The Privileged Planet

[Interplanner]

If G&R are "goofballs", what is Obama, knowing full well that Muir said all ice was gone from Glacier Bay in 1900, saying that Western industry since 1950 had depleted its ice? If you keep abusing words like that, our vocab will become meaningless.

 

[Interplanner]

The 'science' has been proved wrong. As Jose Fly put it, they have contributed nothing to science, and in fact some biochemists must have set aside their normal work to demonstrate that the examples of intelligent design presented at the Dover trial were actually examples of natural selection in action. So they wasted the time of some real scientists. Of course I am sure those real biochemists were delighted to work on disproving ID, so maybe we can see ID bringing joy to some people!

It's all very well embracing a diversity of opinion but there is actually no fruitful discussion to be had with creationists. They are either unwitting liars or out and out liars. If unwitting liars have closed ears to being shown how they are wrong then really they are in the out and out category.

I don't know about you but I would rather base my spiritual outlook on things that could at least be reasonably said to be true. Since Darwin there have been no excuses for wondering about how life has become so amazingly diverse. The explanation itself is an achievement alongside those of Beethoven and Shakespeare. They compliment one another beautifully in exploring the human condition.

Creationism isn't beautiful at all. It is a conspiracy theory built on deception: the deception of humans by their own brains and their deception of those who exploit the respectability of science dishonestly. And outside the delusion believed by a rump of a few diehards, ID is dead. Is there anything more to be said for it?

When it comes to the fluffier 'philosophical' concept of things being designed intelligently, there is no good reason to believe that is a valid model of what is going on in the universe, aside from the intelligent design we know animals can do on this planet. Wishful thinking is about the only excuse that comes to mind.

Stuart

Nonsense Stu. See the last 5 quotes at the end of Metaxas on the video "Science...for/against God?" All 5 are peer scientists/mathematicians saying that design by an infinite-personal creator is more sense.

 

[Right Divider]

Please, do explain for me the difference.

I'll bet you can't.

Stuart

One example.

Francisco Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vo. 239 (Sept.1978), pp. 56-69: "It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, MOST of the genetic variation in populations arises NOT FROM NEW MUTATIONS... Indeed RECOMBINATION ALONE is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input." (emphasis added)​

Read some Stephen J. Gould some time to see that this very educated and staunch evolutionist saw many problem with Darwin and spend vast amounts of time trying to find a better explanation for evolution.

 

[6days]

Still repeating that lie, eh, even though you know for a fact that I've shown you specific examples (e.g., discerning genetic function)?

Once again we see how it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

And you keep repeating yourself even though you know for a fact beliefs in a common ancestor has never contributed anything to science. Creationists and evolutionists examine the same evidence...use algorithms....help invent new technologies... ETC.

 

[Stuu]

Evolutionism ...hasn't contributed a single thing to science, and in some cases has harmed medical progress with its faulty assumptions.

So you wouldn't call the central principle of all biology, the complete explanation of the diversity of life on the planet today, a contribution to science.

I would.

"Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism. My University of Georgia colleague in biochemistry, Professor Russell Carlson, has expressed the same sentiment to me privately"
H. F. Schaefer, Graham-Purdue Professor of Chemistry /Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia
(2004. Science and Christianity: Conflict or coherence?)

Oh good, another appeal to authority. And this time you appeal to the authority of a chemist who is an enthusiast for intelligent design creationism, using a quote from before the Dover trial that sent ID creationism packing. Very convincing.

"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. “Evolution” would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.
Adam S. Wilkins’ in BioEssays .

Well done to find two authorities that contradict one another. Which one do you believe?

Contrary to Richard Dawkins, Biblical creation is the cornerstone to modern science with strong connections to technology and medical advancements with things like computers, cell phones, cars, airplanes, medicine, food and even space travel.

And tell me how many professional scientists in the US subscribe to 'biblical creation'.

Don't bother, I'll tell you. The answer is 4%.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

God's Word explains how life began..... and the diversity, beauty and "apparent" design we see in the world around us.

There is no explanation of anything in scripture. That is the central characteristic of religious fantasy writing. Christianity relies on the maintenance of mystery. If scripture actually started explaining things that would be the beginning of the end.

Stuu, I know you want to believe that natural selection explains complexity and diversity, and it sort of does but only in a way that is consistent with God's Word. We live in a world where genetic diseases increase and genetic burden leads to extinction. Natural selection leads to the loss of pre-existing genetic information.

