RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: How Evolutionists do things, Evolutionists cherry-picking of data< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:41   

Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest. In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry. Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively. However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible. As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.

Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would. In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously. Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything? Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:16   

Regarding your first paragraph:
No one is immune to bias. You are living proof of that; your religious beliefs, a factor that is irrelevant to the data presented, clearly color your arguments against evolution. Of course, you are free to draw the conclusions you wish from the papers you've read (understood?), and I'm free to disagree with you. One need not be a Christian or a follower of any other religion to come to different conclusions.
-- Just don't teach your Christian-biased conclusions on science to my children in science class; they want to learn science, not Christianity.--
You've specifically accused peer-reviewed authors of bias by assuming "evolution over Christianity". Can you demonstrate to us where that bias is represented in the data?

Regarding your second paragraph:
ID is not a theory as it does not explain any phenomenon to any testable extent. At very best, it is a critique of the Theory of Evolution hopelessly doped with Christian bias (see above). Contrary to the first sentence, ID does not provide an empiric basis for anything. In order for something to be empirical it must be based on experience, trial and error, or experiment; it must be derived from the senses and not by logical deduction. ID proponents don't do experiments and have no empirically derived data.

Regarding transfer of genes from one organism to another by eating them:
First of all, parsimonious means scanty or meager (adj.: too careful with money or assets). You might want to revise your wording before submitting your data to Science or Nature.
Secondly, your hypothesis is laughable. You've grossly misunderstood and oversimplified the biochemical mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in the most infantile way. By your hypothesis, I should have corn genes, celery genes, carrot genes, rice genes, wheat genes, yeast genes, and genetic material from MANY other organisms incorporated into my own which is not the case. You did know that grains, yeast and vegetables have DNA didn't you?

BTW: If you're an ID parody character, bravo. You've succeeded in entertaining me. I'll keep reading your posts for their entertainment value.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:19   

Quote
Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their preconceived amoral ontology and reject the rest.


What data are rejected? ID has done no research, produced no data. There is always lively debate within the scientific community about the quality and relevance of individual research results; new findings have to fight for acceptance. Repeatability is the key.

Quote
In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread


Try posting on PT. You'll find unsupported contention cuts little ice with real scientists.

Quote
I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry.


The ones you linked to here did not do that in fact or in purpose.

Quote
As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.


Conclusions unsupported by those data, perhaps. Especially if you are emulating Uri Bill Dembski.

Quote
Intelligent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would.


All that IDists have done is to make assertions. They have done no research, produced no evidence, tested no theories. ID is not science.

Quote
In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data.


Symbiogenesis and horizontal gene transfer is an uncontroversial theory for single-celled organisms. What you seem to be proposing, that genetic information can be incorporated in the genotype of a multi-cellular organism by ingestion is laughable.



Quote
Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.


Ah, the Satanic trinity. Evolutionary biology continues to build on the ideas of Darwin. Origin of Species is not the evolutionists' Bible; rather a useful reference of past work on which to build and continue to develop our understanding of how life evolves.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:23   

HPLC_Sean

You beat me to it. I promise I hadn't read your post before posting mine and didn't crib "laughable".

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:27   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,11:41)
Quote
Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest.
You are committing a fallacy here: you equate evolutionary biologists (and scientists and laypersons in other fields who accept the theory of evolution) with people who amoral - presumarly because you are under the mistaken impression that one must be an atheist to accept the theory.

You are wrong.  Just thought you should know.  The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.

Quote
In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry.
You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words.
Quote
Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively.
Again, you are factually incorrect - your quote-mining was demonstrated to be nonsense, and more valid citations were provided.  

Quote
However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible.
Factually incorrect.  I know a large number of devout Christians who accept evolution.  According to you, they can't exist.  Will you now admit that you are wrong?
Quote
As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.
You draw different conclusions not on the basis of your faith but on your lack of understanding of basic biological science.  You shouldn't confuse the two.

Quote
Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes.
No, actually it doesn't.  Cite the actual research that demonstrates this.
Quote
IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would.
Since there is no IDT, I'm afraid this statement is factually incorrect.  ID has no theory - it has, at best, a blatantly true hypothesis: somethings in the universe are the result of intent.  That's not a theory, I'm afraid.
Quote
In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously.
Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry.
Quote
Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything?
Because we don't.  We use the Modern Synthesis as the best explanation to fit the facts.  You need to read some more modern science.
Quote
Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.
Oh, dear.  Lack of knowledge of history does not make a refutation.

