Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[shmogie]

How much more evidence do I need to know that a bridge builder knows what he's doing than to see his bridge standing? Scientists have tamed polio, sent man to the moon, and given us lighting at night. I don't need to read anything or see any more evidence to say co

My whole point, though you never really grasped it, because you like others wanted to attack the question because of the beliefs of the questioner. Without specific knowledge you accept the veracity of he who interprets the evidence. See, that wasn´t so hard, was it ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone who is not prepared to make the statement "there is no god" is not an atheist, but an agnostic. That's why the word "agnostic" was coined, to make it clear. People have been using it for 140 years. You should try it some time: it's really useful.

The sort of atheist who is always writing or broadcasting about their atheism and the folly of theism is hardly displaying simple lack of belief. Mind you, they certainly beieve in their royalty and appearence fees.

Nope, atheism is about what one believes or does not believe. Gnosticism is about what one knows or does not know when it comes to agnosticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please, way behind on abiogenesis research, OK. Then you must be able to tell me the answer to at least one of these simple questions. What chemicals ? What environment ? What creatures ? Only three. ¨new links are continually added to the forming chain ¨ That is profound gibberish worthy of a premiere UFOlogist, with the same net result 0. Process isn´t result. Alchemists learned this, after centuries.

Here is what you are not grasping, haven´t grasped, refuse to grasp. I will defend an assertion, when I make one, or when an assertion I make can be taken by a reasonably informed person as requiring support. I will not defend an obviously known concept for anyone with self alleged knowledge in an area, where the concept is obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge in the area. Demanding that I prove an 80 year old definition of a term, that anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution knows has changed, and with a little more knowledge knows means different things to different evolutionists is akin to asking me to prove when I use the term ground transport I don´t mean covered wagons.
Hmmmm. what magic barrier arises ? Well according to at least two very prominent evolutionists, maybe more, and a number of prominent scientists who support intelligent design, the lack of significant changes in the apparent stability and lack of aberration leading to significant changes at the family level is the magic barrier,. Not magic at all just science
I am not searching for anything. I have found it. Numerous citations from prominent evolutionists state that macro evolution begins at the family level, or as the citation I used states ¨ the higher taxa¨. I am shocked Ricky, yes, shocked, that someone with such a comfortable deep knowledge of evolution apparently doesn´t know this either.

What "prominent scientists" support intelligent design?

And you were the one that used a term that you did not know the meaning of and still cannot support. Now you have moved observation to the family level. For that we go to the fossil record. For land animals it is a bit sparse since land based fossilization is a very rare event, but even there we have examples. Horse evolution is very well understood now. I could give others as well.

 

[shmogie]

What "prominent scientists" support intelligent design?

And you were the one that used a term that you did not know the meaning of and still cannot support. Now you have moved observation to the family level. For that we go to the fossil record. For land animals it is a bit sparse since land based fossilization is a very rare event, but even there we have examples. Horse evolution is very well understood now. I could give others as well.

What exactly are you talking about ? Did you not see the exact quotation I gave you from a college evolution textbook? Wow, tell me about horse evolution, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly are you talking about ? Did you not see the exact quotation I gave you from a college evolution textbook? Wow, tell me about horse evolution, please.

I already explained that quotes without links are worthless in a debate. Or to put it another way, the Bible says at least twelve times "There is no god". Does that convince you that the Bible meant that?

 

[shmogie]

Since you demonstrated that you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence you are in no position to make such a claim.

Why does mere evidence frighten you so much? I explained to you why you were wrong about Lucy. The simple fact is that she fits into the evolutionary paradigm. That makes here scientific evidence. There is absolutely no point in helping someone that refuses to understand such basic concepts.

