--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists

NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

[bobdsmith]

If you understood anything about evolution you would realise that a modern mammal fossil found in the cambrian would make as much sense for evolution as 1 + 1 = 3

Yes of course such a thing hasn't been found. If it had these evolution threads would have disapeared a long time ago.

This is about potential fossils.

Any potential fossil would fit ID. Even the most ludicrous fantastical fossil would fit ID.

Yet many potential fossils, in fact I dare say most potential fossils would present major problems for evolution. The modern mammal in the cambrian senario is a case of a major problem beyond resolution.

[GSHastings]

Yes. Populations of organisms can be observed to evolve

Wrong. Populations of oganisms can be observed to CHANGE.

Do you have some method of proving that those changes have not been orchestrated by an unseen intelligent force?

Just because you don't think that intelligence was involved, and you can't think of any way to prove that it was or wasn't, is NOT PROOF that it was indeed "evolution".

I, on the other hand, can prove with absolute certainty that intelligent design exists, in great abundance and variety.

So my question to you stands. Can you prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape, or form?

[Dimensio]

So my question to you stands. Can you prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape, or form?

Alright, given your list of conditions, no. I can no more prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape or form than I can prove that gravity exists in any way, shape or form or that you exist in any way, shape or form. Absolutely nothing at all whatsoever can ever be proven, ever.

[From many - one.]

A breath of fresh air.

[GSHastings]

Alright, given your list of conditions, no. I can no more prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape or form than I can prove that gravity exists in any way, shape or form or that you exist in any way, shape or form. Absolutely nothing at all whatsoever can ever be proven, ever.

Not so. You can very easily prove that gravity exists. You can observe it, without fail, with any number of different test. You can predict exactly where it will be found, and exactly how much of it will be found there. And your predictions will be found to be accurate each and every time. And all of this with great precison.

Not that anyone needs an example, but I learned something intersting from a co-worker whose daughter works at JPL on some of the missions to Mars. One of her functions is to calculate the gravitational effects of the rotation of the Earth's liquid core at the time of launch, and how that is going to change the trajectory of the mission package.

[Dimensio]

You can very easily prove that gravity exists.

No, you can't. What if what you think is gravity is just an intelligent agent pushing things around?

[GSHastings]

What if what you think is gravity is just an intelligent agent pushing things around?

Very good question!

In the context of this discussion, GRAVITY is analogous to CHANGE (in organisms).

We can prove that Gravity exits, and we can prove that Change happens (exists).

Where the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Intelligent Design come in, is the WHAT and HOW.

We can Theorize about WHAT gravity is, and how it works. And we can Theorize about WHAT mechanism causes the changes in organisms, and how it works. But at this point in time, we have no proof of the WHAT and HOW, of either Gravity or the Change in Organisms.

[Heartlander]

Here we have an equation that represents observable phenomena that causes no complaints from atheists, IDists, Creationists, Buddhists, conservatives, or liberals.

Neo-Darwinism is random wrt fitness; it has no goal, and lacks any intelligence.
- The Current Law of Naturalism (as I see it)

Here we have a ‘belief’ statement from science that treads on many other ‘beliefs’ but allows atheists who preach atheistic science,... comfort.

But we can look at the theories and the influence – such as - the theory of gravity does not become sociobiology – the theory of gravity does not have ‘memes’ – the theory of gravity does not worry itself with beliefs from any side of the id/evo/creo/ equation.

Now if anyone should equate gravity and neo-darwinism they should offer that we survive only because we now stick to the earth and those that did not, floated into space and died.

[Lord_Baltar]

hehehehehe Not fair, I was just going to say EXACTLY the same thing...

Dang it, you stole my thunder...

[YHAOS]

Is this your evidence? That the origin of life is studied at all is what links it to the theory of evolution?

It’s my question: Why is science studying the origin of life at all? Aren’t such studies pointless, scientifically speaking? It’s my understanding origins is properly a subject for study by theology or philosophy, Science being a materialistic discipline, unable to make meaningful judgments about other things. That’s true isn’t it? Can I get a straight answer to an uncomplicated question? If you need to qualify or equivocate a little bit, please feel free - I won’t accuse you of lying.

The story is appearing all over; it’s in the Sidney World Herald, in the UK Guardian, in the Houston Chronicle, USA Today, CNN, and many others, I’m sure. The Boston Globe has the biggest article, and a lot of the others seem to have based their report on the Globe version.

The Boston Globe

Project on the origins of life launched

Harvard joining debate on evolution

By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_

On what do you base this? A USA Today article?

Can’t trust them papers, huh? Well, here’s your chance to set the record straight. You have the name of the reporter, so you can email the bovine scatological ignoramus, and his equally mentally retarded editor, and square them both away on the gratuitous addition of material potentially embarrassing to the Science Community, or their failure to edit out some of the more careless statements made by scientists. You have such an enchanting manner about you when you are correcting others’ errors, that almost assuredly they (the editor and the reporter) will be charmed into a response, confessing who it was that screwed up in leaving too many dots around to be connected.

Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate. You have to remember who MSM pukes cuddle up to, and who they scorn and shun. Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle. This would just be too good of news not to be passed on largely unretouched. It is IDers, other ‘Bible-thumpers’ and ‘Jesus-freaks’, and knuckle-dragging conservatives generally, who are greeted with hostility and disdain, and whose stories are spiked or distorted.

[Dimensio]

Why is science studying the origin of life at all?

The same reason scientists studies anything: better insight into the workings of the universe.

Aren’t such studies pointless, scientifically speaking?

