Jack White Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) How is it that I wished for a discussion of EVOLUTION and what evolved is a discussion of GOD and/or RELIGION. Why cannot evolution be discussed on its own merits rather than resort to the crutch of Darwinists that religion is involved and that all anti-evoltionists are religious nuts? My position does not involve religion nor science, and that evolution is not only anti-religion, it is anti-scientific. This theory should be able to stand on its own. None of its defenders have answered any of the questions I raised. All they can do is point to their scientific credentials or books by various scientists. They seem afraid to address facts on their own with their own thinking. The question is about where life came from and how...not what happened to it after it got here. Darwin wondered about the differing species; I wonder where life itself came from. Evolution does not answer that question. Jack Edited February 16, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) How is it that I wished for a discussion of EVOLUTION and what evolvedis a discussion of GOD and/or RELIGION. Why cannot evolution be discussed on its own merits rather than resort to the crutch of Darwinists that religion is involved and that all anti-evoltionists are religious nuts? My position does not involve religion nor science, and that evolution is not only anti-religion, it is anti-scientific. This theory should be able to stand on its own. None of its defenders have answered any of the questions I raised. All they can do is point to their scientific credentials or books by various scientists. They seem afraid to address facts on their own with their own thinking. The question is about where life came from and how...not what happened to it after it got here. Darwin wondered about the differing species; I wonder where life itself came from. Evolution does not answer that question. Jack Jack This is exactly why I asked for clarification on this matter in the third post of this thread. If this thread is going to make any sense, I think we first need to be clear about the difference between abiogenesis (origin of life), and the Theory of Evolution - the two are related but quite different.It's unclear from Jack's statement whether he is referring to the origin of life, or the theory of evolution itself - could you clarify your position on these matters Jack? In particular, if you are referring to evolution rather than abiogenesis, is it Darwinism itself (as set out in Origin of Species) you take issue with, or the Modern Theory Of Evolution? Cheers PS I have no intention of getting involved in a debate on abiogenesis, but may be tempted into a discussion on whether the modern TOE (Theory of Evolution) is a political conspiracy or not. Never mind, we had 5 pages of interesting discussion along the way! EDIT - I think you may be confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The two are completely different topics. AFAIK Darwinism does not address abiogenesis. Incidentally, it is going to be very hard to have a discussion about abiogenesis without allowing God into the discussion. Edited February 16, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Incidentally, it is going to be very hard to have a discussion about abiogenesis without allowing God into the discussion. I have no personal objection to God joining the forum. Perhaps John and Andy would agree to a Trinity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) How is it that I wished for a discussion of EVOLUTION and what evolvedis a discussion of GOD and/or RELIGION. Why cannot evolution be discussed on its own merits rather than resort to the crutch of Darwinists that religion is involved and that all anti-evoltionists are religious nuts? My position does not involve religion nor science, and that evolution is not only anti-religion, it is anti-scientific. This theory should be able to stand on its own. None of its defenders have answered any of the questions I raised. All they can do is point to their scientific credentials or books by various scientists. They seem afraid to address facts on their own with their own thinking. The question is about where life came from and how...not what happened to it after it got here. Darwin wondered about the differing species; I wonder where life itself came from. Evolution does not answer that question. Jack Jack This is exactly why I asked for clarification on this matter in the third post of this thread. If this thread is going to make any sense, I think we first need to be clear about the difference between abiogenesis (origin of life), and the Theory of Evolution - the two are related but quite different.It's unclear from Jack's statement whether he is referring to the origin of life, or the theory of evolution itself - could you clarify your position on these matters Jack? In particular, if you are referring to evolution rather than abiogenesis, is it Darwinism itself (as set out in Origin of Species) you take issue with, or the Modern Theory Of Evolution? Cheers PS I have no intention of getting involved in a debate on abiogenesis, but may be tempted into a discussion on whether the modern TOE (Theory of Evolution) is a political conspiracy or not. Never mind, we had 5 pages of interesting discussion along the way!EDIT - I think you