I have asked you before to substantiate this claim, specifically regarding mutations in the human genome, by reference to DNA extracted from ancient human remains. You haven't done that, so I am happy to dismiss your assertions as those of someone who places the bible ahead of evidence.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

If G&R are "goofballs", what is Obama, knowing full well that Muir said all ice was gone from Glacier Bay in 1900, saying that Western industry since 1950 had depleted its ice? If you keep abusing words like that, our vocab will become meaningless.

Can you show us a source that has Obama claiming that? It's not that I particularly doubt you, but you do rely on it a lot and so far you have just asserted it.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Nonsense Stu. See the last 5 quotes at the end of Metaxas on the video "Science...for/against God?" All 5 are peer scientists/mathematicians saying that design by an infinite-personal creator is more sense.

What is a 'peer scientist'?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

One example.

Francisco Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vo. 239 (Sept.1978), pp. 56-69: "It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, MOST of the genetic variation in populations arises NOT FROM NEW MUTATIONS... Indeed RECOMBINATION ALONE is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input." (emphasis added)​

Read some Stephen J. Gould some time to see that this very educated and staunch evolutionist saw many problem with Darwin and spend vast amounts of time trying to find a better explanation for evolution.

You don't appear to have justified your claim "old-school Darwinism is long since dead". And 'many generations' would seem to be a severe limitation on the claims made in your quote.

The reason I asked you to explain is because you didn't define old-school Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism hasn't killed what you term 'old-school Darwinism', it has just updated it.

Debate continues to this day on the relative importance of various factors in natural selection, but that doesn't mean we change the name of the theory every time there is a shift in relative importance. Darwin didn't know about Mendelian genetics (because Mendel published in German and was generally ignored) and he certainly didn't know about recombination. Darwin was also a fan of the Lamarckian view, which was discredited but is perhaps returning in the form of epigenetics.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

And you keep repeating yourself even though you know for a fact beliefs in a common ancestor has never contributed anything to science.

Like I said, all you're showing is how it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly. You know this isn't true, yet you keep repeating it. Guess what that makes you?

 

[6days]

[

Evolutionism ...hasn't contributed a single thing to science, and in some cases has harmed medical progress with its faulty assumptions.

"Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism. My University of Georgia colleague in biochemistry, Professor Russell Carlson, has expressed the same sentiment to me privately"
H. F. Schaefer, Graham-Purdue Professor of Chemistry /Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia
(2004. Science and Christianity: Conflict or coherence?)

or,
"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. “Evolution” would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.
Adam S. Wilkins’ in BioEssays .

Contrary to Richard Dawkins, Biblical creation is the cornerstone to modern science with strong connections to technology and medical advancements with things like computers, cell phones, cars, airplanes, medicine, food and even space travel.

Like I said, all you're showing is how it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly. You know this isn't true, yet you keep repeating it. Guess what that makes you?

Jose *your beliefs I *common ancestry are religious, or perhaps philosophical. Your beliefs in *on common ancestry are not falsifiable....your beliefs are not observable. ....your beliefs about the past can't be tested *by experimentation.. Your belief system has *not never contributed one new technology *nor one new medical advancement.*

 

[6days]

There is no explanation of anything in scripture.

The most logical explanation. ...
"In the beginning, God..."

Stuu...Although you don't believe in Him; He believes in you and loves you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose *your beliefs I *common ancestry are religious, or perhaps philosophical. Your beliefs in *on common ancestry are not falsifiable....your beliefs are not observable. ....your beliefs about the past can't be tested *by experimentation..

Look, I know you believe all that to be true. But as I've pointed out to you before, given the foundational status of evolutionary biology to the life sciences the world over for the last 150+ years, your beliefs are 100% scientifically irrelevant. IOW, you are basically "Some anonymous poster on a fundamentalist Christian internet forum says evolutionary biology is a religion, not science". I can't believe you're delusional enough to think that means a thing to the real world where science is done.

Your belief system has *not never contributed one new technology *nor one new medical advancement.*

I'm not sure if you're trying to goad me into calling you a name or something, but I'll just once again note that I've shown you multiple times the specific data that shows how evolutionary common descent is the basis for discerning genetic function (to a 96% degree of accuracy),is the entire framework behind the field if comparative genomics, as well as a host of other information.

Yet despite having this information shown to you several times, you knowingly repeat a false statement....habitually so. What that means is obvious.

 

[Stuu]

The most logical explanation. ...
"In the beginning, God..."

And what does that explain?

Stuu...Although you don't believe in Him; He believes in you and loves you.

I like to have photographs of those who are my closely dearly loved. Do you think your god would send me a photograph?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

You don't appear to have justified your claim "old-school Darwinism is long since dead". And 'many generations' would seem to be a severe limitation on the claims made in your quote.

The reason I asked you to explain is because you didn't define old-school Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism hasn't killed what you term 'old-school Darwinism', it has just updated it.