But an excellent simulation of a creationist.  Bravo!  Well done!

Quote
Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest.
You are committing a fallacy here: you equate evolutionary biologists (and scientists and laypersons in other fields who accept the theory of evolution) with people who amoral - presumarly because you are under the mistaken impression that one must be an atheist to accept the theory.

You are wrong.  Just thought you should know.  The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.

Quote
In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry.
You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words.
Quote
Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively.
Again, you are factually incorrect - your quote-mining was demonstrated to be nonsense, and more valid citations were provided.  

Quote
However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible.
Factually incorrect.  I know a large number of devout Christians who accept evolution.  According to you, they can't exist.  Will you now admit that you are wrong?
Quote
As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.
You draw different conclusions not on the basis of your faith but on your lack of understanding of basic biological science.  You shouldn't confuse the two.

Quote
Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes.
No, actually it doesn't.  Cite the actual research that demonstrates this.
Quote
IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would.
Since there is no IDT, I'm afraid this statement is factually incorrect.  ID has no theory - it has, at best, a blatantly true hypothesis: somethings in the universe are the result of intent.  That's not a theory, I'm afraid.
Quote
In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously.
Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry.
Quote
Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything?
Because we don't.  We use the Modern Synthesis as the best explanation to fit the facts.  You need to read some more modern science.
Quote
Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.
Oh, dear.  Lack of knowledge of history does not make a refutation.

But an excellent simulation of a creationist.  Bravo!  Well done!

  
Henry J



Posts: 4114
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,16:16   

Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)

Henry

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,13:20   

Quote
Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry.

 Turning your fangs on Margulis, eh?

Quote
You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words.

  Darwinists caught with their pants around their ankles= quote-mining. Besides, we "creos" are only interested in the data behind the quotes rather than the inept spin-doctoring that clutters the discussion section. But we thought you would figure this out by now. Apparently not.
Quote
The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.

 So say the evilutionists when the cameras are on. Some spokesmen (Dr. Kenneth Miller) claim otherwise. He's a useful sort, I guess. ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:06   

Quote
Secondly, your hypothesis is laughable. You've grossly misunderstood and oversimplified the biochemical mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in the most infantile way.


My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan. (I am aware they got divorced; it's amazing how often that happens with evolutionists!;) In my version, complex specified information does not increase. In Mrs. Sagan's, it does. She claimed mitochondria and chloroplasts were eaten by other one-celled organisms to become animal and plant cells without any mechanism at all. This is a gargantuan increase in complex specified information utterly impossible without the aid of intellegent design.

In my version there is no increase in CSI, and a plasuible mechanism by wihch this occurs. A paper was published that describessoma-to-germline inheiritence. Since this requires a great deal more CSI increase than digestive system-to-germline inheiritence, my hypothesis is quite plausible in the light of current knowledge.

Quote
By your hypothesis, I should have corn genes, celery genes, carrot genes, rice genes, wheat genes, yeast genes, and genetic material from MANY other organisms incorporated into my own which is not the case.


According to some papers, you do. This is how evolutionists construct their godless "Tree of Life" How do you think they come up with "evidence" that humans are related to plants and animals from junk DNA? This is the main point I've been trying to get you evolutionists to understand!

Quote
You did know that grains, yeast and vegetables have DNA didn't you?


Yes I do. Do not take me for being stupid. Stupidity does with the Darwinian faith, not the Christian one. How stupid do you have to be to put your faith and trust in a man everybody recognizes is dead?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:21   

Quote
No one is immune to bias. You are living proof of that; your religious beliefs, a factor that is irrelevant to the data presented, clearly color your arguments against evolution. Of course, you are free to draw the conclusions you wish from the papers you've read (understood?), and I'm free to disagree with you. One need not be a Christian or a follower of any other religion to come to different conclusions.


