Evolution: hacking back the tree of life (can anyone say DEVOLUTION?)

New Scientist ^ | June 13, 2007 | Laura Spinney

[Coyoteman]

But when it evolves from one initial kind, then it's called science? Why's that? Why is it science when it's going in one direction and apologetics when it's going in the other?

Because scientific evidence shows things go in that direction.

Scripture (kinds, baraminology) claims things go in a different direction, contrary to scientific evidence.

If you are doing science, you follow the first. If you are pushing religion you may follow the second (although that is a minority opinion even there).

[GodGunsGuts]

Coyoteman is a religous devotee who has sold his soul to the Temple of Darwin. Whenever his religion comes in conflict with the God of the Bible, he will side with his pagan natural selection god every time. He is immune to every argument because the problem resides not in his head, but in his heart. But God changes hearts. I suggest we all start praying for Coyoteman. For our God is an awesome God, and He reigns over both heaven and earth...and he listens to the prayers of His children.

[Coyoteman]

Pull out selected quotes from the “secret” document that prove your SPEFICIC allegation that they are a conspiratorial cabal that seeks to impose a THEOCRACY on America.

Don't be lazy, read it for yourself. Right here.

Look for things like:

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

GOALS

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
• To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Now, do you see any science in that? That is a theocracy wannabe, lacking only the ability (and the funding) to implement it. And it is a lie, start to finish, designed to hide the real goal of religious rule replacing secular rule.

[Coyoteman]

When science and Scripture are in conflict the first assumption is always that Scripture is wrong even though science is not about truth or proof but the best possible fit with the data.

Science follows evidence, wherever it leads.

Religious belief distorts scientific evidence as need be to make the answers come out as scripture dictates.

If you can't see the difference...

[aruanan]

Detlev Arendt, an evolutionary and developmental biologist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany.

Any relationship to Hannah Arendt?

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m still waiting. Nowhere in your selected quotes do I see the Discovery Institute advocating the imposition of a theocracy.

[GodGunsGuts]

I don’t know. But that would certainly be an interesting connection.

[Coyoteman]

Coyoteman is a religous devotee who has sold his soul to the Temple of Darwin. Whenever his religion comes in conflict with the God of the Bible, he will side with his pagan natural selection god every time. He is immune to every argument because the problem resides not in his head, but in his heart. But God changes hearts. I suggest we all start praying for Coyoteman. For our God is an awesome God, and He reigns over both heaven and earth...and he listens to the prayers of His children.

If you have any scientific arguments, please grace us with them.

All I see here is religious propaganda and apologetics.

In the past few days, you have really blown your cover. On the DLR debate thread you appeared to be arguing science, but we now see where you are really coming from. There is no science there--it is all apologetics. It is science distorted and misapplied in the service of your particular brand of religion.

You have gone down several notches in my estimation. But, I presume that's OK, as I'm just a godless, atheistic Nazi-loving Stalinist Darwinist who doesn't know any better and who is destined to hell anyway. (Isn't that your ultimate argument against science?)

[Caesar Soze]

Both of these are sister phyla to chordates (see Diagram), yet their members have lost their brains and instead have diffuse neural nets. The same seems to be true of various molluscs, brachiopods, phoronids and bryozoans that have evolved to be sedentary filter-feeders. "If you just sit around your entire life you don't need much of a sensory integration centre coupled to a locomotor nerve cord," says Arendt.

Arendt may have discovered the origins of Democrats. This presents the possibility that they did evolve on Earth, and were not introduced from outer space as some believe.

As for the "Creationists," if they overheard two people arguing whether the sky was cerulean or azure, they would declare the "Sky is Blue Theory" to be on its last legs. That goes beyond non sequitur into a whole new realm of wrong--contra sequitur or something like that.

[GodGunsGuts]

==In the past few days, you have really blown your cover.

Again, I ask you, what cover?!?! If the Bible is true, science will confirm its historical accuracy. God tells us in His word that he created heaven and earth and all life in the six days of creation. He tells us that we are created in his image, and NOT the product of evolution. I am merely presenting the scientific evidence that back this up. Again, what cover?

PS As a side note, you really ought to see someone about your conspiracy complex. I suggest you turn to God and humbly ask Him to open your eyes. In any case, your wild conspiracy theories are not helping your case for the TOE in the least.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ReignOfError]

Yeah you wouldn’t want to label those axes so they’d provide any useful information. That would be out of line.

[ThinkClearly]

Coyoteman is a religous devotee who has sold his soul to the Temple of Darwin. Whenever his religion comes in conflict with the God of the Bible, he will side with his pagan natural selection god every time. He is immune to every argument because the problem resides not in his head, but in his heart. But God changes hearts. I suggest we all start praying for Coyoteman. For our God is an awesome God, and He reigns over both heaven and earth...and he listens to the prayers of His children.

Jesus asks you not to wear your faith on your sleeve. Facts have no such qualms, sir.

[valkyry1]

Maybe you did science at one time CM, but you hardly do science now, in fact you do not do science at all. And no, posting stealthed links to talkorigins does not count as science.

You are on a personal crusade, and you have a zealotry about you that would give snake handlers a pause.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Yeah you wouldn’t want to label those axes so they’d provide any useful information. That would be out of line.

The point of the chart was not to communicate specific data points, but to communicate a concept. But if you are asking me, the Y axis begins with Creation between six and seven thousand years ago. The X axis is meant to communicate genetic degeneration ever since the fall. But speaking of not labeling axes, it seems Darwin himself was in the habit of making graphs and charts without data points to communicate the CONCEPT of evolution. Is the following chart from Darwin's "Origin of Species" also "out of line"?

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL!

[valkyry1]

biology intellectually uninteresting. The similar macro-features => similar micro-features logical leap makes biology seem too ridiculous to be real science.

BTTT

[valkyry1]

I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but...how? but you are one in this post

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...To be honest, I’m still not sure what a troll even is.

[valkyry1]

see freepmail for explanation