Debate continues to this day on the relative importance of various factors in natural selection, but that doesn't mean we change the name of the theory every time there is a shift in relative importance. Darwin didn't know about Mendelian genetics (because Mendel published in German and was generally ignored) and he certainly didn't know about recombination. Darwin was also a fan of the Lamarckian view, which was discredited but is perhaps returning in the form of epigenetics.

Stuart

That was just ONE example, but you're too excited to argue.

Indeed, Neo-Darwinists hotly debate among all the time because they are all wrong and like to show the "other guy" just how wrong he/she is.

 

[Stuu]

That was just ONE example, but you're too excited to argue.

Do you think that if you tell me more it might be risky for my health?

Indeed, Neo-Darwinists hotly debate among all the time because they are all wrong and like to show the "other guy" just how wrong he/she is.

Wrong about what?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Do you think that if you tell me more it might be risky for my health?


Wrong about what?

Stuart

It would be far easer to discuss Darwinianism if you called out something from OoS that you think is correct AND is unequivocally explained ONLY by the "Theory of Evolution".

 

[6days]

Jose your beliefs in common ancestry are religious, or perhaps philosophical. Your beliefs in common ancestry are not falsifiable....your beliefs are not observable. ....your beliefs about the past can't be tested by experimentation..

...But as I've pointed out to you before, given the foundational status of evolutionary biology to the life sciences

Most fields of modern science were founded / foundational on the belief that *God created our universe in an orderly manner making science and discovery possible.*

Quote=JoseFly]... the world over for the last 150+ years...[/quote]
Fact...in the past 150+ years there has never been one new technology that resulted from common ancestry beliefs.

Fact...in the past 150+ years there has never been one medical advance8 that resulted from common ancestry beliefs.

Dr Marc Kirchner, *founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said [/b]" in fact over the last 100 years almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular Biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."[/b]

*I'll just once again note that I've shown you multiple times the specific data that shows how evolutionary common descent is the basis for discerning genetic function (to a 96% degree of accuracy),is the entire framework behind the field if comparative genomics, as well as a host of other information.

And... I have shown your assumption is false.*
Discerning genetic function has nothing to do with your belief system. Discerning genetic function is based on similar or same genes performing similar or same functions. *Geneticists all perform the same science no matter if Hindu, atheist or Biblical creationist.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Most fields of modern science were founded / foundational on the belief that *God created our universe in an orderly manner making science and discovery possible.

Yep, about 200-300 years ago. Creationism hasn't done a thing since.

Fact...in the past 150+ years there has never been one new technology that resulted from common ancestry beliefs.

Fact...in the past 150+ years there has never been one medical advance8 that resulted from common ancestry beliefs.

Dr Marc Kirchner, *founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said [/b]" in fact over the last 100 years almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular Biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."[/b]

And... I have shown your assumption is false.*
Discerning genetic function has nothing to do with your belief system. Discerning genetic function is based on similar or same genes performing similar or same functions. *Geneticists all perform the same science no matter if Hindu, atheist or Biblical creationist.*

At this point, all I can say is....wow....there is something fundamentally wrong with you. In all the years I've dealt with creationists, only a handful have sunk to this level of denial and delusion, where they can be shown something several times, yet still deny it exists.

It's sad to see what extreme fundamentalism does to people.

 

[6days]

Fact...in the past 150+ years there has never been one new technology that resulted from common ancestry beliefs.

Fact...in the past 150+ years there has never been one medical advance8 that resulted from common ancestry beliefs.

Dr Marc Kirchner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said " in fact over the last 100 years almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular Biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."

At this point, all I can say is....wow....there is something fundamentally wrong with you. In all the years I've dealt with creationists, only a handful have sunk to this level of denial and delusion, where they can be shown something several times, yet still deny it exists.

And... I have shown your assumption is false.

Discerning genetic function has nothing to do with your belief system. Discerning genetic function is based on similar or same genes performing similar or same functions. Geneticists all perform the same science no matter if Hindu, atheist or Biblical creationist.

I suppose I can keep quoting scientists who say that common ancestry beliefs have never helped real science.*

In fact we can even look at admissions from scientists (ENCODE as example) who admit evolutionary beliefs have hindered the progress of science.

Or, we *can look at statements from evolutionists who admit common ancestry beliefs have lead to increased racism.

Then, *we can examine the role common ancestry beliefs have played in genocides ....etc.

Common *ancestry beliefs are philosophical. ..not science. Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences says, "Darwinian explanation are often too sipple: natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive - except when it makes an altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior it is difficult to test it experimentally much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery"