Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Dvalidate.Dr. Richard Lewontin a renowned evolution geneticist said,...

Sorry? Argument from Authority? I detect a Logical Fallacy. Please provide a link to the whole quote, not just a carefully excised snippet, that may or may not be accurate.

Moreover, you seem to think that non-theists "worship" this guy or something. A false belief.

We may or may not respect certain knowledgeable folk, but they must earn it.

For example, Dr Richard Dawkins is often quoted on things not related to biology. Which I, personally find laughable-- may as well quote Spiderman or Batman.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Since you can't handle what I've already given you...

100% false. You've literally been handed your <ahem>, multiple times, by multiple people.

Yet, you persist in repeating your same fatally-flawed "argument" as if you had not just lost...

Pigeon Chess, anyone?

 

[sooda]

You appear to have a rather strange view of what evolution is. Evolution does not say that there is no God . It only explains the diversity of life. Many, if not most, Christians accept the theory of evolution. Christians that demand the myths of Genesis are true is mostly a U.S. Phenomenon.

That's true. Foreigners don't confuse science with myths.

 

[sooda]

Sorry? Argument from Authority? I detect a Logical Fallacy. Please provide a link to the whole quote, not just a carefully excised snippet, that may or may not be accurate.

Moreover, you seem to think that non-theists "worship" this guy or something. A false belief.

We may or may not respect certain knowledgeable folk, but they must earn it.

For example, Dr Richard Dawkins is often quoted on things not related to biology. Which I, personally find laughable-- may as well quote Spiderman or Batman.

Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote - creation.com
https://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote
Amazing admission. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts ...

 

[sooda]

If creationists were informed, rational, and honest, there would be no creationists.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">1 [Emphasis in original.]

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm not going there. Why? Because if I use certain sources you automatically discard them. ....

Perhaps you should analyze the common thread of your ... ahem... "sources" if they keep getting dismissed?

Maybe it's the quality (or lack thereof) of your "sources"?

Did you ever consider that for even one second? No?

Well.... to quote Wesley, the Man In Black, (otherwise known as the Dread Pirate Roberts) "Get used to disappointment"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Abogenesis itself violates the law of science & Nature. .

Really? Care to publish your Scientific Paper, and get a Nobel Prize in Biology?

No? You don't have any facts to support the above claim?

Well.....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote - creation.com
https://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote
Amazing admission. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts ...

It matters not how much of an expert he may or may not have been--

Using partial "quotes" is a form of Logical Fallacy. Quote Mining.

Moreover, "quoting" someone without a link to the whole speech? Is also Quote Mining.

 

[sooda]

It matters not how much of an expert he may or may not have been--

Using partial "quotes" is a form of Logical Fallacy. Quote Mining.

Moreover, "quoting" someone without a link to the whole speech? Is also Quote Mining.

Just click on Amazing Admission.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Just click on Amazing Admission.

Nope. The "source" for the "quote" is a discredited website. I refuse to participate in a brainwashing website, in case they get $0.001 from me clicking on their site, to generate some revenue.

Point to a University site, and I'll read it. Never-ever a creationism website, which are 100% known to be Liars For Jesus.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Just click on Amazing Admission.

My point remains, however-- using a partial "quote" from anyone is a logical fallacy, especially if the "quote" appears to say something other that what the original person said...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So if Big Bang & Evolution isn't Faith based. Then tell me where by proof w/o FAITH or Supernatural where energy first originated. Was it eternal. If so then that takes both Faith & Supernatural since it can't be proven by any scientific lab experiment.

Again we are discussing ORIGINS. WE have to start at the very beginnings of everything to get to our origins otherwise we can't get to us. Furthermore, with Big Bang where did the material come from that formed the planet's, stars etc. Was it already existent prior to BIG BANG? How did it get created? Faith &/or Supernatural? Science law as mentioned says something can't come from nothing. Since everything that exists has to have arisen from Big Bang. That would all heavens, etc. All the precision & order. Yet atheistic have to explain that w/o use of Faith & Supernatural & by purely Natural methods which isn't possible.