Evidence doesn´t frighten me. In fact I spent my entire career collecting and evaluating me. Your precious lucy was one of 300 partial fossils of an extinct primate, why am I wrong about that ? She fits the evolutionary paradigm, so, she fits the creationary paradigm as well, so. The more you post, the more I think you need help. That makes her creation science evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I cannot link right now. You will have not to wait until I get home. But horse evolution has been tracked back to the common investigated with a rhinoceros. Is that good enough for your distorted view of macroevolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence doesn´t frighten me. In fact I spent my entire career collecting and evaluating me. Your precious lucy was one of 300 partial fossils of an extinct primate, why am I wrong about that ? She fits the evolutionary paradigm, so, she fits the creationary paradigm as well, so. The more you post, the more I think you need help. That makes her creation science evidence.

It clearly does frighten you. Otherwise why do you deny the obvious?

And please, there is no such thing as "creation science". Now you have demonstrated that you do not even understand what science is. There is no creation paradigm either. Once again you use terminology that you do not understand.

 

[shmogie]

It clearly does frighten you. Otherwise why do you deny the obvious?

And please, there is no such thing as "creation science". Now you have demonstrated that you do not even understand what science is. There is no creation paradigm either. Once again you use terminology that you do not understand.

Our conversations have ended here. You sir, have way too many birds on your antenna

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our conversations have ended here. You sir, have way too many birds on your antenna

You seriously do not understand what you did wrong?

that is hard to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our conversations have ended here. You sir, have way too many birds on your antenna

,
And just because you are so easily shown to be wrong is no reason to mount a personal attack. If I did not know how you have been deluded by creationist sources I would have been tempted to call you a liar in your prior post. Instead it is simply a matter of you not knowing any better.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is what happened when you don’t read what you C&P. Excerpt from your C&P: "Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, Ensatina seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another.” It says here, two different species “are often defined by their inability to interbreed”. Where did the author get the two different species from? Remember the subspecies from the north that migrated down to the south species that don’t interbreed anymore and from here atheist says it’s because they are “TWO” different species already, also known to them as “speciation”, but the fact is, “speciation” had nothing to do with why they don’t interbreed anymore but more of an “ADAPTATION” to the environment and in this case they DID NOT ADAPT, but they, the subspecies and species were the same species.

If two populations (or fertile individuals) cannot produce fertile offspring together, they are different species by definition. As a ring species migrates around a natural barrier and comes full circle to where it began, it evolves little by little such that neighboring varieties around the ring might still be able to produce fertile offspring, but the varieties on the ends that meet might not. That's speciation, or what creationists call macroevolution.

Did they find the transitional links between man and apes, from fish to reptiles to birds? According to Darwin, we should find them “in countless numbers”.

Yes.

You believe you are descended from apes, prove it. Since you are big on warnings, I warn you you can't.

Your parents and mine were apes. If we descended from our parents, we descended from apes.

We contend ( at least most of us ) That the links in the fossil record supporting alleged family to different family evolution is very tenuous.

We have intermediaries between orders.

your theory of evolution is flawed.

Scientists only take their science from other scientists. They don't really care if you disagree with them. Nor do they care if people like me happen to agree with them.

You, nor anyone else, can show any evidence of abiogenesis. You don´t know what chemicals combined to create life, or where they came from, you don´t know how they created life, you don´t know the environment in which they created life, you don´t know how the information required for life got into these miracle organisms or where it came from.

What's all of this evidence stuff? You believe by faith, not evidence. The hypothesis you accept is based entirely on faith. You have no more knowledge about any of those questions you ask, are comfortable with a faith based, religious answer, yet demand more from others.

Someone who is not prepared to make the statement "there is no god" is not an atheist, but an agnostic. That's why the word "agnostic" was coined, to make it clear. People have been using it for 140 years. You should try it some time: it's really useful.

Atheists have found a more useful way to use these words. I'm an agnostic atheist.

The sort of atheist who is always writing or broadcasting about their atheism and the folly of theism is hardly displaying simple lack of belief.

