Refuting the claims of atheists.

[VaultZero4Me]

They have provided major doubts, "real challenges", but philosophical beliefs are not overturned by the arguments presented - as I have labored to mention. Do you think someone like Dawkins, even if presented with the evidence, would suddenly deny evolution as you define it? Hardly. It is part of his philosophical construct - it is the lense that he views the world through. Theists are the same way, by the way. We also view things through a particular set of paradigms. How many more times or ways can I say this so you understand that? Scientists, contrary to popular belief, ARE affected by pre-existing theories, ideas, concepts, or hypothesis, ESPECIALLY the status quo monopoly of evolution. They thus view evidence and data with a tendency of fitting it into the "puzzle" called evolution.

Actually I would expect Dwkins to change his stance if substantial evidence would be provided that completely invalidates evolution. He would not be a scientist otherwise. Have any such evidences been presented? If so, what are they. I would like to view them.

I do not have a major problem with that - science tends to favor the current models until disproven. What bothers me is the way "evolutionists" are so intent on squelching models or evidence that does NOT fit the "model". It raises my skepticism of the whole construct - as if someone may find out it is built on a house of cards or a grand assumption. I see the current groups in court as a struggle for the philosophical mindsets of the young, not an effort to teach "the truth"...

What squelching are you referring to. All that I know of is the irreducible complex examples, which have been debunked. Debunking is not squelching.

Intelligent design is no more unprovable than natural selection. Each are attempts to explain or theorize how this so-called evolution "works". By inferential knowledge, most people infer a designer. We do this every day - except when looking at evolution, I guess. THEN, it becomes 'natural' to presume such things happen without any designer.

It is falsifiable. If evidence for a competing theory could be demonstrated, and that theory fits the data better, and is invalidates evolution, than it would falsify it.

For instance, if we witnessed a monkey suddenly becoming a human, we would invalidate evolution.

Rather than admitting, "we don't really know", philosophy is the driving force that supports the science. And all else is squelched or taken to court or ridiculed in the public forum. Has science learned anything from Galileo, who was attacked by secular SCIENTISTS, calling upon the Church to squelch him by turning his theory into some heretical proposition?

You are talking about on of the founders of the observational method of science. His methods are what evolutionary scientists use. False comparison.

I said that the evidence does not prove macro evolution, in my opinion. Of course it is possible - that a designer would start from square one and guide life how "he" saw fit - rather than creating a numerous number of species that are not related. The bible does not rule out the possibility that God created from one common ancestor. The bible DOES rule out the idea that this evolution occured without design or guidance, though. Thus, again and again, I do not find the theory of common descent problematic to my faith - just the explanation of HOW by "natural selection". I find macro evolution far-fetched and unobserved today - but not impossible.

But that’s the thing. No one claims evolution to be proved. Nothing is seen as proved. That would not be science. It is just stated that evolutionary theory fits the data the best, and has enough evidence to substantiate it. There are no other competing theories.

I will state that I do not feel it is the end all, because there are always revolutions. Einstein revolutionized Newton mechanics. That is a possibility to happen to evolution. But the people that supported Newton mechanics were right in doing so until a competing theory was produced. It fit the observational data the best at that time.

What seems to be obvious, is that ALL life is somehow related because they are all carbon-based building blocks and all possess DNA chemicals that determine their physical makeup. But how is materialistic evolution proven from this? By simply stacking the deck and saying "God" cannot be part of the equation because "He" is not scientifically provable? No doubt, if you rule out all possibilities but material evolution, you will end up with material evolution.

That’s just how science works. It tries to explain things on their own terms. That prevents one from skewing the data. You play it as it lays. Thus far, evolution has not hit any roadblocks during a natural explanation. It does not say God cannot be a part of that process, but you cannot have it the other way and say God was part of the process. It just says nothing in regards to God.

I am not arguing that - I am arguing that the CURRENT monkeys would be evolving into something else - some mutation that would set it apart. Macro evolution has literally stopped. A bird with a bigger beak is still the same bird.

We do see primates that have had mutations that set them apart. Humans and gorillas are one.

We live in a limited part of the dimension of time. Individuals, and even whole societies only get a minuscule glimpse of time. Evolution takes place in a much larger time frame.
You are right, a bird with a bigger beak, is still just the same bird, unless that bird can no longer breed with the birds with a smaller beak.

That is interesting. Today, all creatures have fully adapted to their environment... That is special pleading.

How so?

If we see some dramatic change in the environment (like the current global warming spins out of control), than we would see rapid extinction. This would create a lot of holes in the niches and spur rapid evolution as species fill in these gaps. That is evident in the fossil records. That is how mammals likely won out over dinos.

"Nature" created? Would that be "Mother Nature"? Natural selection is supposed to be the explanation? I do not agree with the concept of "natural selection" because we see it is NOT practiced over and over again. Marathon runners drop dead, smokers live to 90 years old, and ugly people have lots of kids... The "survival of the fittest" is not my experience of life. The bad get away with things, the good get screwed, and it often has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest", but some grand scheme beyond our comprehension.

But that is an incorrect view of the survival of the fittest. That is the common misconception. Survival of the fittest does not necessarily see the physically strong survive. It basically means the animal that has the greatest advantage in the environment it lives in will survive better than an animal that does not.

It really is the survival of the best matched. There can be a number of reason why a species would be a better match and thus survive. The world is warming. Animals that do not survive as easily in a warmer climate, ie polar bears, are starting to die out. Animals that survive better than polar bears wont die out as quickly. If the warm was getting colder, we would see the reverse. Over a long time period, we would see new species emerge to fill in these gaps.