Then let's go further. You have to go from inanimate objects of planets etc to chemicals etc. So how do you go to that w/o using Faith & Supernatural since there isn't one science experiment that can prove you can create chemicals from inanimate objects. Much less that it could occur on its own by random.

Then you have the exact chemicals created in the exact formula to create life by Random w/o using Faith & Supernatural. They just miraculously get together & form life despite there has never been a science experiment, which BTW uses Intelligent Design of humans, using right chemical mixture already known & form life. Much less it has to happen by Random w/o any Intelligence guiding the science lab experiment.

Then besides that as we know. Each simple cell is anything but simple. It's made up of the most complex computer program directing it that even today man can't come close to matching , DNA, RNA. Plus every computer program known to man was written by Intelligent Designer.

So Again you have to believe by Faith & Supernatural that the DNA, RNA formed by Random trial & error despite no proof that's remotely possible.

Have you noticed that science processes like photosynthesis, & all the others science processes can give each step in order & describe each one in detail.

Yet evolution can't even give you the first step much less the ensuing steps much less in detail. Heck it can't tell you what the Finch or Beetle became. They never became a higher order species non Finch non Beetle.

Evolution is full of innuendo & just so stories & that's per quotes of key evolutionist.. I will give them on next reply with notes etc to validate.

Buy a flipping science primer....then read it!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think that mutations result in an individual being born a different species than its parents?

Sadly, those who argue creationism all too often believe exactly that, and cannot seem to raise the intellectual muscle to get past it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know so much more than you have any idea about. I just hadn't gotten to them because despite what you say & think.

When teaching science which leads to mankind's ORIGINS it always starts with Big Bang. So therefore I start from the very start to show the problems & hypocrisy. I have so much more. Yet as is usual you can't handle going to the very beginning & getting the holes exposed from the start. You want to pick & choose where you start. That's incomplete to me when ultimately it's about mankind's Origins.

That's not the way critical analysis works.

I have answers for stuff you've brought up but it wasn't time yet. I have a plan to do it step by step.

For example. I had a man that had 2 Dr.s in Engineering challenge me to a debate back when I was healthy & could work out.

I have a BS & 2 Masters & all with academic honors plus I worked as a grad assistant on my first Masters in a science research project.

Anyway the man with 2 Dr.s heard me talking not only about Evolution but Jesus & Christianity. My story was told on New members today.

He was avid aggressive atheist. He'd debated many Christians before. I accepted his challenge. We set ground rules. We talked 1 hour 3 days a week for 1 hour plus as we walked side by side on a treadmill. Others actually started listening to us.

We talked for 2 yrs. We went slowly but step by step & each one thoroughly covered. Once a point was covered it was over & couldn't be used again.. I liked our method & process as nothing was missed & thoroughly covered.

I guess I was wrong to expect anything similar on here. Interesting that despite his very biased atheistic agenda. Key is he was at least an honest academic. Which despite people's bias few can get past their bias & be academically honest. He was. We agreed we both had to read what the other gave us to read despite how we might feel about that sources credibility.

If we really objected to the others material we had to prove why to the others acceptance or had to read it anyway.

At the end of 2 yrs we finished. Yes despite his bias & aggressive atheism. He was honest academic & admitted I'd proven all my points much to his surprise. Sadly it ended on a Friday & that weekend he died of a heart attack & I never saw him again.

He was by far the most thoroughly educated man I've ever met or known. I won his respect due to my knowledge you keep saying I don't have but do. We started at the very beginning too & slowly but surely moved through the science, theology, religion, is Bible inerrant is Jesus who He claimed etc.

I wish I could find someone like him again.

That's why I approached this this way. I want complete thoroughness with no holes left that could or would come back.

This thread that doesn't seem possible yet.

Happy Easter.