Atheists have countless beliefs. Did somebody suggest otherwise?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please, way behind on abiogenesis research, OK. Then you must be able to tell me the answer to at least one of these simple questions. What chemicals ? What environment ? What creatures ? Only three. ¨new links are continually added to the forming chain

I'm not here to teach anybody science, but I have a large collection of links on the topic if you're interested. You'll have to teach yourself or go to university to learn like most of the rest of us did

Hmmmm. what magic barrier arises ? Well according to at least two very prominent evolutionists, maybe more, and a number of prominent scientists who support intelligent design, the lack of significant changes in the apparent stability and lack of aberration leading to significant changes at the family level is the magic barrier,. Not magic at all just science

Except that the scientific community rejects that there is a barrier, and intelligent design has no standing or credibility with them.

My whole point, though you never really grasped it, because you like others wanted to attack the question because of the beliefs of the questioner. Without specific knowledge you accept the veracity of he who interprets the evidence. See, that wasn´t so hard, was it ?

You have no points not easily grasped, and nothing from you is difficult.

I explained to you that the bridge was evidence that the engineer's math and physics is valid. It is I evaluating the evidence.

There is a better way of deciding what is true and what is not than faith. Just look at what works. People tell me that we take the scientific method on faith - that its basic assumptions can't be proven. I don't need more evidence that those assumptions are valid than the stunning success of science.

The theory of evolution unifies mountains of observations, makes predictions that have never been falsified, and its use has improved the human condition. What more do you want? It works. That's ho I know it's correct.

Compare that with intelligent design, which has been sterile. I consider that the evidence that its basic assumptions are false.

This seems like common sense to me, but faith trumps reason. This is the reason that nothing can be proven to a faith based thinker who has a stake in not being convinced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have heard talk about "prominent scientists" that supported ID, none could be named. Then worse yet there was the mention of "creation scientists", the problem is that when one rejects the scientific method one can hardly be called a "scientist". There are creationists that can and have done work in the science, but none of them have produced anything of note using creationism. Their main problem is that they make the error of assuming that the creation story is right regardless of the evidence. Real scientists follow the evidence wherever it goes. That was why I not only asked our two creationists my test question I explained to them why they were wrong once they answered.

Once again, scientific evidence is evidence, usually of an empirical nature that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. That is why Lucy is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. It fully supports the theory. A mistake was made where it was claimed as scientific evidence for creationism too. The problem is that there is no testable hypothesis of creation. If a hypothesis is not testable it is by definition not a scientific hypothesis. It enters the realm of being "Not Even Wrong" or in other words totally worthless since scientists can and do learn from their mistakes. To claim that Lucy is scientific evidence for creationism is to claim that one has a testable hypothesis. I am sure that such a hypothesis cannot be supplied by our creationists. This of course does not mean that lies were being told. Just errors based upon ignorance and religious beliefs.

Perhaps we should discuss the scientific method. Here is a simplified schematic of the scientific method:

Any takers?

 

[shmogie]

I'm not here to teach anybody science, but I have a large collection of links on the topic if you're interested. You'll have to teach yourself or go to university to learn like most of the rest of us did



Except that the scientific community rejects that there is a barrier, and intelligent design has no standing or credibility with them.



You have no points not easily grasped, and nothing from you is difficult.

I explained to you that the bridge was evidence that the engineer's math and physics is valid. It is I evaluating the evidence.

There is a better way of deciding what is true and what is not than faith. Just look at what works. People tell me that we take the scientific method on faith - that its basic assumptions can't be proven. I don't need more evidence that those assumptions are valid than the stunning success of science.

The theory of evolution unifies mountains of observations, makes predictions that have never been falsified, and its use has improved the human condition. What more do you want? It works. That's ho I know it's correct.

Compare that with intelligent design, which has been sterile. I consider that the evidence that its basic assumptions are false.

This seems like common sense to me, but faith trumps reason. This is the reason that nothing can be proven to a faith based thinker who has a stake in not being convinced.

Who says ID has been sterile ? As sterile as abiogenesis research is ? You avoided those very simple questions. Does that mean you can´t answer them, which brings your faith in abiogenesis into question ?

So, tell me about the evidence that leads you to accept the theory of relativity, my example. How exactly does that work ? Where is your bridge here ? As I said, some things you just can´t grasp.

