Evolution What It Really Is

[RaddSpencer]

(adren@line;49733)
I dont really trust "Christian scientists", because they apparantly seem to know something about evolution that the rest of the world doesnt. What is more-likely is that they simply like to distort and skew science to fit in with the Bible.As far as perfectionist nature, there is no such thing as perfection.
HEHEHE,Well don't believe in the 3 laws of motion, and don't ever study calculus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_NewtonDon't use Hydraulic machineryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_PascalDon't drink Pasteurized milk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_PasteurJust stay away from all electronics (especially electric motors and anything containing capacitors).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faradayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_MaxwellCast those peanuts (and peanut based products) out the door.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_CarverAnd forget astronomy, its beyond all hope:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Keplerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galileihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_CopernicusHistory of Christian Scientists[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_l_jw3Dc7A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_l_jw3Dc7A[/url] Those pesky Christians, why did they have to make so many contributions to science, HEHEHEHE.

P.S. Go ahead and abandon mathematics too. Along with Newton's "heresy" against "scientific thought", I found this statement about Leonhard Euler on Wikipedia:Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung Gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works present Euler as a staunch Christian and a biblical literalist (for example, the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture).[36]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

 

[SilentFlight]

woohh thats interesting

 

[Lunar]

(RaddSpencer;49748)
Pennock here tries a common Darwinist tactic (pioneered by Darwin himself) of reversing the burden of proof on to the opponent by making out that Behe is claiming that there are no "functional intermediates." Then all the Darwinist needs to do is point to some example (including imaginary) of same and he has won the argument under those terms.But what Darwinists need to do is demonstrate that the claimed irreducibly complex system was in fact "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications"
No, the ID argument is that these systems were impossible to evolve because they are irreducibly complex. Functional intermediates show that they are not irreducibly complex, hence the argument fails. Asking for a specific demonstration of how every single system evolved is like refusing to believe that all ravens are black until you've seen every one on the planet.What is the ID account supposed to say about why all these functional intermediates are present? Why, in every single case that is purportedly "irreducibly complex," the system winds up being composed entirely of functional intermediates? Is the hypothesis that there was a designer who specifically designed these systems to make it look as though evolution was true? Was the designer simply not capable of composing a complex system without functional intermediates - he, through some limitation of his power, had to work one step at a time just like evolution did? If you look at a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system and see how it is composed of functional intermediates and conclude that that is evidence against evolutionary theory, then you have a very poor understanding of science.At the very worst, the presence of functional intermediates is consistent with evolutionary theory, if not supportive of it. There is simply no conceivable universe in which it's an argument against it.(Jackie D)
You are here to dispute and refute God, aren't you?
Considering that this is a thread on evolution, I would assume that he is here to discuss evolution - not have his motives second-guessed by someone who refuses to stay on topic.

 

[adren@line]

(Jackie D;49745)
you sidestep quite nicely. heheand yes God did it. But you aren't here to learn about God are you? You are here to dispute and refute God, aren't you? This portion of the forum is for people who do not yet believe but are interested in learning and perhaps finding their way to Him.have a blessed day adren@line
Its only side-stepping if I am wrong. So was I? Do you not believe in a Christian definition of God?Either way, I am not here to refute your idea of God. Most of my posts have been about evolution, not attacking the Christian idea of God.

 

[adren@line]

(RaddSpencer;49748)
HEHEHE,Well don't believe in the 3 laws of motion, and don't ever study calculus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_NewtonDon't use Hydraulic machineryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_PascalDon't drink Pasteurized milk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_PasteurJust stay away from all electronics (especially electric motors and anything containing capacitors).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faradayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_MaxwellCast those peanuts (and peanut based products) out the door.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_CarverAnd forget astronomy, its beyond all hope:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Keplerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galileihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_CopernicusHistory of Christian Scientists[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_l_jw3Dc7A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_l_jw3Dc7A[/url] Those pesky Christians, why did they have to make so many contributions to science, HEHEHEHE.

P.S.
Perhaps you misunderstood.There is a difference between a "Christian scientist" and a "scientist who happens to be Christian".I do not trust a scientist who makes it a point to term himself as a Christian scientist and distorts and skews science intentionally in-order to fit in with his or her Biblical POV. This is no different from a Muslim scientist distorting science to fit in with the Quran or a Hindu doing to the same with the Vedas.An example of these particular brand of scientists are young earth creationists and ID-believing biologists who present ID as a viable alternative.
Go ahead and abandon mathematics too. Along with Newton's "heresy" against "scientific thought", I found this statement about Leonhard Euler on Wikipedia:Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung Gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works present Euler as a staunch Christian and a biblical literalist (for example, the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture).[36]
The majority of modern mathematics dates back to concepts that were developed in India and Greece. These concepts were preserved and further developed by the Muslims during their "Golden era" and THEN transmitted to Europe, in which the Europeans picked up the slack.