Since your own words, when you actually try to write about science, totally refute what you say in this post, I see no reason to believe in your truthfulness, nor therefore any reason to pay any more attention to anything you have to say.

Do you know how the Big Bang theory originated? Ever heard of a man named Edwin Hubble? Can you figure out why "red shift" matters to the theory, and what the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre contributed to it? Are you aware that Big Bang theory works backward logically from what we now know to what must have been, but ignores what must have been "before" the Big Bang (just as Evolution talks about the evolution of life forms, but ignores how life began in the first place?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You've got no chance of being taken seriously when you start by describing people with a science education as "evolutionists". This is a silly, loaded word, invented for purely rhetorical purposes by creationists in a futile attempt to put creationism on the same footing as science. Everyone here can see you coming a mile off. Nobody intent on a serious discussion would use such a term, nor would they jump immediately from evolution, which is a theory in biology that does not even seek to account for the origin of life, to the Big Bang, i.e. the origin of the whole cosmos.

So you don't want to discuss evolution, apparently, but the far larger subject of science versus creationism.

As Christine pointed out a while back in the thread, the essential difference between science and creationism is that science is evidence-based. Contrary to the assertion in the thread title, the supernatural plays no part in science whatever. Science proposes theories that can be tested by seeing whether they correctly predict what observations of nature can be expected. This is something creationism can't do, as it explains nature in terms of the actions of an omnipotent Creator who can do what He likes at any point and is thus inherently not predictable.

Creationism is in fact inherently anti-science, as it encourages people to stop looking for natural explanations and instead to just accept what they observe as the result of some caprice on the part of the Almighty. This is how Mediaeval people explained things they could not understand. Needless to say such an attitude does not lead to scientific discovery.

So science and creationism are utterly different. Creationism is, in fact, something to be despised by any thinking person.

Happy Easter.

I like how you put this. I find the way you articulated your perspective to be very useful in organizing and optimizing my own views.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Just a few remarks. How many colleges or Universities teach science or ORIGINS w/o Evolution including the very start beginning with the Big Bang. So by graduating from them it's pretty safe bet that believe our ORIGINS start from the Big Bang & use later Non life becoming Life which is scientifically impossible as part of evolutionary model to getting to mankind.

Now if using an impossible scientific proven law to get to evolutionary result of mankind then how do you explain the use of such Faith & Supernatural which is the only way that's possible.

You do know that Atheist scientist Fred Hoyle that almost won Nobel Prize in science. Has been quoted as saying or using these examples about Evolution. He recognizes Evolution as absolutely a must needing an ID Intelligent Designer.

He states it has to comes from aliens. Man is that "scientific with use of Faith & Supernatural".

He gave the odds of evolution occurring by Random trial & error using these examples.

1. It's the same odds as having a tornado going through a wreck yard & making a working 747 from scratch ready for take off from the pieces within that junkyard.

2. It's the same odds as having a universe full of blind men solving a rubric cube all simultaneously at exact same moment.

3. It's the same odds as putting one man at the furtherest point of the universe away from the earth. He has one throw of a dart & he must hit that pinpoint target on one & only one attempt.

Now if he recognizes that as evolutionist but recognizes it requires an ID. Yet has to resort to space aliens. That says so much & illustrates the adherence to atheistic agenda of never allowing a Divine foot in the door.

Honestly one thing I've learned. It isn't a debate of Religion & science as portrayed. It's good vs bad, hidden, filtered, propaganda, just so stories, using science w/o actual demonstratable lab experiments validating etc.

I've noticed in all the replies you never deal with evolutionist own revealing exposing quotes. You avoid em directly.

Plus you've never dealt with impossibility of DNA/RNA ABOGENESIS being created & esp w/o using Faith &/or Supernatural. Like computer program writing itself from nothing w/o use of ID of programmer.