The stunning success of science has as itś foundation Christian scientists, there is evidence that Einstein was a deist. According to you, Christians and theists are inherently hostile to science, and always have been. A personal friend of mine, Dr, Leonard Bailey, a world renown neo natal heart surgeon, who developed the surgery for a previously fatal neo natal fatal heart condition, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, , is a creationist scientific researcher who is a Christian, as a self identified physician you must have heard of him, maybe used one of his texts in school. Do you discount he and thousands like him ?, Does their faith discount their accomplishments in your eyes ? Such is the power of dogmatism, of which you accuse me.

Your FAITH in evolution isn´t objective, if it were you would acknowledge serious problems pointed out by evolutionists, who are also true scientists as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who says ID has been sterile ? As sterile as abiogenesis research is ? You avoided those very simple questions. Does that mean you can´t answer them, which brings your faith in abiogenesis into question ?

So, tell me about the evidence that leads you to accept the theory of relativity, my example. How exactly does that work ? Where is your bridge here ? As I said, some things you just can´t grasp.

The stunning success of science has as itś foundation Christian scientists, there is evidence that Einstein was a deist. According to you, Christians and theists are inherently hostile to science, and always have been. A personal friend of mine, Dr, Leonard Bailey, a world renown neo natal heart surgeon, who developed the surgery for a previously fatal neo natal fatal heart condition, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, , is a creationist scientific researcher who is a Christian, as a self identified physician you must have heard of him, maybe used one of his texts in school. Do you discount he and thousands like him ?, Does their faith discount their accomplishments in your eyes ? Such is the power of dogmatism, of which you accuse me.

Your FAITH in evolution isn´t objective, if it were you would acknowledge serious problems pointed out by evolutionists, who are also true scientists as well.

Shmogie I am sure that you are even more ignorant of abiogenesis than you are of evolution. What makes you think that it is sterile? I can assure you that it is not. There have been quite a few peer reviewed papers published in well respected journal in just the last year. I will make you an offer. For every ID article that you can find and link that was published in a well respected peer reviewed journal I will post links to ten articles on abiogenesis that did the same.

I am making this exception for abiogenesis. But you need to remember the conditions. Journals that reject the scientific method are not allowed. The reason that the claim was given that ID is sterile is because they can't follow the scientific method and publish papers in the subject. That was why I gave the challenge.

I can link all sorts of articles on the theory of relativity for you. That, like the theory of evolution, has been extremely well tested.

Yes, many early scientist were Christians. They were also often opposed by Christians or had to hide aspects of their work or beliefs from Christians. And some of them were basic Christians. That does not mean that they were creationists. In fact "creationism" did no really exist until after Darwin came along. There were very few studies into the origins of species until after Darwin's seminal work and then the main reaction of creationists was merely denial.

By the way, what field does your friend do his research in? I bet it is not "creationism". Doctors in general are not scientists. And there are creationists that can and have done real science. Yet none of them can seem to do any when it comes to their creationist beliefs. They tend to drop the scientific method when they do so.

Lastly we don't have faith. That is a creationists weakness. We follow the evidence and creationists tend to deny the evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who says ID has been sterile ?

I do, and probably most of the scientific community. If you disagree, feel free to show any counterevidence you think you have.

I'm not interested in the mainstream science that the likes of Behe and Meyer have done, just their work that reveals an intelligent designer.

You avoided those very simple questions. Does that mean you can´t answer them, which brings your faith in abiogenesis into question ?

It means that I'm not bringing evidence to a faith based thinker. I told you that you'll need to do your own leg work. First, make a good faith effort to demonstrate sincerity and interest. Do a little research and bring any questions back. Then we can talk.

It's like this: If you really cared about these matters, your questions would already be answered. You would have asked them and had them answered long ago.

Or, you could buy a book on the topic, or, as suggested, you could just go search the Internet.

I offered you links, but you were uninterested.

Instead, you prefer to play what I call the creationist two-step - the dance where the creationist pretends to be the kind of person who makes decisions based on evidence, demands others fetch it for him, then disregards it because he really never had interest in it in the first place.