ID doesn't claim a "supernatural" guiding hand, but an intelligent designer. I don't believe the term "God" is brought up in those arguments - although it can be implied.

Ok, now this is where you have to be straight forward. You know as well as I know that Behe and Dembski have God in mind. But that doesn’t matter. If it is not supernatural, then it would be natural. If it is natural, than it has to be another life form, as we know nothing else that has intelligence. If it is another life form, it begs the question, and does not answer any.

Even empirical data is subject to interpretation. Thus, theories come and go as later scientists learn earlier scientists interpreted the data incorrectly. Today's "sure thing" evolution, thus, is only the CURRENT model or explanation of Point A to Point B progression. There is no need to fall upon the "default" science because there is no other model readily available. Consider superconductivity. There is no current model that explains it at room temperature - and scientists live with that. But since there is very little philosophical garbage associated with superconductivity, we don't see the need to accept an explanation, ANY explanation. Evolution is philosophically charged. Thus, this "demand" to accept the model, even if it stands on shaky ground. I won't accept partial evidence just because it is the only game in town playing with a loaded deck (God taken a priori out of the equation to begin with).

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Correct, but do they assume that there is an intelligent superconductor? No they do not. Why then, under your reasoning, do you not ask them to teach about an intelligent superconductor?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I think you may have a bit of misunderstanding of what a law and a theory is. It is not the evidence weight that differentiates the two. Its not that one is more supported than the other. Its really how far one reaches.

For instance, Gravity law states that 2 objects with mass will attract each other.

Relativty theory of gravity states that an object with mass warp space and time.

Both are well supported with evidence.

In fact, evolution probably could be consider more of a law than theory.
It states that mutations happen, and if two groups of animals stop sharing genes through breeding, over a long period of time, the mutations will accumulate to cause the two groups to not be able to breed to create fertile offspring anymore.

The rest of is just theories that fit that model. Such as man and gorillas sharing a common ancestor.

 

[francisdesales]

Actually I would expect Dwkins to change his stance if substantial evidence would be provided that completely invalidates evolution. He would not be a scientist otherwise. Have any such evidences been presented? If so, what are they. I would like to view them.

Frankly, I sincerely doubt it, because Dawkins has invested too much into the theory, making it into a "gospel" that only "fools" and "idiots" cannot accept. Are you of the opinion that he would admit he was so wrong, making himself the laughingstock of the scientific community? Hardly.

What squelching are you referring to. All that I know of is the irreducible complex examples, which have been debunked. Debunking is not squelching.

It is pretty common knowledge that anyone who subscribes to an idea not in line with the status quo is quickly belittled, ad hominemed, and dismissed as another "creationist". Oh, and then maybe they'll actually look at what he says... People actually loose jobs over making such stands - do you think people will take on the juggernaut and threaten their career? Debunking? I will disagree that this has been done in the books I have read.

It is falsifiable. If evidence for a competing theory could be demonstrated, and that theory fits the data better, and is invalidates evolution, than it would falsify it.

How is ID falsifiable? A competing theory does not falsify anything. You have too much confidence in evolution, more than is shown by the evidence of data we have. Again, I think this is philosophically driven.

For instance, if we witnessed a monkey suddenly becoming a human, we would invalidate evolution.

How so?

But that’s the thing. No one claims evolution to be proved. Nothing is seen as proved. That would not be science. It is just stated that evolutionary theory fits the data the best, and has enough evidence to substantiate it. There are no other competing theories.

I respectfully disagree with you that "natural selection" is substantiated at the macro level, or even that we share common descent with ameobas. I don't see the point of beating that horse anymore.

Thus far, evolution has not hit any roadblocks during natural explanation.

You jest, no doubt...

It does not say God cannot be a part of that process, but you cannot have it the other way and say God was part of the process. It just says nothing in regards to God.

Inferential knowledge does not need absolute proof. If we see a complex design, such as a single cell, we infer a designer, rather than random blind luck.

We do see primates that have had mutations that set them apart. Humans and gorillas are one.

Where is the evidence that man was EVER a gorilla, or there "ancestors" were related? Being similar does not mean they share common ancestry.

All creatures have fully adapted to their environment...

That is special pleading because it decides, for the sake of evolution, that all creatures are done and thus we shouldn't expect to see macro evolution in action. What factors have "turned off" mother nature and "natural selection"? Is it only good millions of years ago? Why?

If we see some dramatic change in the environment (like the current global warming spins out of control), than we would see rapid extinction. This would create a lot of holes in the niches and spur rapid evolution as species fill in these gaps. That is evident in the fossil records. That is how mammals likely won out over dinos.

That's one theory. And where did the mammals come from in the first place? Evolution doesn't explain the first one. It only extrapolates data backwards.

But that is an incorrect view of the survival of the fittest. That is the common misconception. Survival of the fittest does not necessarily see the physically strong survive. It basically means the animal that has the greatest advantage in the environment it lives in will survive better than an animal that does not.

No difference in the distinction...

It really is the survival of the best matched. There can be a number of reason why a species would be a better match and thus survive. The world is warming. Animals that do not survive as easily in a warmer climate, ie polar bears, are starting to die out. Animals that survive better than polar bears wont die out as quickly.

If the warm was getting colder, we would see the reverse. Over a long time period, we would see new species emerge to fill in these gaps.

None of which explains reptiles changing into birds...

Do they assume that there is an intelligent superconductor? No they do not. Why then, under your reasoning, do you not ask them to teach about an intelligent superconductor?

Huh? Apples and oranges...

 

[MarkT]

Look at it this way, if 72 out of 100 people said they believe against evolution, and out of the same group, 83 say they believe in the virgin birth of Christ, would there not be a large proportion that say they believe against evolution and believe in the virgin birth?