may be confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The two are completely different topics. AFAIK Darwinism does not address abiogenesis. Incidentally, it is going to be very hard to have a discussion about abiogenesis without allowing God into the discussion. I am not confusing "abiogenesis" with anything. It is off topic. Just another theory. The topic is Darwinism. I say that Darwin only theorizes about EXISTING LIFE and that I disagree with his INCOMPLETE theory. If one is going to consider the EVOLUTION OF EXISTING LIFE the question of WHAT IS LIFE AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM must also be addressed. Darwin does not address this. And it is a SCIENTIFIC question, not a RELIGIOUS one. Saying that God made everything shows a fear of examining the evidence. Scientists saying the answers have been found is mistaken or a lie or just another theory...BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS. Jack Edited February 17, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 If one is going to consider the EVOLUTION OF EXISTING LIFE the question of WHAT IS LIFE AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM must also be addressed. Why? How is the overwhelming evidence that life has evolved somehow negated by the fact that we don't know where life came from? That's like saying there's no point in writing a biography of someone if we don't know where he or she was born. This lack of knowledge makes the person's life meaningless? Darwin does not address this. And it is a SCIENTIFIC question, not a RELIGIOUS one. What do you want Darwin to say? Since, as you say, nobody knows, what do you want him to do? Lie and say he knows (but won't tell us) or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I am not confusing "abiogenesis" with anything. It is off topic. Just another theory.The topic is Darwinism. I say that Darwin only theorizes about EXISTING LIFE and that I disagree with his INCOMPLETE theory. If one is going to consider the EVOLUTION OF EXISTING LIFE the question of WHAT IS LIFE AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM must also be addressed. Darwin does not address this. And it is a SCIENTIFIC question, not a RELIGIOUS one. Saying that God made everything shows a fear of examining the evidence. Scientists saying the answers have been found is mistaken or a lie or just another theory...BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS. Jack The question is about where life came from and how...not what happenedto it after it got here. Darwin wondered about the differing species; I wonder where life itself came from. Evolution does not answer that question. Jack OK, you've got me confused. The two posts of yours above seem to be contradictory. Is the topic "How life began?". If so, abiogenesis is totally relevant to the discussion - but you say it's off topic. Is the topic "How life evolved?". If so, then we are discussing neo-Darwinism (or rather, it's veracity and acceptance by mainstream science and politicians). Are you saying that neo-Darwinism is incomplete because it fails to address how life began? Incidentally, I don't think there is a consensus in the scientific community on how life began - merely competing theories. I agree that "nobody knows", but I'm failing to grasp the thrust of your argument. Could you clarify exactly what the discussion is about, what your own position is, and why you hold those beliefs? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 You're welcome, Dave."To clarify, is it your position that any attempt to prove the existence of God (by scientific means), is fatally flawed, since God transcends science? Hence ID opposes true faith, which requires an acceptance of God without proof of his existence?" Yes and no. God is (omni) all-present, omni-knowing (scient), omni-potent. God IS science. Evolution is a subset of science. ID opposes true belief. In the freedom god gave us we can choose to believe. When we do, god is described to us mortals as having 'no turning', ie no one is not seen because you are seen (love). When you, the individual you, choose (freedom) to be seen god is proven to you, no rocket science required. This is about a type of humility and surrender, a loss of ego and trust (ie a not knowing): ie faith. You can in this freedom also choose not to believe. He has set you free. Long long time before you ever heard the word. This is an enigma, a one hand clapping. Beyond reasoning. "If yes to my first question, does that also mean that philosophical and scriptural attempts to prove the existence of God are equally as doomed as a scientific approach? Or is it purely scientific attempts (i.e. ID) that are flawed?" again yes and no, knowledge is different (but related to) wisdom. It is in the open mind of the innocent child that god is seen. As adults we may recite the entire scriptures word perfect and spend a lifetime writing thesis after thesis. In the moment of approaching god with the mind of a child and the (oh so hopefully so) wisdom of an adult that christians (perhaps I should say theists?) stand in 'the awe of god'. A child just simply goes up and holds gods hand, because the innocent chid knows. A Buddhist story: a man goes to the doctor and gets a script. goes home and sets it in the shrine and bows down and recites 'one pill in the morning...blind