There is no burden of proof when dealing with a faith based thinker, since proving is a form of teaching and learning, which requires the participation of two people, with the learner being willing and able to recognize a compelling argument and be convinced by it. That's never going to happen here.

So, tell me about the evidence that leads you to accept the theory of relativity, my example.

Same answer. Go learn it like I did. Eddington, 1919. That'll get you started on your path to a scientific education.

Where is your bridge here ?

You don't know the empirical evidence that supports the theory - the achievements made possible because of it? Google GPS

The stunning success of science has as itś foundation Christian scientists

Their Christianity had nothing to do with it. The stunning success of science has its roots in the rejection authority and supernaturalism, and turning to skepticism and empiricism.

there is evidence that Einstein was a deist

So what? He could have been a Zulu warrior that worshiped in Pangu. If he had been, should we credit that? Perhaps Pangu whispered that E=MC2 to Einstein.

Did you know that he also had a mustache? Do you want to credit that as well?

What's your point?

According to you, Christians and theists are inherently hostile to science, and always have been

I didn't make that comment. You just did.

However, it is true that much of Christianity is hostile to science, some openly, and some stealthily - you know, the "I sure respect science, but ..." type.

A personal friend of mine, Dr, Leonard Bailey, a world renown neo natal heart surgeon, who developed the surgery for a previously fatal neo natal fatal heart condition, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, , is a creationist scientific researcher who is a Christian, as a self identified physician you must have heard of him, maybe used one of his texts in school. Do you discount he and thousands like him ?

What does this have to do with the discussion? Are you claiming that he got direction on doing surgery from his Bible or his belief in creationism?

 

[shmogie]

I do, and probably most of the scientific community. If you disagree, feel free to show any counterevidence you think you have.

I'm not interested in the mainstream science that the likes of Behe and Meyer have done, just their work that reveals an intelligent designer.



It means that I'm not bringing evidence to a faith based thinker. I told you that you'll need to do your own leg work. First, make a good faith effort to demonstrate sincerity and interest. Do a little research and bring any questions back. Then we can talk.

It's like this: If you really cared about these matters, your questions would already be answered. You would have asked them and had them answered long ago.

Or, you could buy a book on the topic, or, as suggested, you could just go search the Internet.

I offered you links, but you were uninterested.

Instead, you prefer to play what I call the creationist two-step - the dance where the creationist pretends to be the kind of person who makes decisions based on evidence, demands others fetch it for him, then disregards it because he really never had interest in it in the first place.

There is no burden of proof when dealing with a faith based thinker, since proving is a form of teaching and learning, which requires the participation of two people, with the learner being willing and able to recognize a compelling argument and be convinced by it. That's never going to happen here.



Same answer. Go learn it like I did. Eddington, 1919. That'll get you started on your path to a scientific education.



You don't know the empirical evidence that supports the theory - the achievements made possible because of it? Google GPS



Their Christianity had nothing to do with it. The stunning success of science has its roots in the rejection authority and supernaturalism, and turning to skepticism and empiricism.



So what? He could have been a Zulu warrior that worshiped in Pangu. If he had been, should we credit that? Perhaps Pangu whispered that E=MC2 to Einstein.

Did you know that he also had a mustache? Do you want to credit that as well?

What's your point?



I didn't make that comment. You just did.

However, it is true that much of Christianity is hostile to science, some openly, and some stealthily - you know, the "I sure respect science, but ..." type.



What does this have to do with the discussion? Are you claiming that he got direction on doing surgery from his Bible or his belief in creationism?

Wow, your feelings are hurt, calm down, it's just a discussion on a computer screen, try and cover your exposed nerves, if you can.

You didn';t answer the questions because there are no answers to them, and won't be. Pretend there are if you chose, your faith is admirable. Belief in something that cannot be observed, replicated or tested, sound familiar ?

Interesting, I took a university course in Relativity, and am amazed that you see so much evidence of it. There is a little, but unless you have actually experienced, say the slowing down of time as you near the speed of light, or seen the warping of space time,or have seen the GPS satellites, I find your assertion questionable.