72 say they are against evolution. 17 are against the virgin birth. If the 17 are among the 72 then we get 55 who are against evolution and believe in the virgin birth. If the 17 are not among the 72, then we get 72 as the number who are against evolution and believe in the virgin birth. So between 55 - 72% are against evolution and believe in the virgin birth.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Frankly, I sincerely doubt it, because Dawkins has invested too much into the theory, making it into a "gospel" that only "fools" and "idiots" cannot accept. Are you of the opinion that he would admit he was so wrong, making himself the laughingstock of the scientific community? Hardly.

If the scenario is as you laid at, he would not be the laughing stock. You said if evidence was brought forth that invalidates evolution. If that evidence were convincing enough to make him disown the theory, he would not have any trouble showing this to anyone else. He would be able to empirically support it. Some scoffed at Einstein, until he showed his theory to be well supported.

You make it seem as if there is some conspiracy. You would have to evidentially support that if that is your belief.

It is pretty common knowledge that anyone who subscribes to an idea not in line with the status quo is quickly belittled, ad hominemed, and dismissed as another "creationist". Oh, and then maybe they'll actually look at what he says... People actually loose jobs over making such stands - do you think people will take on the juggernaut and threaten their career? Debunking? I will disagree that this has been done in the books I have read.

Again you make this seem to be a conspiracy, rather than the people being dismissed on theory. Where is the evidence to support this?

How is ID falsifiable? A competing theory does not falsify anything. You have too much confidence in evolution, more than is shown by the evidence of data we have. Again, I think this is philosophically driven.

ID is not falsifiable.

You jest, no doubt...

I didn’t say any problems I said road blocks. That is a metaphor for something that actually says that the theory can not be true. Show me these roadblocks……

Inferential knowledge does not need absolute proof. If we see a complex design, such as a single cell, we infer a designer, rather than random blind luck.

Mutations are random, evolution is not…..

Again I would postulate that based on that reasoning, we should be teaching that God creates the tides.

Where is the evidence that man was EVER a gorilla, or there "ancestors" were related? Being similar does not mean they share common ancestry.

Man WAS NOT ever a gorilla.

Fossil records and ERVs are two good evidences for common ancestory.

That is special pleading because it decides, for the sake of evolution, that all creatures are done and thus we shouldn't expect to see macro evolution in action. What factors have "turned off" mother nature and "natural selection"? Is it only good millions of years ago? Why?

Nothing is turned off.

I explained you can not actually witness Macro evolution because it takes millions of years. You can see evidences for it through micro biology, genetics, and paleontology. Do you consider all of those fields to be colluding together to lie to the public?

No difference in the distinction...

Huge distinction. You make it seem that its is all about strength and muscle. Its not. If something dramatic happened that destroyed all most all life, it is postulated that roaches will be one of the survivors (including micro orgs). Is a single roach stronger than an elephant? No, but they can live in harsher conditions. They are better apt for that setting.

None of which explains reptiles changing into birds...

1. Did I ever attempt to explain that, or say that it was universally accepted?
2. It is not assumed that all dinos decided to turn into birds. It is postulated that a dino may be an ancestor of our current bird.

Here is a good article for you..

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Huh? Apples and oranges...

You say that there is holes in evolution, and science is bias because it does not fill those holes with a deity, or give it a consideration.

Superconductivity is not entirely understood. Yet, science does not postulate a deity as a cause. There are actual theories on that property at extremely low temps. Such as:
1. Ginzburg-Landau theory
2. BCS theory

Look those up and tell me if you see an intelligent designer listed anywhere in their. It doesn’t. Why do you not question that as well? Why is it that evolution gets special attention?

 

[Drew]

ID is not falsifiable.

I do not think this is a correct statement, or at the very least it needs to be qualified. I believe that ID is indeed falsifiable if we apply the constraint that the "designer" will consistently act in certain ways. ID is only "unfalsifiable" if the behaviour of the "intelligent agent" is "open" or otherwise not subject to predictive characterization. And I see no reason why this has to be so.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

ID is not falsifiable.

I do not think this is a correct statement, or at the very least it needs to be qualified. I believe that ID is indeed falsifiable if we apply the constraint that the "designer" will consistently act in certain ways. ID is only "unfalsifiable" if the behaviour of the "intelligent agent" is "open" or otherwise not subject to predictive characterization. And I see no reason why this has to be so.

I think I remember us having a similar conversation in regards to how to setup ID to be falsified, and I agree, if you can setup constraints such as that, then that version can be falsified.

But that is not what the ID crowd does. Also, if you do not even name the designer, how can you even begin to list these constraints?

 

[Drew]

I think I remember us having a similar conversation in regards to how to setup ID to be falsified, and I agree, if you can setup constraints such as that, then that version can be falsified.

But that is not what the ID crowd does. Also, if you do not even name the designer, how can you even begin to list these constraints?

Ooops. I forgot that it was indeed with you that I had that interaction.

 

[MarkT]

I would presume that this is accurate - I am not a "bible literalist".

I wouldn't but I share your frustration and anger with studies and statistics. You can give a hundred people the same numbers and you will get a hundred different conclusions. So what a study says means nothing. In fact, studies don't say anything. It's the opinion of the researcher. It's playing with numbers. It's suggesting the lies are supported by evidence and science when nothing like it is true.

What does 'literalist' mean? I'm not talking about the definition of the word. The word is suggestive. It suggests the Bible is a piece of literature. Obviously the ones doing the study are looking at the Bible like it's a piece of literature. They don't believe the prophets or the Apostles. The Bible is a report. It's not literature. 'Who will believe our report?'