Also how many have ever actually read Darwin's original book "Origins?" Well I have. I now know why it's never assigned as class assignment. It is so filled with self doubt & esp hoping the future would validate him. Esp talking about the simple cell, the eye etc. See the problem Darwin recognized was evolution by steps won't work with complex organs etc because they must be completed to be functional. Evolution has no brain to know what to keep or discard along the process because it doesn't know the end game. Therefore all during that developmental time it's unfit & can't work so Nature is killing it as unfit. Blind leading the blind. It was key things be simple not complex. The more we learn the more complex it becomes & more impossible.

Chapter 6 in his book is about problems with his theory. Matter of fact he makes a couple of statements that say if this were ever proven my whole theory would be disprove. Guess what. That's been done many times over. BTW why the book title later of a book " Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen C Meyer & another book called "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells who is Dr microbiologist & recently did a follow up book. He is a Moonie BTW religiously.. Of course as always you can about both sides. Yet for academic honesty must read both. .P.lus other sides on this issue which I've proven you aren't given in school.

Esp when you consider Irreductible Intelligent Complexity of Design found in Nature. Matter of Fact there is a whole branch of science devoted to studying the Design found in Nature to copy & help mankind. It's called Biomimicry.

Evolution the Design seen is it only "appears " designed. The problem with that is this. Appearance of Design is like a cloud. Appearance of Design isn't FUNCTIONAL DESIGN.

So what Biomimicry is studying isn't "appearance" of Design but FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!

So I ask any Engineer, Computer programmer etc to give one example of anything functional they've ever studied, worked on themselves or with others that could have occurred w/o ID or by Random trial & error.

Go ahead look around your home, office, city, car world & give me examples where ID wasn't used & essential parts of what exists & could have been done by Random trial & error.

When I see you actually deal specific points by specific answers I won't respond.

BTW in closing. Majority of belief has never & never will determine truth.

For example: The majority once believed the world was flat. Yet was wrong.

Once believed the earth was what everything else orbited around. Again wrong.

Once believed the simple cell was just a glob of protoplasm. Again very false.

Once believed tonsils are vestial organs. Again false. True with the list of festivals made yrs ago. They hadn't learned their functions yet.

I could go on but not necessary as the point is made so that argument is invalid & no use in using.

I hope I followed the rules for use of others info. I'm sorry if I messed up. Second day so trying best I can.

Hope you're having a Blessed Easter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just a few remarks. How many colleges or Universities teach science or ORIGINS w/o Evolution including the very start beginning with the Big Bang. So by graduating from them it's pretty safe bet that believe our ORIGINS start from the Big Bang & use later Non life becoming Life which is scientifically impossible as part of evolutionary model to getting to mankind.

Now if using an impossible scientific proven law to get to evolutionary result of mankind then how do you explain the use of such Faith & Supernatural which is the only way that's possible.

You do know that Atheist scientist Fred Hoyle that almost won Nobel Prize in science. Has been quoted as saying or using these examples about Evolution. He recognizes Evolution as absolutely a must needing an ID Intelligent Designer.

He states it has to comes from aliens. Man is that "scientific with use of Faith & Supernatural".

He gave the odds of evolution occurring by Random trial & error using these examples.

1. It's the same odds as having a tornado going through a wreck yard & making a working 747 from scratch ready for take off from the pieces within that junkyard.

2. It's the same odds as having a universe full of blind men solving a rubric cube all simultaneously at exact same moment.

3. It's the same odds as putting one man at the furtherest point of the universe away from the earth. He has one throw of a dart & he must hit that pinpoint target on one & only one attempt.

Now if he recognizes that as evolutionist but recognizes it requires an ID. Yet has to resort to space aliens. That says so much & illustrates the adherence to atheistic agenda of never allowing a Divine foot in the door.

Honestly one thing I've learned. It isn't a debate of Religion & science as portrayed. It's good vs bad, hidden, filtered, propaganda, just so stories, using science w/o actual demonstratable lab experiments validating etc.

I've noticed in all the replies you never deal with evolutionist own revealing exposing quotes. You avoid em directly.

