Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Alcohol and mental medication just don't mix very well. Now I have solitary confinement for a week. Oh well, at least there will be ORDER.
Hmmm, why is the surface of the sun cooler than the surface of the sun? I'll have to think about that one. Or maybe you'd care to reframe your question.
I have a question? Why are we talking about astronomy and cosmology when they have nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution?
(raises hand)
I know, I know!!
Teacher, "yes shubi?"
Creationuts don't know beans about biology!
Teacher, "that's right, you get a star by your name"
Because biblical literalists don't just deny modern biological science (which is pretty much centred around the ToE). Their insistence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old denies the rest of science too. If they chuck out the bathwater the baby must surely follow. I never cease to be bewildered at the blinkeredness of people sitting at their PCs attached to the internet typing in their rejection of science.
My participation in this thread has been in response to creationist misunderstandings and falsehoods about things cosmological. I didn't introduce them into the thread.
Yeah, I know. It was mostly a rhetorical question.
http://www.christianforums.com/t79954&highlight=speciation
Speciation
One of the themes of creationist websites is that we have never observed the formation of a new species. Basing a position on "we have never observed" is always very dangerous. It assumes:
1. You have searched all the relevant information and are thus aware of all that has been done in the field.
2. All the relevant experiments have been done and come up negative. That is, you have tried everything or searched everywhere and therefore can say confidently that you haven't seen what should be there. It's like my saying "There is no couch in your living room." without ever having looked in your living room.
What I am going to post is my list of papers that I have looked at personally and which show the formation of new species. It is not a complete list because I haven't searched the entire scientific literature on the subject. Most of the papers I am posting have references to other instances of observed speciation.
Now, a common response is to move the goalposts and say "the new species is still a fly." This misses two points:
1. The original statement specified species.
2. Species are all there are in nature. "Flies" are actually a family of hundreds of species. Once you get a new species then you will inevitably get a new genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. Simply because these are groups of species. Remember, Darwin's book was Origin of the Species. The one and only diagram in Origin -- http://pages.britishlibrary.net/cha...igin6th_04.html -- shows how many speciations eventually lead to new genera and other "higher taxa". There is no way to stop it. Once you have the formation of new species, you are done. Evolution.
So, here is the list:
General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology
Teacher. 49:3436.
Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm
Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.
Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.
Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.
New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.
Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
That's all right. It was mostly a rhetorical answer, up on my soapbox. ;)
Great speciation lists.
St Augustine said something similar to your final quotes.
It is best to have good theology as an underpinning before attempting to interpret the Bible. ;-)
OK, so you don't understand the 2nd Law, and/or you agree that the Big Bang has no foundation in science but does so in science fiction.
Just because you desperately hope that order can come from chaos doesn't make the 2nd Law disappear.
We can add to "God haters", "liars" and "fools". Why? Because there is a list (an abbreviated one posted in this thread before) of Creationist scientists who are considered the Founders of science. Ever heard of Issac Newton? Also, I am still wondering how Big Bangers/Evolutionists or, a better description, "God Haters", have applied their evolutionary world view to create the internet, jet travel or mobile phones. What is so special about a faith system that imagines matter from nothing, life from non-life, order from chaos, and spends countless dollars looking for little green men in space (SETI) that without these things we wouldn't have a cell phone to annoy our fellow motorists with?
Actually, SETI is interesting in that it is contradictory to itself. It is based on the idea that the cosmos is filled with nothing but random noise such when your employer's computer finds patterns or a sequence that is not random then it is given that the order was made by an intelligent being. The irony is that, according to these God haters, all of the order around you absolutely could not come from an intelligent being.
I know that you Christophobes consider hate speech against Christians the final frontier in bigotry and hatred, but it doesn't serve your purposes well since it shows that you have a clear bias and prejudice that ultimately blinds you to the truth - particularly when you make stupid statements like you did above.
The rest of your post proves the fact that you are a religious zealot yourself, taking as a statement of faith that you prefer the ridiculous and the contradictory (ie. water goes up hill, little green men from Mars) than examining the evidence honestly and open mindedly.
For instance, you say that the "Uncaused cause was debunked hundreds of years ago" and then make this gratuitous and unsubstantiated statement seem like truth to you by adding an insult to the end (apparently this passes as "science" nowadays). I can understand your inferiority complex allowing you to talk about things you have absolutely no knowledge of because after all, you can't possibly be special creation, no you are a descendant of a chimmpanzee or a bug. This is why you must insult Creationist and base your entire faith in a system you can't prove - and most importantly provides you absolutely nothing in exchange. When you die, you do what? Rot? Great religion you have there, buddy.
Why is the surface of the sun cooler than the photosphere?
Hmmm, why is the surface of the sun cooler than the surface of the sun? I'll have to think about that one. Or maybe you'd care to reframe your question.