a man goes to the doctor and gets a script, he asks for and receives an explanation of the script. he goes home and takes a soap box to the park and shouts and preaches : this is the true script... knowledge a man goes to the doctor and gets a script, he asks for and receives an explanation of the script. he goes home and takes one pill in the morning...knowledge and wisdom "How do your views on ID sit with your views on (neo-)Darwinism? Does the fact that Darwinism doesn't preclude the existence of a deity, but does leave room for a deity, make it more theologically sound than ID?" Basically I think of these things as a separation of the mysterious enigmatic beyond mind kingdom of god (spirit, heart, heaven, whatever) and science and logic. In Science evolution is of course the product of deep and thorough logic born by the work of countless dedicated scientists and their peers. (ref Ron's post) John Thanks for taking the time to respond, I'm always open to hearing people's views on such a fascinating subject. It was an interesting twist suggesting that ID was "anti-religious" but after hearing you explain your reasoning why, I can understand why you take that position. Jack is right though, we seem to be steering this thread off topic (when we can all finally agree exactly what the topic is!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Incidentally, it is going to be very hard to have a discussion about abiogenesis without allowing God into the discussion. I have no personal objection to God joining the forum. Perhaps John and Andy would agree to a Trinity? I didn't want to risk eternal damnation by barring Him either. I'll leave that to someone else with more guts/stupidity than me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) "Why cannot evolution be discussed on its own merits rather than resort to the crutch of Darwinists that religion is involved and that all anti-evoltionists are religious nuts? My position does not involve religion nor science, and that evolution is not only anti-religion, it is anti-scientific." Jack you injected a religious argument when you complained that that Evolution promotes secularism as if that were a bad thing. You seem to alluding to that again thus you contradict yourself. I agree that your “position does not involve…science” One reason evolutions mention religion is that by and whole opponents to the theory religious people and the only alternative theories I’ve seen involve a God like spirit or ET’s. "This theory should be able to stand on its own. None of its defenders have answered any of the questions I raised." Actually several of your questions have been answered but you have chosen to ignore it. "The question is about where life came from and how...not what happened to it after it got here. Darwin wondered about the differing species; I wonder where life itself came from. Evolution does not answer that question.c?" These are quite separate issues as has already been pointed out to you. Darwin did however speculate about biogenesis. He believed it liked occurred in a “warm little pond” You complain that modern science explains biogenesis as theorizing (approximate quote) ‘something coming from nothing’ where exactly do you believe life came from? What created what created life? Was it created from nothing? Edited February 17, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) You're welcome. ((BTW)The topic heading is written by Len Colby.) I just want to elaborate a bit on this idea/opinion of mine. I'm a christian. That means a lot of different things to different people. 'tough titties', I can't control what it means to others. Some will have absolutely no problem understanding exactly what I do mean. Therefore: I can accept an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god that is a personality in the form of jesus christ. Therefore his word is the word of god. There is no separation, only a deliberate simplification so that the human mind can understand. He is so much more but it was only a very small part of that much more that he shows in person. He also shows this with the very smallest of common denominator in mind. Therefore those lacking in this understanding yet are very intellignet will simply see a stupidity there. Contradictions and non-sense. I see him explaining genetics in the book where the flood and the buiding of the arc was part of. I see him explaining incarnation, reincarnation, and kharma in all his little stories to children and adults. I see him describing the origins of the universe in Genesis. It was the word. Figuring out what 'the word' is can take a life time (or two) He gives advice at various times in human social evolution. Ultimately the primo uno COMMANDMENT that he gave hunanity was "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' This (remembering gods as omnipresent is everyones neighbour), taken in conjunction with snippets like 'you reap what you sow', describes the laws of nature. IOW such things as evolution. In fact, Jesus was the word, IOW all scientifc endeavour to understand the process of such things as evolution is studying a small part of 'the word'. IMO it is the height of arroagnce to imagine one can elevate oneself in anyway to anywhere near where god is (which is in Heaven, which Jesus simply explained as being in your heart.) in any other way than as