Adam Zapple wrote: Though evolution is conjecture not fact, it is the infallible dogma of atheism. To question any facet of neo-Darwinism brings a swift retribution. Scientists who try to publish scientific papers questioning facets of the accepted theory are censored and labeled heretics. Can you say....Taliban! (That was for LuLu's pleasure. :p )
snicker, scientists please, they are fundamentalists first, no real scientists could seriously question the evidence of evolution..Most of them can't even properly state the theory of evolution.
What is an Atheist?
What is an Atheist?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What is an Atheist?
zinkyusa wrote: snicker, scientists please, they are fundamentalists first, no real scientists could seriously question the evidence of evolution..Most of them can't even properly state the theory of evolution.
See, my point made. I'm not talking about theologians or religious activists, I'm talking about scientists, yes real honest to God doctorate holding scientists who question some of the accepted theories of evolution. Could these scientists be wrong, yes of course. Could they actually have scientific evidence that debunks long held pillars of evolution? They say they do. I'm neither scientist nor theologian, so I don't know but the above reaction is a common one for anyone who questions even element of neo-Darwinist dogma. Shouldn't science always be open and fluid to new discoveries? Shouldn't scientists give honest critical review of papers published by their peers?
See, my point made. I'm not talking about theologians or religious activists, I'm talking about scientists, yes real honest to God doctorate holding scientists who question some of the accepted theories of evolution. Could these scientists be wrong, yes of course. Could they actually have scientific evidence that debunks long held pillars of evolution? They say they do. I'm neither scientist nor theologian, so I don't know but the above reaction is a common one for anyone who questions even element of neo-Darwinist dogma. Shouldn't science always be open and fluid to new discoveries? Shouldn't scientists give honest critical review of papers published by their peers?
What is an Atheist?
Adam Zapple wrote: See, my point made. I'm not talking about theologians or religious activists, I'm talking about scientists, yes real honest to God doctorate holding scientists who question some of the accepted theories of evolution. Could these scientists be wrong, yes of course. Could they actually have scientific evidence that debunks long held pillars of evolution? They say they do. I'm neither scientist nor theologian, so I don't know but the above reaction is a common one for anyone who questions even element of neo-Darwinist dogma. Shouldn't science always be open and fluid to new discoveries? Shouldn't scientists give honest critical review of papers published by their peers?
Well that's the problem I have not found any of these scientists who offer anything resembling scientific data to support their arguement. They have had their peer reviews and their days in court and found to be incoherant babblers..
Apparently the court system in Kanas didn't think much of what the so called "Intellignet Design" scientists has to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01927.html
Well that's the problem I have not found any of these scientists who offer anything resembling scientific data to support their arguement. They have had their peer reviews and their days in court and found to be incoherant babblers..
Apparently the court system in Kanas didn't think much of what the so called "Intellignet Design" scientists has to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01927.html
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
What is an Atheist?
There are a few facts that I know of. At this point I cannot support them because the poster is no longer a member of the forum in which I read this. The discussion came up about some of these creation scientists. When issues were raised he emailed some of the men being quoted by the creationists. The creationists were taking things out of context. They were twisting what the scientist had said and in fact some of them were blatant liars.
Having seen the evidence and been given the sources it became clear to me that most of the so called creation scientists were in fact pseudo-scientists or wannabes.
The same old arguments came up. The best one was transition fossils of which there are ample. They kept insisting they had not found any.
All one has to do is look at the Galapgos Islands to see modern living examples of evolution. Animals on isolated islands clearly evolved to meet their specific needs in their limited world. When compared with the same species elsewhere there are very noticeable differences that foster survival.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Having seen the evidence and been given the sources it became clear to me that most of the so called creation scientists were in fact pseudo-scientists or wannabes.
The same old arguments came up. The best one was transition fossils of which there are ample. They kept insisting they had not found any.
All one has to do is look at the Galapgos Islands to see modern living examples of evolution. Animals on isolated islands clearly evolved to meet their specific needs in their limited world. When compared with the same species elsewhere there are very noticeable differences that foster survival.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What is an Atheist?