B: I took it for granted he meant Corona, but I could be wrong.
BTW, the second law of thermodynamics is not violated by the cosmology proposed by the big bang.
B: Its not. Roger Penrose proved sometime ago that the Big Bang singularity is the state of the universe with the least entropy.
OK, so you don't understand the 2nd Law, and/or you agree that the Big Bang has no foundation in science but does so in science fiction.
B: Stop interpreting your comic books as if they were cosmology texts.
Just because you desperately hope that order can come from chaos doesn't make the 2nd Law disappear.
B: No need to hope. The universe is replete with examples of self-organization.
"God Haters" translation: People who prefer examining the physical evidence to see if they can understand the universe . People who framed the physical laws that allow engineers to build computers, the internet, jet travel, mobile phones, modern medicines, diagnostic tools but bizarrely these physical laws are wrong in almost every way according to a bronze-age book.
We can add to "God haters", "liars" and "fools". Why? Because there is a list (an abbreviated one posted in this thread before) of Creationist scientists who are considered the Founders of science. Ever heard of Issac Newton?
B: I've seen this list. Its the stupidest argument going. Was Newton aware of the evidence we have for Big and Biological Evolution?
" NO "
Hence, what does it matter? Newton among other things, was also an alchemist. Using your logic, modern chemistry must also be wrong.
Creationists are so silly.
Also, I am still wondering how Big Bangers/Evolutionists or, a better description, "God Haters", have applied their evolutionary world view to create the internet, jet travel or mobile phones.
B: THese are the products of science. Actually the "evolution" of the internet is an interesting subject in and of itself. It is self ordering.
What is so special about a faith system that imagines matter from nothing,
B: Nothing really,. Its not a faith system and that happens all the time. Google "Casimir effect", "Lamb shift" and "Particle pair Production"
life from non-life,
B: Funny, thats what the Bible says. Are you saying the Bible is wrong?
order from chaos,
B: Happens all the time. Illya Prigogine got the Noble prize in chemisty for explaining why. Why are creationists decades if not centuries behind the times?
and spends countless dollars looking for little green men in space (SETI)
B: SETI is privately funded. So how much money is spent is not your concern.
that without these things we wouldn't have a cell phone to annoy our fellow motorists with?
B: ?
Actually, SETI is interesting in that it is contradictory to itself. It is based on the idea that the cosmos is filled with nothing but random noise such when your employer's computer finds patterns or a sequence that is not random then it is given that the order was made by an intelligent being.
B: Unfortunately, you ahve a great many misconceptions. SETI looks for signals that have charateristics that are associated with "known designers"... that is Us!
To illustrate how one can be fooled, it was thought that alien signals were received in the 50's. For a few weeks anyways. Then somebody realized what they were listening to was the first discovered pulsar.
The irony is that, according to these God haters, all of the order around you absolutely could not come from an intelligent being.
B: We don't see any order that requires an intelligent being other than that manufactured by humans.
I know that you Christophobes consider hate speech against Christians the final frontier in bigotry and hatred, but it doesn't serve your purposes well since it shows that you have a clear bias and prejudice that ultimately blinds you to the truth - particularly when you make stupid statements like you did above.
B: Now the creationist plays the "victum" card. The statements were well founded.
The rest of your post proves the fact that you are a religious zealot yourself, taking as a statement of faith that you prefer the ridiculous and the contradictory (ie. water goes up hill, little green men from Mars) than examining the evidence honestly and open mindedly.
B: Water can go uphill, if it has enough momentum. At any rate thats a foolish way of making the second law argument.
For instance, you say that the "Uncaused cause was debunked hundreds of years ago" and then make this gratuitous and unsubstantiated statement seem like truth to you by adding an insult to the end (apparently this passes as "science" nowadays).I can understand your inferiority complex allowing you to talk about things you have absolutely no knowledge of
B: Actually, you're projecting. You obviously know squat.
There is no longer any such thing as honest inquiry by the evolutionary community. It is predicated on presumed knowledge, logical fallacies and general dismissal of any words made by someone who disagrees with the evolutionary cosmogony.
Let's examine your exchange with kipita, You have been informed that one time kipita believed the lie. After honestly looking into the claims of the evolutionists, kipita came away recognizing the folly in it. There are many people who have done the same thinking that there had to be intelligent design, but have not been willing to take the next step and say "God". They are still searching for an answer, but not from the evolutionists. But you break it down into "Believers in the Creator" vs "Believers in Chance" totally leaving out this growing community that rejects Chance but doesn't have a suitable replacement. Thus you irresponsibly conclude that if anyone leaves "Christianity" (as opposed to any other religion that accepts something other than evolution) then kipita's argument is invalid. You are convinced of this logical fallacy and you expect others to be convinced also.