Scientifically speaking, studying anything is "pointless". Science is a methodology. Motives behind scientific study are not themselves science. Science does not define purpose, it simply explains how the universe works.

It’s my understanding origins is properly a subject for study by theology or philosophy,

Theology and philosophy can certainly address the matter of origins, but that doesn't mean that science can't investigate the matter. Theology and philosophy can try to examine gravity, but that doesn't mean that relativity theory isn't science.

Science being a materialistic discipline, unable to make meaningful judgments about other things. That’s true isn’t it?

Yes. What has that to do with studying the origin of the first life forms?

Can’t trust them papers, huh?

A newspaper to give an accurate description of the scope of a scientific theory? No. Many people mistakenly believe that the theory of evolution directly addresses the ultimate origin of life. That doesn't make it true, but it also doesn't surprise me to see a reporter who has no discernable science background making that mistake in an article.

Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate.

On what basis?

You have to remember who MSM pukes cuddle up to, and who they scorn and shun.

What does that have to do with the actual scope of the theory of evolution?

Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle.

Who in the hell told thim this? I've never heard anyone claim that we're anywhere close to demonstrating that the latter is true, and science could never, ever, do the former. Anyone who claims that science could disprove God is a liar or a moron.

This would just be too good of news not to be passed on largely unretouched.

I think that you're reading into this things that are simply not there. Harvard is doing a study on life origins. Many people mistakenly think that life origins is part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has recently come under attack by a group of hacks pushing "Intelligent Design", thus from a study on origins we get an article mentioning the evolution vs. ID issue. I don't see how this is the fault of Harvard, nor do I see how this logically demonstrates that life origins actually is part of the theory of evolution.

[Heartlander]

The Harvard stance on OOL:

”We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems,” said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But ‘’my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”

Without divine intervention? This is the reason for OOL (origin of life) research… It seems science has found a motive and philosophy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Without divine intervention? This is the reason for OOL (origin of life) research… It seems science has found a motive and philosophy."

You can thank Galileo and Newton for that. They helped to advance the notion that only natural causes are to be introduced into a scientific theory. Supernatural causes are not a part of any scientific theory, not just abiogenesis.

[Heartlander]

Galileo and Newton both believed in an intelligent cause. The Design Theory has been around for over two millennia and was scientifically and philosophically concluded by thinkers without any Judeo-Christian beliefs

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Galileo and Newton both believed in an intelligent cause."

That may be true, but that intelligent cause was not a part of the theories they formed. They were both Christian too, but again that was not a part of the logic or evidence of their theories.

"The Design Theory has been around for over two millennia and was scientifically and philosophically concluded by thinkers without any Judeo-Christian beliefs"

It was accepted, but it was never a scientific hypothesis, as there has never been a way to test for it. The fact that it has been around for a long time also says nothing for it's logical strengths or weaknesses. The hypothesis is no longer the best explanation because a better one, evolution, has made ID unnecessary.

[YHAOS]

I wasn't claiming the shyster was the reporter . . .

I know you weren’t. But, there just aren’t all that many candidates; the reporter (and maybe his editor), and the scientists with whom he spoke. Like that elephant in the room, the connections are there in the article - thanks to either the scientist(s) who said it, or the reporter who wrote it on his own (unless you want to blame errant quantum particles).

. . . you have 0% evidence of that.

I have the article. I have the other articles I’ve researched:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_

The Boston Globe

Project on the origins of life launched

Harvard joining debate on evolution

By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff

On the basis of the articles, it’s perfectly reasonable to accept the reportage as information imparted by the scientists, and preferable to asserting that ‘some journalist made an ignorant claim’ as you did in an earlier post.

But whichever it is, the article makes it clear that a great amount of money and effort will be poured into an attempt to determine the origins of life and to prove that God doesn’t exist. A sort of abiogenesis Manhattan Project. Maybe we could call it the Cambridge Project? Probably not. Better to wait in case the project is located at a cite remote from the Cambridge campus.

Is this project real science? Does it deal with matters appropriate to science? Or does it actually belong in the Divinity Dpt or the Philosophy Dpt? It looks like it’s going to be 100% a science undertaking.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I know you weren’t. But, there just aren’t all that many candidates; the reporter (and maybe his editor), and the scientists with whom he spoke."

Actually, you missed my point entirely. I was talking about the people who use the article to promote the false claim that the scientists had linked abiogenesis with evolution. I would not have used the term shyster though; I think the term I used was liar.

"On the basis of the articles, it’s perfectly reasonable to accept the reportage as information imparted by the scientists, and preferable to asserting that ‘some journalist made an ignorant claim’ as you did in an earlier post."

It was either an ignorant claim, or a calculated claim. What it also was positively was an unfounded claim.

The Boston Globe article, what I could read of it online without paying, said the same things as the AP article.

"But whichever it is, the article makes it clear that a great amount of money and effort will be poured into an attempt to determine the origins of life and to prove that God doesn’t exist."

That is simply not true. They are trying to find a natural process that could have led to life. The fact they are not going to use supernatural causes as *evidence* only means they are doing what EVERY other field of science does. They are not trying nor can they *prove* that God doesn't exist.
Name ONE science that allows supernatural causes as evidence. Abiogenesis is no different than any other field of science in that respect. Whether there is or isn't a God is a philosophical debate, one that science can't resolve one way or the other. And it doesn't try.

[Elsie]

Amen!

[Elsie]

According to their website, it is a sculpture(?) of a troll with a real VW in it's hand, under a bridge in Alaska.


http://howardfamily.ws/alaska.htm


(Near the bottom of page.)

[Elsie]

But Others say this guy is in Seattle!

---