 

[RaddSpencer]

(Lunar;49770)
evolutionary theory, then you have a very poor understanding of science.
Ok, Why didn't the guy show a simulation? He showed a bunch of hexagons coming together via random processes -- talk about "high level", eh?We have supercomputers you know, until he can show a simulation of how this small motor came together --- I say it is still up to debate.Also, I think you have a poor understanding if engineering... HEHEHE. NOTHING, comes together via chance in the realms of engineering.

 

[RaddSpencer]

(adren@line;49820)
Perhaps you misunderstood.There is a difference between a "Christian scientist" and a "scientist who happens to be Christian".I do not trust a scientist who makes it a point to term himself as a Christian scientist and distorts and skews science intentionally in-order to fit in with his or her Biblical POV. This is no different from a Muslim scientist distorting science to fit in with the Quran or a Hindu doing to the same with the Vedas.An example of these particular brand of scientists are young earth creationists and ID-believing biologists who present ID as a viable alternative.The majority of modern mathematics dates back to concepts that were developed in India and Greece. These concepts were preserved and further developed by the Muslims during their "Golden era" and THEN transmitted to Europe, in which the Europeans picked up the slack.
You forgot to read this part:Like many other devout Christians of his era, he accepted the Creation account given in the Book of Genesis as literal truth. [50] He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.[51][52]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

 

[Lunar]

(RaddSpencer;49832)
We have supercomputers you know, until he can show a simulation of how this small motor came together --- I say it is still up to debate.
Yes, but I don't think they were using a supercomputer to run his PowerPoint presentation.I don't know how else to express this to you. We have thousands of examples of fossils and genetic sequences which support evolutionary theory. Then, when it comes to irreducible complexity, it's shown that the systems are not irreducibly complex and there are functional intermediates. And this is somehow considered to still be an objection to evolution, even though it's perfectly consistent with it? Thousands of examples which support the theory, a handful of others which are in the worst case merely consistent with it, and that's an objection?I say that you have a poor understanding of science because to consider that an objection to scientific theory demonstrates a remarkably immature philosophy of science. You falsify a theory with observations that are inconsistent with it, not those which are consistent. Again, I'd bring up the point about alternate hypotheses. The evolutionary hypothesis, even if it can't at this time directly demonstrate the evolution of the complex system, accounts for the functional intermediates perfectly. It is superior in terms of explanatory power. All the ID hypothesis can say is that the designer constructed the complex systems out of intermediates to make it look as though evolution were true.So I'll ask you again: What theory accounts for the presence of functional intermediates in all supposedly "irreducibly complex" systems better than evolution? Evolution is at worst shown to be consistent with the functional intermediate observations assuming that we can't observe that evolutionary process directly, and at best, when we consider it with respect to alternate hypotheses and use Bayes' theorem, it is bolstered by it.(RaddSpencer)
Also, I think you have a poor understanding if engineering... HEHEHE. NOTHING, comes together via chance in the realms of engineering.
That's good, because evolution is not a process of chance.

 

[Jackie D]

(adren@line;49819)
Its only side-stepping if I am wrong. So was I? Do you not believe in a Christian definition of God?Either way, I am not here to refute your idea of God. Most of my posts have been about evolution, not attacking the Christian idea of God.
I have no clue what a Christian definition of God is or what it is supposed to mean. I believe in God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit. Is that what you mean by a definition of God? Who can even define God? I don't really think you are attacking Christians and their idea of God, not completely. Your posts on evolution are fine I suppose since there are several people here that post on such things. But the point of this forum is not to enlighten us on science and its findings no matter how weak or strong. The point of this forum is for people who have a genuine desire to find answers about God. For those who come here as guests to this site should be more aware of the fact that we are not a group of scientists but a group of people who make up the body of Christ. I think that anyone who is here as our guest should be just as polite as they would be had they been invited into another persons home for dinner. Anyhow, have a blessed day adren@line, I'm not sure what it is that you are looking for or hoping to accomplish here at CB but I do hope that your motives and intentions are based on the house rules and a desire to know about God and not on a personal agenda or distaste for Christians and Christianity. If you have come here for any other reason than to fellowship with Christians then perhaps you have come to the wrong place....

 

[adren@line]

(RaddSpencer;49833)
You forgot to read this part:Like many other devout Christians of his era, he accepted the Creation account given in the Book of Genesis as literal truth. [50] He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.[51][52]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
naa I read it.That still doesnt have anything to do with what I stated. He didnt warp and distort science in-order for it to fit into his POV.