How did we go from What is an Atheist to Evolution?
I figure you put the Creation story in with Evolution and you come up with Evolation or Crealution. 6 days maybe a great story, 6,000+years. maybe something like storality or realtory. As a young child in school brought up with the creation story only and then in Grade 9 being taught in school about Evolution. What was I to do? Church had to be right, they sent me to school, that had to be right. So I put em together and it suits me fine.
I figure you put the Creation story in with Evolution and you come up with Evolation or Crealution. 6 days maybe a great story, 6,000+years. maybe something like storality or realtory. As a young child in school brought up with the creation story only and then in Grade 9 being taught in school about Evolution. What was I to do? Church had to be right, they sent me to school, that had to be right. So I put em together and it suits me fine.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
What is an Atheist?
Ted wrote: There are a few facts that I know of. At this point I cannot support them because the poster is no longer a member of the forum in which I read this. The discussion came up about some of these creation scientists. When issues were raised he emailed some of the men being quoted by the creationists. The creationists were taking things out of context. They were twisting what the scientist had said and in fact some of them were blatant liars.
Having seen the evidence and been given the sources it became clear to me that most of the so called creation scientists were in fact pseudo-scientists or wannabes.
The same old arguments came up. The best one was transition fossils of which there are ample. They kept insisting they had not found any.
All one has to do is look at the Galapgos Islands to see modern living examples of evolution. Animals on isolated islands clearly evolved to meet their specific needs in their limited world. When compared with the same species elsewhere there are very noticeable differences that foster survival.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Adam Zapple wrote: See, my point made. I'm not talking about theologians or religious activists, I'm talking about scientists, yes real honest to God doctorate holding scientists who question some of the accepted theories of evolution. Could these scientists be wrong, yes of course. Could they actually have scientific evidence that debunks long held pillars of evolution? They say they do. I'm neither scientist nor theologian, so I don't know but the above reaction is a common one for anyone who questions even element of neo-Darwinist dogma. Shouldn't science always be open and fluid to new discoveries? Shouldn't scientists give honest critical review of papers published by their peers?
I can very easily believe that there are reputable scientists questioning some aspects of the theory of evolution but the devil's in the detail - I know of no-one who's disagreeing with the fundamentals with any convincing arguments.
If you can give some examples with details of what they are disputing then I'd be very grateful - it's long been an interest of mine.
Having seen the evidence and been given the sources it became clear to me that most of the so called creation scientists were in fact pseudo-scientists or wannabes.
The same old arguments came up. The best one was transition fossils of which there are ample. They kept insisting they had not found any.
All one has to do is look at the Galapgos Islands to see modern living examples of evolution. Animals on isolated islands clearly evolved to meet their specific needs in their limited world. When compared with the same species elsewhere there are very noticeable differences that foster survival.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Adam Zapple wrote: See, my point made. I'm not talking about theologians or religious activists, I'm talking about scientists, yes real honest to God doctorate holding scientists who question some of the accepted theories of evolution. Could these scientists be wrong, yes of course. Could they actually have scientific evidence that debunks long held pillars of evolution? They say they do. I'm neither scientist nor theologian, so I don't know but the above reaction is a common one for anyone who questions even element of neo-Darwinist dogma. Shouldn't science always be open and fluid to new discoveries? Shouldn't scientists give honest critical review of papers published by their peers?
I can very easily believe that there are reputable scientists questioning some aspects of the theory of evolution but the devil's in the detail - I know of no-one who's disagreeing with the fundamentals with any convincing arguments.
If you can give some examples with details of what they are disputing then I'd be very grateful - it's long been an interest of mine.
What is an Atheist?
Bryn Mawr:-6
You are correct. IT is in the details. Those problems will always exist due to the nature of the topic and the time span about which we are talking. Two different doctors will view the same patient and evidence and come up with two different diagnosies (sp?) It happens in astronomy as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are correct. IT is in the details. Those problems will always exist due to the nature of the topic and the time span about which we are talking. Two different doctors will view the same patient and evidence and come up with two different diagnosies (sp?) It happens in astronomy as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What is an Atheist?