We have a spirit here who is telling us that we are animals. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. He says God didn't create anything but you can still believe in God. But our God is the Creator and there is no other god. He made the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. He created the sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And he made the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, and he made the man of dust in his image. The LORD God did it. We have no other God except the Creator.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

* accidental double post. see next post

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I would presume that this is accurate - I am not a "bible literalist".

I wouldn't but I share your frustration and anger with studies and statistics. You can give a hundred people the same numbers and you will get a hundred different conclusions. So what a study says means nothing. In fact, studies don't say anything. It's the opinion of the researcher. It's playing with numbers. It's suggesting the lies are supported by evidence and science when nothing like it is true.

What does 'literalist' mean? I'm not talking about the definition of the word. The word is suggestive. It suggests the Bible is a piece of literature. Obviously the ones doing the study are looking at the Bible like it's a piece of literature. They don't believe the prophets or the Apostles. The Bible is a report. It's not literature. 'Who will believe our report?'

We have a spirit here who is telling us that we are animals. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. He says God didn't create anything but you can still believe in God. But our God is the Creator and there is no other god. He made the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. He created the sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And he made the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, and he made the man of dust in his image. The LORD God did it. We have no other God except the Creator.

1. Are you seriously denoting that statistical inference is nothing but a tool to promote lies? A serious charge indeed. Why is everything a conspiracy theory if it does not agree with preconceived notions?

I do not disagree that when you start citing cause and effect for stats, you tread dangerous grounds. You cannot set controls in a stat study and weed out extraneous variables.

I never cited cause and effect. I just said that stat studies show that (within that sample) the less a person views everything in the Bible as literal, the more likely they are to believe in evolution. That is a completely accurate view on that study and is not a lie.

Now I can infer that, from the study, it seems that wanting to view the Bible as completely literal prevents someone from accepting evolution. IE bias is in place. BUT, I can not say that with any accuracy SOLEY based on that study. Stats do not let me extrapolate that far with any accuracy. More research would have to be done to support that view, but the stat is an indicator that it may be an interesting topic to study.

It is the same when they performed a stat study on teens and anti-depressants. The study showed there was a correlation between taking anti-depressants and suicide rates. Suicide rates were higher among teens who were prescribe those. BUT no one claimed that the anti-depressants caused the suicide rates to increase. They merely inferred that there could be a relation and more study was needed (ie test that hypothesis with CONTROLLED studies).

It could be that the more depressed a person is, the more likely they will go get treatment. And the more depressed a person is, the more likely they were to commit suicide, or it could actually be that the rx is causing the suicidal feelings. There is a correlation between taking the Rx and suicide, but the reasons are not clear.

Stat. studies are not worthless lies. They are a very useful tool in formulating a hypothesis so that you can actually test it.

2. Literalist has nothing to do with literature. It means you take a literal view of everything in the bible, ie. You are inclined to believe that Noah’s flood was actually global, or that a fish swalloed Jonah for 3 days. Being a literalist is actually the opposite of viewing the bible as a piece of literature. Just because the root of the words are the same, does not mean they are the same.

Does the word “final†have anything to do with the word “fin� Certainly not.

3. Why put science in with the devil? Why does common ancestry have anything to do with evil? There is nothing innately evil about it. Just because it does not fit with some of the Churches interpretation of the scripture, does not mean it is evil. Galileo would have something to say about that I think.

 

[MarkT]

Inherently all research is flawed. No one should believe the results of any study. All studies are garbage and worthless. When I see the results of a study being reported, I cringe. People don't have any common sense anymore. All the time and money that goes into research and nothing is discovered and nothing ever will be discovered. It creates employment. It gives people false hope. Half the commercials on TV, for example, are for drugs, and some if not all of those drugs are dangerous, and after they are taken off the market, the companies that make the drugs are sued. What a system! It creates alot of employment.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Inherently all research is flawed. No one should believe the results of any study. All studies are garbage and worthless. When I see the results of a study being reported, I cringe. People don't have any common sense anymore. All the time and money that goes into research and nothing is discovered and nothing ever will be discovered. It creates employment. It gives people false hope. Half the commercials on TV, for example, are for drugs, and some if not all of those drugs are dangerous, and after they are taken off the market, the companies that make the drugs are sued. What a system! It creates alot of employment.

It is unfortunate you feel that way.

Clinical trials have brought mounds of valuable information to the public in determining the effectiveness of a drug. Statistical analysis is a key component during those trials.

If I might ask, do you take any medication, Rx or OTC when you are ill?

 

[francisdesales]

If the scenario is as you laid at, he would not be the laughing stock. You said if evidence was brought forth that invalidates evolution. If that evidence were convincing enough to make him disown the theory, he would not have any trouble showing this to anyone else. He would be able to empirically support it. Some scoffed at Einstein, until he showed his theory to be well supported.

You make it seem as if there is some conspiracy. You would have to evidentially support that if that is your belief.

There is. Where else do we see a group of scientists so dogmatic? So willing to sue the other side, to belittle, name call, and in some cases, are caught lying about the "evidence"? I have seen Dawkins' lies in an attack on Dembski in a supposed exchange they had in public. Dawkins said one thing in print after the said oral debate, the video displayed quite another. Naturally, very few people will go back and check the "sources" because most people think scientists don't have an agenda. However, scientists are people, as well. And unfortunately, as history has shown, they doggedly hold onto the status quo theory and resort to the tactics that these material evolutionists feel necessary to undertake. Believe what you want.

People being fired because they hold onto ID is enough evidence for me that there is a conspiracy. Despite the monopoly held in the classroom by material evolutionists, people are still very skeptical about its claims. Apparently, common sense prevails yet in America - people are able to identify intelligent patterns, intelligent designs, and are not fooled by "natural selection".

