy. So called science has changed its mind a few times. Better to give credit where credit is due: To an individual and quite often, her ability to think out of the box. And last but not least to God himself, who is --- all the ideas we are only discovering. Of course it changes it's mind. That's what happens when people are exploring and discovering new things. Often new data comes up that forces us to 'change our minds'. That's one of the reasons I trust science. It's never static, always changing with new discoveries etc. Why would you want it any other way really. At the moment we are trying to understand the covid-19 well enough to actually come up with a vaccine. Do you think we shouldn't 'change our mind' and just treat it like an old flu bug because that's something we once figured out so we treat them all the same. Sometimes I wonder if creationists ever think about why they are so upset with science changing 'it's mind' when it's to their ever lasting benefit for science to do just that!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2020 17:11:33 GMT -5
I have no problem with science per se.
I have a problem with mind control and sinners making decisions for me.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 19, 2020 17:22:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 17:38:22 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdfThere 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” ncse.ngo/project-steveMatt10
Evolution is only vital as a theory to disprove God, its only unifying in the sense that's its the only theory that addresses the variety of life forms, and its evidence is far from overwhelming. All things could also share a common Designer. Just because we have 98% DNA similarity with chimpanzees does not equate to common ancestry, 60 percent of our genes have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome, but its a far fetch idea to presume we are genetically linked to banana's via a common ancestor.. What's amusing is that evolutionist think that Creationist have active imaginations!!
It’s nice that you think it’s a “far fetch” idea that bananas and humans have a common ancestor, but bananas, being the fruit of a plant, and humans, being animals, do. The common ancestor was a protist—a single-celled, eukaryotic organism that had characteristics of both plants and animals. A protist may also have characteristics of fungi. Just because you find it impossible to believe doesn’t change the reality of it. Sources: www.bbc.com/earth/story/20140905-meet-the-ancestors-of-all-plants-and-animals, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protist
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 17:39:23 GMT -5
And the god(s) of the gaps grows ever smaller!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 19, 2020 18:54:52 GMT -5
I have no problem with science per se. I have a problem with mind control and sinners making decisions for me. Mind control? No one can control your mind. And, according to theists you are all sinners so that would include lawmakers. Kind of hard to not have a sinner making laws. But as far as making decisions for you, again, only you can make the decisions you make. Only you can control your mind.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2020 19:36:47 GMT -5
That's a reductive interpretation of reality, wbere people think and yet don't think, therein contaminating the pool of knowledge, or what passes for it.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2020 19:42:10 GMT -5
And the god(s) of the gaps grows ever smaller! You're a little late to the party, when people began imaging truth could be whatever they wanted it to be. Maybe if the commies had contained Corona in their own country we'd be in a better position to help them.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 20:01:42 GMT -5
And the god(s) of the gaps grows ever smaller! You're a little late to the party, when people began imaging truth could be whatever they wanted it to be. Maybe if the commies had contained Corona in their own country we'd be in a better position to help them. I’m pretty sure you mean “imagining” truth. I’ll take science over the Bible any day. At least science updates itself to better reflect reality vs. believers who twist and distort reality in an attempt to force it to fit an unchanging book written by people who were ignorant of science and much about reality. I realize “the commies” refers to China where COVID-19 originated. What that and the rest of your post has to do with my post I have no idea? In totality, your post comes off as meaningless babble—another failed attempt to sound deep.
|
|
|
Post by benar on Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdfThere 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” ncse.ngo/project-steveMatt10
Evolution is only vital as a theory to disprove God, its only unifying in the sense that's its the only theory that addresses the variety of life forms, and its evidence is far from overwhelming. All things could also share a common Designer. Just because we have 98% DNA similarity with chimpanzees does not equate to common ancestry, 60 percent of our genes have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome, but its a far fetch idea to presume we are genetically linked to banana's via a common ancestor.. What's amusing is that evolutionist think that Creationist have active imaginations!!
Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your father? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great-great grandfather? And so on. Where on this continuum do you think the DNA/relation link breaks down and why?
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 20:25:06 GMT -5
It's not that bizarre. The risk of a consensus is it's potential to become orthodoxy. So called science has changed its mind a few times. Better to give credit where credit is due: To an individual and quite often, her ability to think out of the box. And last but not least to God himself, who is --- all the ideas we are only discovering. Of course it changes it's mind. That's what happens when people are exploring and discovering new things. Often new data comes up that forces us to 'change our minds'. That's one of the reasons I trust science. It's never static, always changing with new discoveries etc. Why would you want it any other way really. At the moment we are trying to understand the covid-19 well enough to actually come up with a vaccine. Do you think we shouldn't 'change our mind' and just treat it like an old flu bug because that's something we once figured out so we treat them all the same. Sometimes I wonder if creationists ever think about why they are so upset with science changing 'it's mind' when it's to their ever lasting benefit for science to do just that! This is an excellent post snow. Well said!! The fact that science’s model of reality evolves over time is one of science’s greatest strengths—it reflects its ability to change/improve as it accumulates greater knowledge. The fact that “holy” books like the Quran and bible are the “final, unchanging word of a god” is one of religion’s greatest weaknesses (of which there are many). Religions like Christianity and Islam have no room to accommodate reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 20:27:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 20:30:55 GMT -5
Such an effective rebuttal! My guess is you didn’t bother to read the article. If you did, surely you could come up with something better than that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 20:33:44 GMT -5
False religion is rejectable. My experience with secularism is it tends to kick you back to theism in a quest to find handles to it. that's interesting. I can't say that I agree, but I can't be reasonably certain I disagree. I love it when people do this to me (no sarcasm). Something to mull over. I am wondering what your definition of "false religion" is? I like James 1:27 for its opposite:"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Would false religion be then essentially be selfishness and recklessness indulgence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 20:35:18 GMT -5
Such an effective rebuttal! My guess is you didn’t bother to read the article. If you did, surely you could come up with something better than that! actually i did....
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 20:44:19 GMT -5
I have no problem with science per se. I have a problem with mind control and sinners making decisions for me. Lol! Applying the same standard to yourself, I guess that makes you sinless by the standards of Christianity. I’m assuming you do make decisions for yourself after all. Either that, or you are a sinner, and consequently make bad decisions for yourself. I guess that’s alright though as long as you’re the one making the decisions. If you resort to your god makes the decisions for you, that is not something a Christian god can do, even if it exists. First there’s the problem of a god communicating its will in a non-subjective manner, and, secondly it would violate the free will Christians claim for the Christian god to make decisions for you.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 20:48:46 GMT -5
Such an effective rebuttal! My guess is you didn’t bother to read the article. If you did, surely you could come up with something better than that! actually i did.... Since you said nothing that disproves the article’s claims, the article and its claims stand then.
|
|