I am not a scientist. I have conducted no research or experiments regarding evolution therefore I am at the mercy of those that do. I do not question that evolution actually occurs as it most certainly has and does. I do question that evolution/natural selection can explain all the mysteries of our complex universe. I question the parameters of the debate. As with religion, a skeptical mind is a good thing is it not? Shouldn't we always be open to new possibilities?
I did not intend to hijack this thread and my apologies to LuLu. I only brought it up because atheist use neo-Darwinism as proof that God doesn't exist. That is a dogma as fervent in religiosity as any that a theological might conceive. Atheists use evolution as a means to define science so that no theories or evidence that may tend to support a theist evolutionist view are accepted as science. Why? Because science, ie evolution, has already disproved the existance of an intelligent creator. My stance can be summed up as follows; either organisms show evidence of design or they don't - complex organism can spring from single cells through unintelligent processes or they can't. But that should be determined by the evidence, not by defining science so that one possibility is assumed and the other possibility excluded. Pierre Tielhard de Chardin said Christ is revealed in evolution. I agree.
I did not intend to hijack this thread and my apologies to LuLu. I only brought it up because atheist use neo-Darwinism as proof that God doesn't exist. That is a dogma as fervent in religiosity as any that a theological might conceive. Atheists use evolution as a means to define science so that no theories or evidence that may tend to support a theist evolutionist view are accepted as science. Why? Because science, ie evolution, has already disproved the existance of an intelligent creator. My stance can be summed up as follows; either organisms show evidence of design or they don't - complex organism can spring from single cells through unintelligent processes or they can't. But that should be determined by the evidence, not by defining science so that one possibility is assumed and the other possibility excluded. Pierre Tielhard de Chardin said Christ is revealed in evolution. I agree.
What is an Atheist?
Because science, ie evolution, has already disproved the existance of an intelligent creator.
++++++++++++++ Not so, Adam. Science proves and continues to prove that evolution is the process by which life on this planet adapted over time, creating new forms, new species, etc. I've never seen a scientific statement "disproving" the existence of "an intellgent creator."
That's where myth takes over.
++++++++++++++ Not so, Adam. Science proves and continues to prove that evolution is the process by which life on this planet adapted over time, creating new forms, new species, etc. I've never seen a scientific statement "disproving" the existence of "an intellgent creator."
That's where myth takes over.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
What is an Atheist?
Adam:-6
Anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is misusing the evidence and is contrary to the processes of logic. One cannot use logic to prove a negative.
Evolution does not answer to the origin of life nor the great mystery of the universe. It only attempts to explain how things got to be what they are today. It makes no comment about the spiritual realm.
I would agree with Chardin.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is misusing the evidence and is contrary to the processes of logic. One cannot use logic to prove a negative.
Evolution does not answer to the origin of life nor the great mystery of the universe. It only attempts to explain how things got to be what they are today. It makes no comment about the spiritual realm.
I would agree with Chardin.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What is an Atheist?
Yes Sepperate subjects.
a) Evolution, as close to the truth as we can possibly get using logic and the evidence at hand. Or is there a flaw in it's logic?
b) The existence of anything that is untestable. Divine, spirituality, Rudolph.
The first is an objective discussion looking at evidence and testing that evidence.
The second is a philisophical question which doesn't nescesarily have to be based on logic since... well there's no way to test your hypothesis.
Agnostics acknowledge both.
Atheists ackowledge the first but imply that this effects the untestable when it doesn't.
Fundamentalist Christians ignore the first and think it's the second.
a) Evolution, as close to the truth as we can possibly get using logic and the evidence at hand. Or is there a flaw in it's logic?
b) The existence of anything that is untestable. Divine, spirituality, Rudolph.
The first is an objective discussion looking at evidence and testing that evidence.
The second is a philisophical question which doesn't nescesarily have to be based on logic since... well there's no way to test your hypothesis.
Agnostics acknowledge both.
Atheists ackowledge the first but imply that this effects the untestable when it doesn't.
Fundamentalist Christians ignore the first and think it's the second.