ID: What’s it all about, Darwin?

The American Thinker ^ | August 26th, 2005 | Dennis Sevakis

[Heartlander]

No. didn't.

What?

Is bearing false witness in keeping with the commandments of your God?

This is a quote from you.

[Mylo]

It would be scientific evidence that supported the hypothesis that the subject ate lunch.

The digestive state of the material in question taken from the stomach could also be used to SCIENTIFICALLY determine how long it had been in his stomach.

[philetus]

It would be scientific evidence that supported the hypothesis that the subject ate lunch. "

You can prove food was in the stomach and how long it had been there, but you can't prove, scientificly, that I ate it.

[philetus]

The digestive state of the material in question taken from the stomach could also be used to SCIENTIFICALLY determine how long it had been in his stomach. "

Does "scientifically determine" mean proof how long it had been in his stomach or "scientifically determine" I think it's been in his stomach?

[fortheDeclaration]

45. The Scientific Case for Evolution Has Never Been Proved! So Why Do the Public Schools Teach It As If It Were a Fact? They don't. But I have seen many a pretending Christian make that same lie.

The public schools do not teach macro-evolution as a scientific fact?

They teach an alternative?

[fortheDeclaration]

1. Show us ... 2. Devise ... 3. Discover ... 4. Show us ... You left out "Bring us the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West South West."

Imagine asking for evidence from a scientific theory!

How about showing that life can come from non-life, that would be enough.

Until then, evolution is a paradigm without a foundation.

[js1138]

Is that now scripture? Which chapter and verse was that?

I simply believe that what is trumps whatever is said about it.

Human understanding evolves. We can take the understanding given to us and bury it for safekeeping, or we can invest it and make it grow.

[bobdsmith]

evolution doesnt say life came from non-life

[cripplecreek]

"I am curious what you would call serious problems?"

Populating the earth from two people requires a great deal of incest at some point.

[VadeRetro]

People are always demanding broomsticks on these threads which I bring. It never changes a thing. One of the things the Liars for the Lord lie about is that evidence means anything to them at all.

All the evidence we have points to evolution and nothing else makes sense of the data. It may not be all that you demand, but it's all the evidence at hand in 2005. There is no competing theory to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Since it's been a long time since 1859, one would have to suspect that some sort of evolution has to be the answer or the preponderance wouldn't be what it is.

[Mylo]

Ah, but that would be the hypothesis with the most supporting evidence; rather than presupposing that GOD put it there, the most parsimonious explanation would be that YOU chewed it up (gee is that your saliva on it, yes it is) and swallowed it.

You really don't understand the utility of the Scientific method do you? No, you'd much rather scream and fuss and say "Proves nothing!"

[The Red Zone]

The dimz?

[philetus]

No, you'd much rather scream and fuss and say "Proves nothing!"

And you'd much rather lie and make untrue accusations.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" You are obviously diverting our discussion and I have said many times now that ‘he’ can answer 'his' question."

But you can't answer what has been asked of you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"'No. didn't.'

What?

'Is bearing false witness in keeping with the commandments of your God?'

This is a quote from you."

I never quoted scripture. You DO know what a quote is, right? And what I did is not relevant to what js1138 did. He never quoted scripture, not even close. Yet you said he did and tried to change the argument to whether he believed in your version of God. You were not being very Christian now, were you? I called you on it and you had no answer as to what part of scripture he was alleged to have quoted.

Oh, btw, still no evidence from you of a non-material cause.
I won't hold my breath.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Fine… If you insist on playing this game than current biological science is atheistic and it is just to dishonest to say it…"

No, it is agnostic and you are just too ignorant to know the difference. It STILL can ONLY use natural, material causes as evidence, as there is no way to observe or document a non-natural, non-material cause.

"Beyond this, any Freeper who participates in scientific discussions and religious discussions has seen first hand that the atheistic Freepers in the science forums attack Christianity in the religious forums."

And the creationists are all such good little Christians, never saying a bad word... oh, sorry, almost puked just writing that.

" Ladies and gentlemen, this man is required reading in many college level biology classes."

His religious and politics are not related to his biological thought. His biological ideas are what are required.

[Gumlegs]

I suppose it's pointless pointing out the illogic in attempting use a scientific theory describing speciation as a technique for running a country.

I suppose it's also pointless to mention that an argument from adverse consequences is a logical fallacy, and that one might as well object to Christianity because it was used to justify the Inquisition.

Got any more quotes?

[tamalejoe]

I suppose it's pointless pointing out the illogic in attempting use a scientific theory describing speciation as a technique for running a country. You're 65 years too late. You needed to be pointing that out to Hitler and Stalin, not me.

Basically, you can't sit there telling the whole world that the only moral law in nature is "the survival of the fittest" and then try to claim you con't know anything about the obvious political consequences an idea like that is going to have; that's idiotic.

[Gumlegs]

You needed to be pointing that out to Hitler and Stalin, not me.

Still haven't grasped the illogic, I see. Let's play by your rules: Any religious belief that gives us a Torquemada and Jim Jones is basically evil and shouldn't be allowed to exist. Sound ridiculous? Of course it does. It's how you sound when you post about evolution.

Basically, you can't sit there telling the whole world that the only moral law in nature is "the survival of the fittest" and then try to claim you con't know anything about the obvious political consequences an idea like that is going to have; that's idiotic.

No one except the more lunatic fringes of the creationist movement ever says that survival of the fittest is some sort of moral law. Please learn the difference between an observation based on evidence ("You have an ear infection") and a prescription ("Try penicillin"). What's idiotic is someone trying to convert a scientific observation about the origin of species into a system for running a country.

Got it now?

[fortheDeclaration]

No, what you mean is that the data you are interpreting is based on a evolution paradigm, a paradigm which you have not even established as being possible.

You have no evidence of any macro-evolution occurring at this time or any evidence that it did happen, only suppositions and conjecture.

The only liars are the evolutionists who are so intent to deny God's word that they will conjure up a fantasy that man came from rocks.

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth; for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.(Jer.2:27)

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.