Plus you've never dealt with impossibility of DNA/RNA ABOGENESIS being created & esp w/o using Faith &/or Supernatural. Like computer program writing itself from nothing w/o use of ID of programmer.

Also how many have ever actually read Darwin's original book "Origins?" Well I have. I now know why it's never assigned as class assignment. It is so filled with self doubt & esp hoping the future would validate him. Esp talking about the simple cell, the eye etc. See the problem Darwin recognized was evolution by steps won't work with complex organs etc because they must be completed to be functional. Evolution has no brain to know what to keep or discard along the process because it doesn't know the end game. Therefore all during that developmental time it's unfit & can't work so Nature is killing it as unfit. Blind leading the blind. It was key things be simple not complex. The more we learn the more complex it becomes & more impossible.

Chapter 6 in his book is about problems with his theory. Matter of fact he makes a couple of statements that say if this were ever proven my whole theory would be disprove. Guess what. That's been done many times over. BTW why the book title later of a book " Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen C Meyer & another book called "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells who is Dr microbiologist & recently did a follow up book. He is a Moonie BTW religiously.. Of course as always you can about both sides. Yet for academic honesty must read both. .P.lus other sides on this issue which I've proven you aren't given in school.

Esp when you consider Irreductible Intelligent Complexity of Design found in Nature. Matter of Fact there is a whole branch of science devoted to studying the Design found in Nature to copy & help mankind. It's called Biomimicry.

Evolution the Design seen is it only "appears " designed. The problem with that is this. Appearance of Design is like a cloud. Appearance of Design isn't FUNCTIONAL DESIGN.

So what Biomimicry is studying isn't "appearance" of Design but FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!

So I ask any Engineer, Computer programmer etc to give one example of anything functional they've ever studied, worked on themselves or with others that could have occurred w/o ID or by Random trial & error.

Go ahead look around your home, office, city, car world & give me examples where ID wasn't used & essential parts of what exists & could have been done by Random trial & error.

When I see you actually deal specific points by specific answers I won't respond.

BTW in closing. Majority of belief has never & never will determine truth.

For example: The majority once believed the world was flat. Yet was wrong.

Once believed the earth was what everything else orbited around. Again wrong.

Once believed the simple cell was just a glob of protoplasm. Again very false.

Once believed tonsils are vestial organs. Again false. True with the list of festivals made yrs ago. They hadn't learned their functions yet.

I could go on but not necessary as the point is made so that argument is invalid & no use in using.

I hope I followed the rules for use of others info. I'm sorry if I messed up. Second day so trying best I can.

Hope you're having a Blessed Easter.

After reading this, I cannot find reason to believe you worked on any scientific research and am firmly convinced that you know nothing about the science you reject using this thread. Nice work and it took you less than 24 hours to get that job done, though you accomplished it with just your OP

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a few remarks. How many colleges or Universities teach science or ORIGINS w/o Evolution including the very start beginning with the Big Bang. So by graduating from them it's pretty safe bet that believe our ORIGINS start from the Big Bang & use later Non life becoming Life which is scientifically impossible as part of evolutionary model to getting to mankind.

Yes, we live in one universe so there probably is one line of history. But you still do not seem to realize that various ideas work independent of each other. For example the theory of evolution only deals with life after it formed. It does not matter where that first life came from. It could have formed naturally through abiogenesis, it could have been the result of aliens (beep beep), or some incompetent deity could even have started it with magic. It does not matter how it began, we know that it evolved once it was here.

Now if using an impossible scientific proven law to get to evolutionary result of mankind then how do you explain the use of such Faith & Supernatural which is the only way that's possible.

But no one has done that. That is only the claim of rather uneducated creationists that can never support this claim.

You do know that Atheist scientist Fred Hoyle that almost won Nobel Prize in science. Has been quoted as saying or using these examples about Evolution. He recognizes Evolution as absolutely a must needing an ID Intelligent Designer.

He states it has to comes from aliens. Man is that "scientific with use of Faith & Supernatural".

He gave the odds of evolution occurring by Random trial & error using these examples.