I think it is time to end this conversation, as our opinions are not going to merge with further discussion. We have reached a point of diminshing returns on learning anything, except you do not appear to know what Intelligent Design is. Perhaps you should go to the website and read what THEY say it is, rather than listen to misrepresentations of it. Succinctly put, it is not disagreeing with evolution, per sec, but MATERIAL evolution spurred on by "natural selection".

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

There is. Where else do we see a group of scientists so dogmatic? So willing to sue the other side, to belittle, name call, and in some cases, are caught lying about the "evidence"?

You assume because it is so hotly debated it is because they other side is trying its hardest to stifle it. Maybe it is coming from the other side....

Currently, evolution is the only science that people are trying to wedge a deity into. It is no wonder that we see it debated.

The court case was over a school system putting a theory in a class that the teachers did not feel was science. The case was brought to the court system, and ID lost. They failed to prove that it was a science. Is it even on appeal?

At this point, we would have the scientific community, college professors, school teachers, and the American Court system all colluding together to stifle ID. This would be a very very big conspiracy theory.

Does it not maybe seem a bit more likely that ID has failed to demonstrate that it is a science?

I have seen Dawkins' lies in an attack on Dembski in a supposed exchange they had in public. Dawkins said one thing in print after the said oral debate, the video displayed quite another. Naturally, very few people will go back and check the "sources" because most people think scientists don't have an agenda. However, scientists are people, as well. And unfortunately, as history has shown, they doggedly hold onto the status quo theory and resort to the tactics that these material evolutionists feel necessary to undertake. Believe what you want.

1. What is this incident you are referring to? I would like to look into that.

2. Dembski is full of dirty back hand tricks. He even stated he likes to ghost post his theories on the net, watch the reaction to them, and then include the reaction with his rebuttal in his latest paper back for 15.99.

Dembski was caught ripping off a copywrighted video, changing the audio, and portraying it as his own work (he states he gives credit to it on a slide before the video, but no one at the presentations remembers this, nor does the slide show up on video of the presentation)

People being fired because they hold onto ID is enough evidence for me that there is a conspiracy. Despite the monopoly held in the classroom by material evolutionists, people are still very skeptical about its claims. Apparently, common sense prevails yet in America - people are able to identify intelligent patterns, intelligent designs, and are not fooled by "natural selection".

Has anyone sued an employer over this issue? My dad, who has a doctorates in chemistry, is a published scientist. He does not profess belief in evolution. In fact he is skeptical of it. He has no threats of losing his job. But, he works with cleaning up the Nevada Test site, or with the EPA on lead paint, or with the SRS plant. None of his work is along the lines of anything to do with genetic research or paleontology. Therefore his belief in evolution is not really relevant to what he does.

Again it is mainly the mass public or people who have not really looked into it (my dad) in the US that does not accept evolution. That proves nothing. Maybe the YEC crowd (Hovind) and ID crowd have played a very good game with using the scientific lexicon against it, and appeal to ignorance.

Where does the overwhelming majority of the people who are related in some way in a field of research regarding evolution stand?

I think it is time to end this conversation, as our opinions are not going to merge with further discussion. We have reached a point of diminshing returns on learning anything, except you do not appear to know what Intelligent Design is. Perhaps you should go to the website and read what THEY say it is, rather than listen to misrepresentations of it. Succinctly put, it is not disagreeing with evolution, per sec, but MATERIAL evolution spurred on by "natural selection".

Regards

Well, I have enjoyed the discussion with you, but I do agree we are both beating a dead horse now.

I do know what ID is. I also know that ID claims cannot be tested by experiment, makes no predictions, and proposes no new hypothesis (other than of an intelligent designer). Nor does anyone in the ID community like to use the peer-reviewed route, rather they like to use the "buy-my-book-4-$15.99" route instead. Thats all I need to make a decision on if it is science or not.

If you do have, or come across anything that shows otherwise, drop it by me. I would be highly interested to know.

 

[MarkT]

I would presume that this is accurate - I am not a "bible literalist".

I wouldn't but I share your frustration and anger with studies and statistics. You can give a hundred people the same numbers and you will get a hundred different conclusions. So what a study says means nothing. In fact, studies don't say anything. It's the opinion of the researcher. It's playing with numbers. It's suggesting the lies are supported by evidence and science when nothing like it is true.

What does 'literalist' mean? I'm not talking about the definition of the word. The word is suggestive. It suggests the Bible is a piece of literature. Obviously the ones doing the study are looking at the Bible like it's a piece of literature. They don't believe the prophets or the Apostles. The Bible is a report. It's not literature. 'Who will believe our report?'

We have a spirit here who is telling us that we are animals. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. He says God didn't create anything but you can still believe in God. But our God is the Creator and there is no other god. He made the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. He created the sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And he made the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, and he made the man of dust in his image. The LORD God did it. We have no other God except the Creator.[/quote]

1. Are you seriously denoting that statistical inference is nothing but a tool to promote lies? A serious charge indeed. Why is everything a conspiracy theory if it does not agree with preconceived notions?

No. I'm not saying they know what they are doing. They don't know. What they do seems right to them, but they are blind. There's no conspiracy.

I do not disagree that when you start citing cause and effect for stats, you tread dangerous grounds. You cannot set controls in a stat study and weed out extraneous variables.

I never cited cause and effect. I just said that stat studies show that (within that sample) the less a person views everything in the Bible as literal, the more likely they are to believe in evolution. That is a completely accurate view on that study and is not a lie.