Your prejudice is glaring, suddenly, you have no obligation to support your claims, because of your prejudicial opinion judgement of the correspondent, class on your part.

Wait, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Newton, Mendel, et. al. weren't Christians, or weren't foundational in science, or weren't scientists , pick one. Do you actually have the temerity to state that their belief structure had nothing to do with their discoveries ? Or that they somehow had to "unchain" themselves from part of their belief structure to make their discoveries ?

That is your apparent contention, the thread that always runs through your commentary regarding science and Christianity, and of course it is pure nonsense.

Consequently, because of your prejudice, dare I say hatred, you cannot acknowledge that I, one of those ignorant Christians, can possibly understand the scientific method, or the magical mystery tour of abiogenisis, or, sin of sin's, DARE criticise the holy of holies, Mr. Darwins theory.

You hide behind your self proclaimed superiority so you may avoid the very difficult questions regarding your beliefs. Nah, nah, nah, I know but I won't tell you !

Fine, if it makes you feel better. I understand that you are on a jihad against Christianity, like our friendly followers of the religion of peace, it just takes a different form. You do use a version of their taqiyya however. No prob, it's par for the course !

As to Dr. Bailey, He is what you say can't exist, a scientist, a prominent researcher, an extremely skilled surgeon, as well as being a creationist. Creationists are ignorant fools, right ? This will blow your skirt up, he and his team pray before each surgery !!

Peace to you, it's all good

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Someone who is not prepared to make the statement "there is no god" is not an atheist, but an agnostic.

"Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

The sort of atheist who is always writing or broadcasting about their atheism and the folly of theism is hardly displaying simple lack of belief. Mind you, they certainly beieve in their royalty and appearence fees.

We are saying that atheism is simply a lack of belief. What people do outside of that lack of belief is their own choice and isn't a part of atheism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Please, way behind on abiogenesis research, OK. Then you must be able to tell me the answer to at least one of these simple questions. What chemicals ? What environment ? What creatures ? Only three. ¨new links are continually added to the forming chain ¨ That is profound gibberish worthy of a premiere UFOlogist, with the same net result 0. Process isn´t result. Alchemists learned this, after centuries.

Here is what you are not grasping, haven´t grasped, refuse to grasp. I will defend an assertion, when I make one, or when an assertion I make can be taken by a reasonably informed person as requiring support. I will not defend an obviously known concept for anyone with self alleged knowledge in an area, where the concept is obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge in the area. Demanding that I prove an 80 year old definition of a term, that anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution knows has changed, and with a little more knowledge knows means different things to different evolutionists is akin to asking me to prove when I use the term ground transport I don´t mean covered wagons.
Hmmmm. what magic barrier arises ? Well according to at least two very prominent evolutionists, maybe more, and a number of prominent scientists who support intelligent design, the lack of significant changes in the apparent stability and lack of aberration leading to significant changes at the family level is the magic barrier,. Not magic at all just science
I am not searching for anything. I have found it. Numerous citations from prominent evolutionists state that macro evolution begins at the family level, or as the citation I used states ¨ the higher taxa¨. I am shocked Ricky, yes, shocked, that someone with such a comfortable deep knowledge of evolution apparently doesn´t know this either.

Not knowing the origin of life or the origin of the universe fits in just fine with atheism. I am an atheist and I don't know how life started or how the universe started. I think those are fascinating questions, and the scientific research into those questions is also fascinating. If evidence comes to light that a deity was involved in the origin of life or the origin of the universe then I will happily accept it. Until there is evidence of how these things originated I will continue to say that I don't know.

The logical error that skeptics point to is called the argument from ignorance. This is where people insert their own beliefs in a gap in our knowledge, also called the God of the Gaps. It is summed up in the argument, "Well, since you can't prove abiogenesis then you can't prove that God didn't do it". The problem is that the actions of any deity need to be as evidenced as abiogenesis would need to be, and that evidence is lacking.