The religion of Evolutionary Cosmogony is the new kid on the block, barely having its eyes opened in a world of adults and senior citizens, do you really think that evolutionists are the only ones who ever considered origins? What do you think people thought about before Darwin? But no, it is between "Christians" and "the world" according to the evolutionists. Since you have chosen to focus on Christians, wouldn't it make sense to know what a Christian is?
You can choose your definitions from a variety of sources, I am viewing you cavalier comments as an indication that you made up your own definition to suit your argument. An honest person would consult the source texts, or the most reliable authority and work from there. To say that "there are many ex-christians that are now atheists" is an admission that you know nothing about Christianity. [Insert Calvinistic Soteriology lesson]
There is no such thing as an "ex-christian". There are those who at one time attended a Christian church, were raised in a house with nominal Christians, or marked "Christian" on a survey because they knew they were not Buddhist. But the fundamental doctrines of Christianity bar the possibility of an "ex-christian". If in reality there is no such thing as an ex-christian, but you are pointing to a gallery of imaginary people as ex-christians to refute kipita's argument, then we know that you have created the classic "straw-man" to buttress your argument.
Now I am not willing to throw away your argument because it is bogus. It does admit that evolution is the domain of atheists. Since to be an atheist one must be all knowing (a requirement to know for certain that there is no God, thus being able to prove a negative, or at least maintaining a very low threshold for proof) and since we have just seen that you know very little of Christianity (thus exempting you from being omniscient), it would be more accurate to say "God hater" rather than atheist, and in that you would make a much more sound argument. Either a person believes in God and thus God's words and God's claim that He was the only one there at the time to witness the origins of the universe, and thus He is the most reliable witness of that event, or a person is a God hater, and just makes up stories and tales about the origins of the universe - any story that removes God completely from the scene.
Your hero, Darwin, was exactly one of those people who were raised in a Christian home and later he decided that he hated God and would construct a system of belief that would replace God. And now today, the God haters have a church and a religion of there own to celebrate. Darwin was never a Christian. I submit that there are a very large number of people who are "Christians" in name only, they don't study the Christian religion, and therefore are not able, nor have much zeal in supporting the Christian message. I submit that evolutionists know this too, and that is the exact reason why evolutionists often resort to catcalls, heckling, insults and downright hate and lies in order to "Win a Convert For [the god of] Chance".
Exhibit 'A': It [Big Bang] is a very specific theory about the expansion of space-time.
Exhibit 'B': Yes, theories can be modified, but that is the result of new evidence.
IOW, we are back to the original assertion that believers in the religion of Evolution only have to believe one thing: Absolutely No Intelligent Design, anything else goes.
So Issac Newton is stupid and ignorant according to you. How brazenly arrogant. Let me guess, until you came on the scene, everyone was a drooling imbecile. Remember, you are the one who claims to be a descendant of an ape.
I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst, you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories of how mountains rose up from no where, for no know reason, and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top. Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" because for thousands of years we stick with the exact same theory that is consistant with the evidence rather than invent new ones only to be replaced by new ones when a different person interprets the same evidence differently (again).
Also, it seems that you are sticking to the debate tactics of fellow evolutionist Joseph Goebbels in repeating a big lie often enough by somehow suggesting that only evolutionary thinking allows a person to invent the internet.
Just because you are a Christophobe isn't proof that evolution is science. Evolution is just the ramblings of God haters looking for any reason to call an ape "Daddy" .
Newton among other things, was also an alchemist.
Alchemy has a rich history starting in ancient Egypt and later simultaneously flourishing in China and the Greek world. There were two directions that alchemy went in the 4th Century BC, one went the way of empirical sciences, and the other went the way of magic, astrology and fraud (of the latter path none of these things are part of monotheistic religion).
I guess while you are trying to insult Newton, you might as well insult the Catholic scientist Antoine Lavoisier and Albertus Magnus who was sainted by the Catholic Church for his mastery in chemistry. We have a variety of other monks and Catholic scientist/philosophers who have contributed greatly to the science of chemistry under the table heading of "Alchemy".
In the 16th century there once again became a remarkable division in the field of "alchemy" whereas one group followed after Philippus Paraclesus - devoting themselves to scientific discovery of new compounds and reactions, the other who went the route of imposture, necromancy and fraud - I am assuming that you only know of the latter, and from that you base your ignorant insult at a great scientist and Creationist.
I must admit, you God-hating evolutionists (redundant?) sure have a knack for trying to validate your bogus religion through serial fraud, lies and insults - all the while ironically attaching yourselves to the discipline you hate - "science"... (sigh)
;^)
Wow, that's a much better response to an illogical argument.