Now I can infer that, from the study, it seems that wanting to view the Bible as completely literal prevents someone from accepting evolution. IE bias is in place. BUT, I can not say that with any accuracy SOLEY based on that study. Stats do not let me extrapolate that far with any accuracy. More research would have to be done to support that view, but the stat is an indicator that it may be an interesting topic to study.

What do you mean by literal? If we didn't believe the words of God, then how are we Christians? It is because we believed God, that he has given us life in his Spirit. The words of our Master bring us joy and peace and hope. It's by understanding through faith in the promise God made in his name that we are made new in him. The studiers don't know that. If they did they would fall down dead. As it is they are perishing. But their words have become your words. They have become your teachers. Your desire is to be like them. If you want an A go back to your teachers. They will give you an A. Still I can't abandon you.

It is the same when they performed a stat study on teens and anti-depressants. The study showed there was a correlation between taking anti-depressants and suicide rates. Suicide rates were higher among teens who were prescribe those. BUT no one claimed that the anti-depressants caused the suicide rates to increase. They merely inferred that there could be a relation and more study was needed (ie test that hypothesis with CONTROLLED studies).

It could be that the more depressed a person is, the more likely they will go get treatment. And the more depressed a person is, the more likely they were to commit suicide, or it could actually be that the rx is causing the suicidal feelings. There is a correlation between taking the Rx and suicide, but the reasons are not clear.

I would say the drugs are the cause. I mean really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say the drugs don't work and they have harmful side effects.

Stat. studies are not worthless lies. They are a very useful tool in formulating a hypothesis so that you can actually test it.

They are worthless to me. To you they represent your only way of knowing anything. It's really like feeding children. You have no knowledge of anything unless someone feeds it to you. It's hard for me to relate to this generation; a generation that's never known the truth.

2. Literalist has nothing to do with literature. It means you take a literal view of everything in the bible, ie. You are inclined to believe that Noah’s flood was actually global, or that a fish swalloed Jonah for 3 days. Being a literalist is actually the opposite of viewing the bible as a piece of literature. Just because the root of the words are the same, does not mean they are the same.

Does the word “final†have anything to do with the word “fin� Certainly not.

No. Final does not suggest fin. Neither does fin suggest final. But a literalist does suggest literature.

3. Why put science in with the devil? Why does common ancestry have anything to do with evil? There is nothing innately evil about it. Just because it does not fit with some of the Churches interpretation of the scripture, does not mean it is evil. Galileo would have something to say about that I think.

For reasons you can not comprehend. What exactly do you think science is? Is it a god to be worshipped? Common ancestry is a lie and those who preach common ancestry are liars. They are servants of the Serpent though they don't know it.

You know better than I if you are an animal. If you are, then say so. But beware lest you condemn yourself. The beast is given a mouth to utter haughty and blasphemous words. Beware lest he convince you he is your father. I will not judge the servant of another. However I'm not convinced you are an animal.

If ERVs are an obstacle to your understanding, then I'll say this hoping to remove the obstacle. Viruses originate with us and with every creature that is made of flesh according to its kind. I'm just guessing, mind you. I'm not a geneticist. I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. I hope this is true. When we die and our cells explode, bits of RNA and DNA enter into the virus kingdom. Apes and man have a similar appearance. It follows from that, that we have a similar genome. The viral elements are in us and they were in us already. They have been in us since the beginning, and they have been in apes since the beginning. And they are located in locations that are in common with the apes and man. If you trace the origin of viruses back, you will find there is no common ancestor. It follows, therefore, that apes and man do not have a common ancestor.

 

[francisdesales]

Well, I have enjoyed the discussion with you, but I do agree we are both beating a dead horse now.

Yes, thank you for the discussion. I appreciate your point of view and your refraining from particular tactics that some people undertake during such heated topics. There is no doubt that this particular field of science is wrought with such pitfalls because of the implications of removing the role of a diety - certainly, something science could never prove or disprove.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

What do you mean by literal? If we didn't believe the words of God, then how are we Christians? It is because we believed God, that he has given us life in his Spirit. The words of our Master bring us joy and peace and hope. It's by understanding through faith in the promise God made in his name that we are made new in him. The studiers don't know that. If they did they would fall down dead. As it is they are perishing. But their words have become your words. They have become your teachers. Your desire is to be like them. If you want an A go back to your teachers. They will give you an A. Still I can't abandon you.

Come on, I am not saying to that a non literalist doesn’t believe in God’s words. Everything is not in absolutes.

For instance, what about the story of the devil taking Jesus up onto the highest mountain top and showing him all the kingdoms of the world? We know that isn’t physically possible. So, you have a choice, you can take that to be a metaphor, or believe that the devil did some super power. Most tend to take that metaphorical.

So if you can take that to be metaphorical, is it not possible to take the creation as a metaphor, since we know that if God explained it in the real scientific form, the writer would have no chance of understanding it, nor the readers for the next 4,000 years

Again, the study isn’t the work of the devil. They take a sample of people and ask them a list of questions. What is so evil about that? Knowledge is not intrinsically evil, and sample studies are a part of our body of knowledge. They are apart of almost everything you use in your life.

Ie. Car designs, foods, political campaigns, the clothes you wear, the tv shows you watch, etc. Stat sample studies impact you way more than you may realize.

I would say the drugs are the cause. I mean really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say the drugs don't work and they have harmful side effects.

Seems that everytime I go to the doctor with a sinus infection and get anti biotics, my down time is cut in half. Those are drugs. My dad has had arthritis since his twenties. It almost cost him his ability to walk by the time he was in his mid 40’s. He started taking embryl, and the damage has stopped in the last 10 years, and actually did a little bit of reversal. I worked in health care, and the people who did not take their insulin shots regularly fared much worse than those who would take it as prescribed. My uncle has schizophrenia. Whenever he would stop taking his meds, he would be a lot worse.