This perspective leads your evolutionary hiney down the road to nihilistic scepticism. What you said is correct, all evidence is interpreted in the light of presuppositions. However, if you can not choose between presuppositions, you have no means of knowledge. Your evolutioary worldview closes you to the possibility of making any authentic knowledge claims. All knowledge claims actually presuppose the Christian worldview. This has been proved by the late Dutch theologian Cornelius van Til. Read the essays at this site and be enlightened.

Quote
-- Just don't teach your Christian-biased conclusions on science to my children in science class; they want to learn science, not Christianity.--


Why should Darwinian-based conclusions be preferred over Christian-based ones. When, by your own admission, no one is immune from bias? Indeed, science can not exist independently of Christianity, since it involves knowledge claims (see above).

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:49   

I said [quote=]The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.[/quote]

The Ghost apparently didn't bother to read what I wrote and answered with a charming non-sequitur:
Quote
So say the evilutionists when the cameras are on. Some spokesmen (Dr. Kenneth Miller) claim otherwise. He's a useful sort, I guess.


We weren't talking about what the people think - we're talking about the theory.

Use some simple text, like Futuyma, and find me the precise part of the theory which makes theological claims.

Hint: you'll be unable to.

Why be wrong in public?  Don't discuss things you are not well-versed in, and avoid straw-men.

But again, superb paradoy of a creationist.  Spot on.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:52   

Quote
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)


Because the Holy Bible says otherwise. The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity. Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish.

This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52)
Quote
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)


Because the Holy Bible says otherwise. The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity. Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish.

This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act.

OMG, this is hilarious  :D

We will having a Darwinian Conspiracy thread next  :D

Glad to see some people have a sense of humor though.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:50   

G-o-Paley said:
Quote
My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan.

Lynn Margulis' (Mrs. Sagan) work isn't being debated here. Her work was rigorously researched, it proposed biochemical mechanisms, and was peer-reviewed. Her work was fecund and led to multiple new branches of research. Comparing your hypothesis to hers by invoking a nonsensical and tangential notion like CSI as your main propellant is reputation suicide. You do know that C.S.I. is B.U.N.K. don't you?
Have you ever heard of DNAse? RNAse? Proteases? These enzymes are found in many cell types in many organisms and serve specifically to digest and destroy foreign genetic material. Many eukaryotic cells have a nucleus that protects the native genetic material from foreign genetic material and nuclear pore receptors are VERY selective about what goes in and out of the precious karyon. Prokaryotes don't have nuclei so their genetic material is easily altered by compatible foreign genetic material. That's why cloning is easy with bacteria and very difficult with eukaryotes.
All you have is CSI to back up your hypothesis? Gee... All biochemists have is 50 years of studying DNA recombination. If I could buy your hypothesis for $50 or Lynn Margulis' for $50,000, I'd save my money for hers.

Oh, this one is great...
Quote
How stupid do you have to be to put your faith and trust in a man everybody recognizes is dead?

Do you have faith in Jesus? Didn't he die (for your sins)?
Repent G-o-Paley...
The only person being nihilistically skeptical here is you and your creationist fundamentalists. I mean, how much data do you need before you're convinced? On the flip side, what if I needed the same kind of proof to believe in God? Wouldn't you be up a creek?

Quote
Why should Darwinian-based conclusions be preferred over Christian-based ones.

Becuase one is SCIENCE and the other is FAITH. The former required independently and repeatedly verified data, the latter requires a nice story and a good story-teller. The former has led to medical advances that allow you to live twice as long as your ancestors did a mere 100 years ago and the latter has caused more than a few wars and misery for 2000 years. I can go on...
Ah! Theologians! A pillar of unbiased research! It takes a Christian theologian to determine that knowledge is dependant on Christianity. Isn't pride a deadly sin? 'Cause that's as proud as it gets...

  
Henry J



Posts: 4114
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,11:34   

Whoops, I said "amoral" in my previous post when I meant to say "immoral", but Ghost appears to have used what I meant rather than what I said.

Henry

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,15:22   

Quote
Lynn Margulis' (Mrs. Sagan) work isn't being debated here. Her work was rigorously researched, it proposed biochemical mechanisms, and was peer-reviewed. Her work was fecund and led to multiple new branches of research.

 I.D. is peer-reviewed, over the squeals of many wee piggies I might add.
Quote
All you have is CSI to back up your hypothesis?