Powerful criticism if true, lets see if you can back it up with any evidence
Let's examine your exchange with kipita, You have been informed that one time kipita believed the lie. After honestly looking into the claims of the evolutionists, kipita came away recognizing the folly in it. There are many people who have done the same thinking that there had to be intelligent design, but have not been willing to take the next step and say "God". They are still searching for an answer, but not from the evolutionists. But you break it down into "Believers in the Creator" vs "Believers in Chance" totally leaving out this growing community that rejects Chance but doesn't have a suitable replacement. Thus you irresponsibly conclude that if anyone leaves "Christianity" (as opposed to any other religion that accepts something other than evolution) then kipita's argument is invalid. You are convinced of this logical fallacy and you expect others to be convinced also.
You didn't point out any fallacy, and you didn't justify the word irresponsibly, and you didn't demonstrate that PP would not say the same thing about someone converting from any other religion.
The religion of Evolutionary Cosmogony is the new kid on the block, barely having its eyes opened in a world of adults and senior citizens, do you really think that evolutionists are the only ones who ever considered origins? What do you think people thought about before Darwin?
Maybe you should read some texts about the history of science. You don't appear to know much about it, which is curious for someone who talks so much about it.
But no, it is between "Christians" and "the world" according to the evolutionists. Since you have chosen to focus on Christians, wouldn't it make sense to know what a Christian is?
This debate is about Christians vs Evolution. The beliefs of other faiths are not being debated.
You can choose your definitions from a variety of sources, I am viewing you cavalier comments as an indication that you made up your own definition to suit your argument. An honest person would consult the source texts, or the most reliable authority and work from there. To say that "there are many ex-christians that are now atheists" is an admission that you know nothing about Christianity. [Insert Calvinistic Soteriology lesson]
There is no such thing as an "ex-christian". There are those who at one time attended a Christian church, were raised in a house with nominal Christians, or marked "Christian" on a survey because they knew they were not Buddhist. But the fundamental doctrines of Christianity bar the possibility of an "ex-christian". If in reality there is no such thing as an ex-christian, but you are pointing to a gallery of imaginary people as ex-christians to refute kipita's argument, then we know that you have created the classic "straw-man" to buttress your argument.
Why should we be interested in your semantic opinions about some special (lack of) meaning that "ex-christian" has to you. Please instruct us as to what simple phrase we should use to uniquely identify the class of people who used to consider themselves christian but no longer do so.
Now I am not willing to throw away your argument because it is bogus. It does admit that evolution is the domain of atheists.
Reference that admission.
Since to be an atheist one must be all knowing (a requirement to know for certain that there is no God, thus being able to prove a negative, or at least maintaining a very low threshold for proof)
And you call us cavalier. I am an atheist because I do not believe that there is a God, not because I know that there isn't one. I expect that only a tiny minority of rather stupid atheists would claim to know that there isn't a God, since by definition such a thing is unknowable as you rightly point out.
and since we have just seen that you know very little of Christianity (thus exempting you from being omniscient), it would be more accurate to say "God hater" rather than atheist, and in that you would make a much more sound argument. Either a person believes in God and thus God's words and God's claim that He was the only one there at the time to witness the origins of the universe, and thus He is the most reliable witness of that event, or a person is a God hater, and just makes up stories and tales about the origins of the universe - any story that removes God completely from the scene.
Nobody in science "makes up stories". Scientists by nature are very skeptical people who tend to look at the evidence. Evidence is all that counts in science. Why do you emotionally load the debate by namecalling? I don't believe in little pink unicorns. Does that mean that I'm a "little pink unicorn hater"?
Your hero, Darwin....
This is something interesting that many creationists do. They personalise everything, not seeming to understand that the idea is separate from the man. By Darwin's day geologists had already concluded that the earth was ancient, and other biologists were already starting to see the explanation for the Origin of Species. Darwin just published first. Someone else would have said something similar within a few years. I think this focus on personalities is because of religious emphasis on prophets... anyway...
... , was exactly one of those people who were raised in a Christian home and later he decided that he hated God and would construct a system of belief that would replace God.
And your evidence for this startling assertion is? Disprove Darwin's own report that he looked at the biological world around him and came to a set of conclusions based on what he saw.
And now today, the God haters have a church and a religion of there own to celebrate. Darwin was never a Christian. I submit that there are a very large number of people who are "Christians" in name only, they don't study the Christian religion, and therefore are not able, nor have much zeal in supporting the Christian message. I submit that evolutionists know this too, and that is the exact reason why evolutionists often resort to catcalls, heckling, insults and downright hate and lies in order to "Win a Convert For [the god of] Chance".
Funny, thats what I see the creationists including you doing all the time. The post I am responding to is a notable example. What is "God Hater" other than namecalling. I think if you want to find hate you should look a little closer to home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.