Everytime I get a cough, my OTC cough medicine always soothes my cough.

How many lives have been saved by antibiotics? Countless.

Seems like there is some good to them. I am not claiming that there isn’t some abuse by the big rx companies, but you can’t discount all drugs. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there is some benefit to drugs.

They are worthless to me. To you they represent your only way of knowing anything. It's really like feeding children. You have no knowledge of anything unless someone feeds it to you. It's hard for me to relate to this generation; a generation that's never known the truth

I charge that you actually do not realize how much stat studies affect you life. Unless you live under a rock.

I never said that it is the only way to learn, but they sure are a useful info gathering tool.

No. Final does not suggest fin. Neither does fin suggest final. But a literalist does suggest literature.

The root word comes from the latin (i think its latin) "litterÄÂlis" which meant "of letters".

That is the only connection. Literate means to be able to read. Litterature is a collection of words to form a body of writing (novels, poetry, etc.) Letters (from "lettre") means the individual alpha bit character. Literal means to take the words of something at face value (again there are parts of the bible you do not take literal, such as seeing the tree from the 4 corners of the world. that couldnt be literal).

The only suggestion that literal means literature is a connection in your mind because they look the same. They have different meanings. Again do the words "master" and "mast" have much in common?

If ERVs are an obstacle to your understanding, then I'll say this hoping to remove the obstacle. Viruses originate with us and with every creature that is made of flesh according to its kind. I'm just guessing, mind you. I'm not a geneticist. I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. I hope this is true………

That certainly is not true. It actually doesn’t even make sense.

 

[MarkT]

What do you mean by literal? If we didn't believe the words of God, then how are we Christians? It is because we believed God, that he has given us life in his Spirit. The words of our Master bring us joy and peace and hope. It's by understanding through faith in the promise God made in his name that we are made new in him. The studiers don't know that. If they did they would fall down dead. As it is they are perishing. But their words have become your words. They have become your teachers. Your desire is to be like them. If you want an A go back to your teachers. They will give you an A. Still I can't abandon you.

Come on, I am not saying to that a non literalist doesn’t believe in God’s words. Everything is not in absolutes.

For instance, what about the story of the devil taking Jesus up onto the highest mountain top and showing him all the kingdoms of the world? We know that isn’t physically possible. So, you have a choice, you can take that to be a metaphor, or believe that the devil did some super power. Most tend to take that metaphorical.

Yep. In a moment of time. I don't see any metaphor in it.

So if you can take that to be metaphorical, is it not possible to take the creation as a metaphor, since we know that if God explained it in the real scientific form, the writer would have no chance of understanding it, nor the readers for the next 4,000 years

Nope. God made them by his word, according to their kind, and he made man in his image. The Lord God did it. There's no way to read common descent into Genesis. In fact, you can't read it into any part of the Bible. God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.' 'And it was so.' Then the LORD said to Moses and Aron, 'Say to the people of Israel, These are the living things among all the beasts that are on the earth' and then he goes on, 'These you may eat of all that are in the waters'. So there's a direct reference to the various kinds of creatures that were created. The understanding that man is a distinct kind is shown in James' letter; 'For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind' James 3:7

The Bible allows us to understand that a species belongs to a kind, and that is what we see. It doesn't allow common descent. Common descent doesn't tell us God created every creature according to its kind, and that's the important understanding.

Again, the study isn’t the work of the devil. They take a sample of people and ask them a list of questions. What is so evil about that? Knowledge is not intrinsically evil, and sample studies are a part of our body of knowledge. They are apart of almost everything you use in your life.

Ie. Car designs, foods, political campaigns, the clothes you wear, the tv shows you watch, etc. Stat sample studies impact you way more than you may realize.

It used to be people would use common sense. Now the science behind the study makes people think they are justified in producing crap. Sure it impacts me. It impacts everyone.

I would say the drugs are the cause. I mean really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say the drugs don't work and they have harmful side effects.

Seems that everytime I go to the doctor with a sinus infection and get anti biotics, my down time is cut in half. Those are drugs. My dad has had arthritis since his twenties. It almost cost him his ability to walk by the time he was in his mid 40’s. He started taking embryl, and the damage has stopped in the last 10 years, and actually did a little bit of reversal. I worked in health care, and the people who did not take their insulin shots regularly fared much worse than those who would take it as prescribed. My uncle has schizophrenia. Whenever he would stop taking his meds, he would be a lot worse.

Everytime I get a cough, my OTC cough medicine always soothes my cough.

How many lives have been saved by antibiotics? Countless.

Seems like there is some good to them. I am not claiming that there isn’t some abuse by the big rx companies, but you can’t discount all drugs. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there is some benefit to drugs.

Certain drugs like aspirin and penicilin have a proven history but it doesn't follow that every drug that is advertised on TV is a miracle drug or that they do not have harmful side affects. Still people take the drugs because they think they are proven. The point is, the effect of the study is proven to work if it gets people to buy the drug.

They are worthless to me. To you they represent your only way of knowing anything. It's really like feeding children. You have no knowledge of anything unless someone feeds it to you. It's hard for me to relate to this generation; a generation that's never known the truth

I charge that you actually do not realize how much stat studies affect you life. Unless you live under a rock.

I never said that it is the only way to learn, but they sure are a useful info gathering tool.

Yes. If you're trying to sell something. But I ain't buying.

No. Final does not suggest fin. Neither does fin suggest final. But a literalist does suggest literature.

The root word comes from the latin (i think its latin) "litterÄÂlis" which meant "of letters".