1. It's the same odds as having a tornado going through a wreck yard & making a working 747 from scratch ready for take off from the pieces within that junkyard.

2. It's the same odds as having a universe full of blind men solving a rubric cube all simultaneously at exact same moment.

3. It's the same odds as putting one man at the furtherest point of the universe away from the earth. He has one throw of a dart & he must hit that pinpoint target on one & only one attempt.

Now if he recognizes that as evolutionist but recognizes it requires an ID. Yet has to resort to space aliens. That says so much & illustrates the adherence to atheistic agenda of never allowing a Divine foot in the door.

The problem was that Fred was not a biologist. He may have known his physics. He knew squat about biology. He is not a valid authority to appeal to. His odds arguments are easily refuted since his premise is wrong. With an incorrect premise the whole argument falls apart.


I snipped the rest of your nonsense since you already failed so poorly. You are using an improper and dishonest debating technique. It is called a Gish Gallop It involves posting a series of rather obviously wrong claims and outright lies with the knowledge that it takes longer to refute nonsense than it takes to spew it out.

You claim to be educated. Then please demonstrate it. Bring up one point at a time. If your claims are correct you should have no problem doing so. Otherwise all it takes to refute nonsense brought in with a handwave is another handwave in response:

There you go, your post has been refuted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just a few remarks. How many colleges or Universities teach science or ORIGINS w/o Evolution including the very start beginning with the Big Bang. So by graduating from them it's pretty safe bet that believe our ORIGINS start from the Big Bang & use later Non life becoming Life which is scientifically impossible as part of evolutionary model to getting to mankind.

Now if using an impossible scientific proven law to get to evolutionary result of mankind then how do you explain the use of such Faith & Supernatural which is the only way that's possible.

You do know that Atheist scientist Fred Hoyle that almost won Nobel Prize in science. Has been quoted as saying or using these examples about Evolution. He recognizes Evolution as absolutely a must needing an ID Intelligent Designer.

He states it has to comes from aliens. Man is that "scientific with use of Faith & Supernatural".

He gave the odds of evolution occurring by Random trial & error using these examples.

1. It's the same odds as having a tornado going through a wreck yard & making a working 747 from scratch ready for take off from the pieces within that junkyard.

2. It's the same odds as having a universe full of blind men solving a rubric cube all simultaneously at exact same moment.

3. It's the same odds as putting one man at the furtherest point of the universe away from the earth. He has one throw of a dart & he must hit that pinpoint target on one & only one attempt.

Now if he recognizes that as evolutionist but recognizes it requires an ID. Yet has to resort to space aliens. That says so much & illustrates the adherence to atheistic agenda of never allowing a Divine foot in the door.

Honestly one thing I've learned. It isn't a debate of Religion & science as portrayed. It's good vs bad, hidden, filtered, propaganda, just so stories, using science w/o actual demonstratable lab experiments validating etc.

I've noticed in all the replies you never deal with evolutionist own revealing exposing quotes. You avoid em directly.

Plus you've never dealt with impossibility of DNA/RNA ABOGENESIS being created & esp w/o using Faith &/or Supernatural. Like computer program writing itself from nothing w/o use of ID of programmer.

Also how many have ever actually read Darwin's original book "Origins?" Well I have. I now know why it's never assigned as class assignment. It is so filled with self doubt & esp hoping the future would validate him. Esp talking about the simple cell, the eye etc. See the problem Darwin recognized was evolution by steps won't work with complex organs etc because they must be completed to be functional. Evolution has no brain to know what to keep or discard along the process because it doesn't know the end game. Therefore all during that developmental time it's unfit & can't work so Nature is killing it as unfit. Blind leading the blind. It was key things be simple not complex. The more we learn the more complex it becomes & more impossible.