Elaborated and elucidated in a delectable series of monographs. Read them first to revel in their sheer beauty, then gently glide into the cold, crystalline bath of the mathematics proper. It's not often that one can discern the traces, the whispers, of a mind greater than one's own. Don't be an ungrateful little prig.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,16:06   

Quote
I.D. is peer-reviewed, over the squeals of many wee piggies I might add.
This was covered on either Pharyngula or the Questionable Authority (or both). There was a Proquest or LexisNexis or other scholarly paper search for "intelligent design." Essentially, there were maybe 10-20 papers in which "intelligent design" was in the proper context. Out of those, none of them supported ID.

    
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,08:52   

Quote
This was covered on either Pharyngula or the Questionable Authority (or both). There was a Proquest or LexisNexis or other scholarly paper search for "intelligent design." Essentially, there were maybe 10-20 papers in which "intelligent design" was in the proper context. Out of those, none of them supported ID.

 Not any more. In fact, the squeals were created precisely because an ID-oriented paper found its way into a scientific journal. See this site
 I admit, this source might not be the most reliable. :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,02:07   

ONE ID-oriented paper? Did I hear you right there? Only one? Just ONE as opposed to God knows how many in support of evolution over 150 years? My God, the case for ID is truly compelling.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,02:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52)
Quote
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)


Because the Holy Bible says otherwise.


Sources please.


Quote
The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity.


Again, sources please.


Quote
Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish.


Sadly, even God's words in the Bible doesn't make Christians act in a Christian way. They were forbidden to shed blood, so instead they got round it by putting people on the rack and finding similar loopholes. Or how about the bishop who said "Kill them all. God will know his own." when asked what to do about the population of a town that had been captured and had quite a few Christians living there.


Quote
This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act.


And here GoP finally leaves all semblance of reality behind and bravely wanders off into a twilight world of X-files like fantasy.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,10:44   

Quote
ONE ID-oriented paper? Did I hear you right there? Only one? Just ONE as opposed to God knows how many in support of evolution over 150 years? My God, the case for ID is truly compelling.

 Yes, and the evos are doing their best to make sure that little indiscretion never happens again. See the journal's statement.
 Besides, I think the Behe-Snoke paper also qualifies as an I.D. paper. C'mon, Wonderpants, keep up with the discussion.
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52)
Quote  
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)



Because the Holy Bible says otherwise.  


Sources please.

 What are our schools producing nowadays? Hint: look near the front.
Quote
Quote  
The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity.  


Again, sources please.


 Well, there's My Struggle by some German fellow. What was his name? Don't worry if you don't know: ask the nearest homeschooled kid and he'll tell you.
Quote
Sadly, even God's words in the Bible doesn't make Christians act in a Christian way. They were forbidden to shed blood, so instead they got round it by putting people on the rack and finding similar loopholes. Or how about the bishop who said "Kill them all. God will know his own." when asked what to do about the population of a town that had been captured and had quite a few Christians living there.

  This must explain the utter bliss and peace that reigned during the secular 20th century.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,12:08   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Oct. 23 2005,15:44][/quote]
Quote
 Yes, and the evos are doing their best to make sure that little indiscretion never happens again. See the journal's statement.


Did you actually read the article?  
"Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure."
And you might look at the AAAS article it links to as well.

Quote
 Besides, I think the Behe-Snoke paper also qualifies as an I.D. paper.


So the number of peer reviewed papers has suddenly doubled. I still don't think they'll bring the scientific theory of evolution crashing down, somehow.

Quote
 What are our schools producing nowadays? Hint: look near the front.


I don't know what American schools are producing these days, but I'm not optimistic if they're still fighting over the validity of evolution. Please enlighten me.


Quote
 Well, there's My Struggle by some German fellow. What was his name?


By Christ, I really hope that you're not suggesting that a terrible perversion of the theory of evolution by an evil lunatic to justify the extermination of an entire people is what the theory of evolution is actually about.
You think that the scientific establishment would like to be connected to the Nazis?

Also, does Godwin's Law come into play at this point?


Quote
This must explain the utter bliss and peace that reigned during the secular 20th century.