That is the only connection. Literate means to be able to read. Litterature is a collection of words to form a body of writing (novels, poetry, etc.) Letters (from "lettre") means the individual alpha bit character. Literal means to take the words of something at face value (again there are parts of the bible you do not take literal, such as seeing the tree from the 4 corners of the world. that couldnt be literal).

The only suggestion that literal means literature is a connection in your mind because they look the same. They have different meanings. Again do the words "master" and "mast" have much in common?

No. They don't. We have to go back to your conclusion - 'As Bible literalists within a population goes down, belief in evolution goes up.'

I'm saying that your suggestion that people are ignorant because they are somehow reading the Bible the wrong way is false. I believe you are suggesting that the Bible is literature and that it should not be taken literally. Am I right? I say this because you keep referring to literary devices whenever you can't understand something scientifically.

If ERVs are an obstacle to your understanding, then I'll say this hoping to remove the obstacle. Viruses originate with us and with every creature that is made of flesh according to its kind. I'm just guessing, mind you. I'm not a geneticist. I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. I hope this is true………

That certainly is not true. It actually doesn’t even make sense.

It might be true. 2-8% of the human genome is supposed to be ERVs. The accepted explanation is that humans acquired all of them, but that might not be entirely true. Maybe some of them are acquired and some of them belong to us. What if some of the ones that belong to us and some of the ones that belong to chimps are located in the same location on the same chromosome? It doesn't mean we're related. One might be a simian version of the other. Check out the origins of viruses. We could be virus factories; 'we' meaning all living creatures. Chickens spontaneously release infectious viruses when they are radiated. There are negative factors and cellular inhibitors that might inhibit an infectious release until the inhibitor stops working; like when a creature dies. Then the virus is released - most likely in the blood of the creature. I'm not saying retroviruses can not be acquired. I think that has been proven. But perhaps some viruses belong to us. Why should we not release viruses same as any other creature?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Nope. God made them by his word, according to their kind, and he made man in his image. The Lord God did it. There's no way to read common descent into Genesis. In fact, you can't read it into any part of the Bible. God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.' 'And it was so.' Then the LORD said to Moses and Aron, 'Say to the people of Israel, These are the living things among all the beasts that are on the earth' and then he goes on, 'These you may eat of all that are in the waters'. So there's a direct reference to the various kinds of creatures that were created. The understanding that man is a distinct kind is shown in James' letter; 'For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind' James 3:7

None of which really contradicts evolution. Again, telling someone of that time period that God made them by his word makes a lot more sense than talking about mutations, speciation, etc.

That would not make sense to them.

He didn't tell them that the universe and earth are billions of years old, yet we find the evidence for that to be pretty indisputable .

It used to be people would use common sense. Now the science behind the study makes people think they are justified in producing crap. Sure it impacts me. It impacts everyone.

Yeah, good old common sense. People would let blood if you had a fever, and actually kill you.

Common sense told people the sun revolved around the earth. Common sense told people that the sun dove into the ocean at sunset.

Common sense told people that if you cant see anything, it isn't there, ie bacteria.

Doesn't seem like common sense is too trustworthy.

Certain drugs like aspirin and penicilin have a proven history but it doesn't follow that every drug that is advertised on TV is a miracle drug or that they do not have harmful side affects. Still people take the drugs because they think they are proven. The point is, the effect of the study is proven to work if it gets people to buy the drug.

I would say that this is true for a majority of the herbal medicines that are know allowed to imply claims, but Rx drugs really do go under clinical trials.

They are put under stringent duble blind studies, and do have to show efficacy before allowed to be put on the market.

Now, I admit that alot of side affects are missed which causes some harm, and some of the known side effects may be a bit worse than the treated problem.

Also, doctors prescribe things like tic tacs, and over prescribe.

We tend to trust that doctors really know what they are doing. Well, that is usually true with specialists, but GPs have some deficiencies sometimes and just play a guessing game with meds to see what works. I worked with DR offices, I saw it first hand.

We expect a person to be a general expert on all our ailments. That just isnt possible. As the adage goes, you can be an expert at one thing, or mediocre at a lot of things.

I'm saying that your suggestion that people are ignorant because they are somehow reading the Bible the wrong way is false. I believe you are suggesting that the Bible is literature and that it should not be taken literally. Am I right? I say this because you keep referring to literary devices whenever you can't understand something scientifically

Hmm. I do not every remember calling anyone ignorant. Not sure where you got that from. In fact, I just had about 4 pages with Francisdale where we obviously disagree on things, yet I think I displayed respect for her, and vice versa. I do not consider a literalist ignorant. Serious charge indeed.

I am just saying that the sample showed a correlation. I stated I had an opinion, but the study can't really tell the cause/effect relationship. That is out side the bounds of stat sampling.

My personal feeling is that a person my skew their belief because of wanting to view every part of the bible as literal, when it wouldn't even make sense to the time period to have everything literal.

It might be true. 2-8% of the human genome is supposed to be ERVs. The accepted explanation is that humans acquired all of them, but that might not be entirely true. Maybe some of them are acquired and some of them belong to us. What if some of the ones that belong to us and some of the ones that belong to chimps are located in the same location on the same chromosome? It doesn't mean we're related. One might be a simian version of the other.

Any evidence supporting this? Or is it a bare assertion?

Check out the origins of viruses.

last i checked no one was entirely sure of the origins.

There are negative factors and cellular inhibitors that might inhibit an infectious release until the inhibitor stops working; like when a creature dies. Then the virus is released - most likely in the blood of the creature. I'm not saying retroviruses can not be acquired. I think that has been proven. But perhaps some viruses belong to us. Why should we not release viruses same as any other creature?

Would not explain Endogenous Retrovirus. Nor the pattern in which they appear.