Chapter 6 in his book is about problems with his theory. Matter of fact he makes a couple of statements that say if this were ever proven my whole theory would be disprove. Guess what. That's been done many times over. BTW why the book title later of a book " Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen C Meyer & another book called "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells who is Dr microbiologist & recently did a follow up book. He is a Moonie BTW religiously.. Of course as always you can about both sides. Yet for academic honesty must read both. .P.lus other sides on this issue which I've proven you aren't given in school.

Esp when you consider Irreductible Intelligent Complexity of Design found in Nature. Matter of Fact there is a whole branch of science devoted to studying the Design found in Nature to copy & help mankind. It's called Biomimicry.

Evolution the Design seen is it only "appears " designed. The problem with that is this. Appearance of Design is like a cloud. Appearance of Design isn't FUNCTIONAL DESIGN.

So what Biomimicry is studying isn't "appearance" of Design but FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!

So I ask any Engineer, Computer programmer etc to give one example of anything functional they've ever studied, worked on themselves or with others that could have occurred w/o ID or by Random trial & error.

Go ahead look around your home, office, city, car world & give me examples where ID wasn't used & essential parts of what exists & could have been done by Random trial & error.

When I see you actually deal specific points by specific answers I won't respond.

BTW in closing. Majority of belief has never & never will determine truth.

For example: The majority once believed the world was flat. Yet was wrong.

Once believed the earth was what everything else orbited around. Again wrong.

Once believed the simple cell was just a glob of protoplasm. Again very false.

Once believed tonsils are vestial organs. Again false. True with the list of festivals made yrs ago. They hadn't learned their functions yet.

I could go on but not necessary as the point is made so that argument is invalid & no use in using.

I hope I followed the rules for use of others info. I'm sorry if I messed up. Second day so trying best I can.

Hope you're having a Blessed Easter.

Is this a joke? Is someone pulling our collective leg by using every failed argument, low tactic, unsupported claim and logical fallacy ever proclaimed by creationists and combining them in single, nonsensical thread? Again. I am beginning to think we are being spoofed.

 

[sooda]

Nope. The "source" for the "quote" is a discredited website. I refuse to participate in a brainwashing website, in case they get $0.001 from me clicking on their site, to generate some revenue.

Point to a University site, and I'll read it. Never-ever a creationism website, which are 100% known to be Liars For Jesus.

What do biologists think of Richard Lewontin? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-do-biologists-think-of-Richard-Lewontin-1
I can't speak for "most biologists", but I will say this: Richard Lewontin was one of the most polarizing figures in all of biology, and still is. Many consider him a hero. Others consider him an anti-scientific hack. I will also say that I'm a huge admirer, but not without reservation....

Lewontin was a truly great biologist. He was a student of Modern Synthesis pioneer Theodosius Dobzhansky; the two admired each other a lot and had many friendly arguments.

With J. L. Hubby, Lewontin was a pioneer in the use of gel electrophoresis for population genetics studies. Their work was essential in showing the uses of the technique, and their demonstration of a high degree of polymorphism in Drosophila set the stage for Motoo Kimura and neutral theories of evolution. He also did a lot of other significant work in both experimental and theoretical population genetics. With Stephen Jay Gould, he wrote the classic paper "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossion paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme", which - as the title says - attempted to refute the assumptions of the then-prominent adaptationist program. Evolutionary biology, both as theory and practice, would certainly not be the same without Lewontin.

Even Lynn Margulis, who excoriated the neo-Darwinist tradition Lewontin belonged to, called him an "honest man" for his openness about the purported failures of neo-Darwinism, something that it seemed she would not do for many of Lewontin's opponents. (Lewontin shares some of Margulis's anti-selectionist tendencies.)

Lewontin was also a cultural and social critic and a Marxist. He was also a crusader against racial injustice and, more broadly, genetic determinism. He was vicious in his attacks on sociobiology and continues to oppose evolutionary psychology. He attacked adaptationists, gene-centric evolutionists, and those who tell "just-so stories" about evolution, without reservation. He seems very mild-mannered in speech, but in writing, he didn't pull any punches against E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and others he saw as misguided or dangerous.

continued