The 20th century wasn't exactly 'secular'. It's only in the last 30 years that religion has declined, at least here in Europe.
And can I point out that we're now in a new religious war, with Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda thinking that God wants them to destroy Western civilisation, and George Bush thinking that God wants him to invade Iraq.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,14:57   

I can't think of a time in human "civilized" history that was ever dominated by "bliss and peace".  Douglas Adams was talking about me when he commented that some people think that it was a mistake to come down out of the trees in the first place.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2005,14:57   

Quote
Did you actually read the article?  
"Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure."
And you might look at the AAAS article it links to as well.

 From the statement:
Quote
We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings.[my emphasis]

  It's the global nature of the ban that bothers me. How in the world can the Society possibly know that no future I.D. paper will be relevant? Even if you accept their side of the story. Which I don't; for one reason why, see here.
 How can you guys possibly defend them?

Quote
I can't think of a time in human "civilized" history that was ever dominated by "bliss and peace".

 Perhaps not. But even accounting for technology, the 20th century saw a lot of bloodshed.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2005,21:13   

Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,05:06   

Quote
Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.

 So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war? Personally, I think that religion can be a great source of friction, but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior. I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,06:44   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2005,10:06)
Quote
Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.

 So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war? Personally, I think that religion can be a great source of friction, but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior. I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case.

There is a huge amount in the teachings of Christ against war.  The problem is not with the teachings of Christ, it what some of those #### Christians have done with the teachings.  :D

I once watched a fascinating discussion where a pastor tried to reinterpret the "eye of the needle" story to mean that rich people could go to heaven.  Can you belive it?

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,09:17   

Quote
I once watched a fascinating discussion where a pastor tried to reinterpret the "eye of the needle" story to mean that rich people could go to heaven.  Can you belive it?

 I've never understood how so many of my fellow Christians can ignore such obvious teachings, either.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,07:55   

Midnightvoice pretty much said what I wanted to say, and in fewer words. But I'd like to respond briefly to a few points.

Quote
So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war?


I can't agree with that.  Believe me, I'd like to.  I think Jesus had a wonderful core message, and if Christianity's holy book was only that message I'd be inclined to agree with you.  The Old Testament, in my opinion, is what confuses people.  Its full of wiggle room and justifications and just plain ick.  So I'm forced to look at the results.  I'd like to agree with you, but I don't see how I can.

Quote
...but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior.


It seems like you are implying that sociopaths are a result of atheism?  Its an interesting observation, but I'm not sure if that follows.  And if it does, I'm not sure that the occasional sociopath is any worse than the dark, national pathologies that arise from some religions.  I would even suggest that sociopaths are preferrable.  They have a harder time motivating an army to attack another.

Quote
I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case.


I agree religion comes out ahead, way ahead.  That might be because historically there have been a lot more governments with religious inclinations than atheistic ones.  It would be easier to compare if there was something resembling parity.

I don't know.  I'm not trying to blame all the world's woes on religion.  Maybe if the situation were reversed, and atheist governments were the rule rather than the exception, we'd see just as much war and persecution and blood as we have under the banner of religion.  But maybe not.  We'll probably never know.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,09:45   

Quote
I agree religion comes out ahead, way ahead.  That might be because historically there have been a lot more governments with religious inclinations than atheistic ones.  It would be easier to compare if there was something resembling parity.

 I think you misunderstood me. I'm arguing that religious leaders, on average, are less violent than secular ones. I think if you look at tyrants such as Ivan the Terrible, you'll see that their religious convictions helped mute their atrocities somewhat. Whereas Stalin, who was an atheist despite his early training in the Tiflis seminary, had nothing to brake his increasing paranoia. I really do believe that if Hitler had been the Catholic he pretended to be (regarding his beliefs, that is: I think he was actually a neopagan), he would not have ordered the Holocaust. For every Cortes, there's a Bartolome de Las Casas whose religion tries to reign him in. You have to wonder why active, deliberate genocide became more prevalent during the 20th century. But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,10:04   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,14:45)
You have to wonder why active, deliberate genocide became more prevalent during the 20th century. But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure.

Largely because we now report it in full, and because we have the means and weapons available to attempt to commit it more easily.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
  42 replies since Oct. 17 2005,06:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]