he COMMANDED us to. CHOOSING FREELY to believe him, proves that god exists. To force any other way or commandment, or to make what is a matter of INDIVIDUAL spirit choice, something that you even imagine will prove he exists destroys the opportunity for the individual to come to god. IOW (and I feel sorry for those the language/image/ideas that this might evoke in some minds), it is satanic, or if you are a buddhist, a manufestation of mara, or perhaps the anti thesis of theos (θεός) (greek). I think it's good for christians to resist ID being taught as anything other than a philosophical part of what god is not. Edited February 18, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Deitche Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 How is it that I wished for a discussion of EVOLUTION and what evolvedis a discussion of GOD and/or RELIGION. Why cannot evolution be discussed on its own merits rather than resort to the crutch of Darwinists that religion is involved and that all anti-evoltionists are religious nuts? My position does not involve religion nor science, and that evolution is not only anti-religion, it is anti-scientific. This theory should be able to stand on its own. None of its defenders have answered any of the questions I raised. All they can do is point to their scientific credentials or books by various scientists. They seem afraid to address facts on their own with their own thinking. The question is about where life came from and how...not what happened to it after it got here. Darwin wondered about the differing species; I wonder where life itself came from. Evolution does not answer that question. Jack The best current research on generation of elementary non host-dependant cellular material points conclusively to an RNA precursor to both protein and DNA based models. This provides a mechanism, backed up by scientific experimentation, showing the complexity of later organisms originating from this mold. There are competing theories as to what exactly was needed for the RNA to get to that point, but most all deal with existing chemical conditions on earth and how the material arose. Now you are correct that the exact catalytic conditions for the RNA to arise are not known, but science is down to the RNA level, which is one step away from the primordial soup. From there it's a straight shot through the evolutionary tree I'll be happy to refer you to dozens of peer-reviewed papers and publications on the latest work in RNA but you obviously don't want to wade through that. I'm sorry I can't spoon feed it to you. After all, as proud member of the vast Darwinian conspiracy I need to keep some things close to the vest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Deitche Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 By the way, I am not opposed to the theory on religious grounds. Jack The Darwin Cult promotes secularism and is anti-religious. Govt rulings that it must be taught in public schools have no scientific basis. Many believe it is a mind control tool of The New World Order to promote global consumerism. Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family. The objective of the "fittest surviving" and the "elimination of the weakest" is a policy tailored to rich and ruling classes. There's tons of info on the internet regarding Darwinism and eugenics (racial purification)... My wife teaches science, hence evolution. She'll get a kick out of this. "A tool for the New World Order' - priceless. And a Nazi- we since her great granduncles and aunts never made it out of Auscwitz, I'm sure she wouldn't find as much humor in that. Evoultion is science. What people make of it has nothing to do with what it is. Same for religion. People kill in the name of God, and go out of their way to help in the name of God. It's what you make of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Deitche Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Speaking of the fossil record, let's consider sharks' teeth. Shark teeth are found among the oldest fossil records, and they are like the shark teeth of today. Apparently sharks didn't get the memo from Darwin, and never bothered to mutate into some transitional animal. Or do you say that only a FEW of them mutated and the rest did NOT? Did some sharks crawl onto land, become monkeys and then people...is that punctuated equilibrium? Jack ???? Modern sharks are not completely similar to their fossil couterparts, nor are all the teeth. There are distinct morphological differences, but even when the shark's teeth of yore began to resemble modern ones (about 100 MYA, shakrs date back to 450 mya), what does that prove? Mammalian teeth have remained relatively the same. The shark's teeth worked. They still do. There were plenty of aquatic organisms that did not survive. Ostracoderms, the bony plated fishes, are one that comes to mind. They were similar to other fish in the superorder Agnatha- hagfishes, etc. Furthermore, nowhere in evolutionary science does it say that every animal transitioned into something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 I'll be happy to refer you to dozens of peer-reviewed papers and publications on the latest work in RNA Here's a link to a good article from 1998 in ScienceDaily. The article is about an important peer-reviewed paper that was published in Nature, and discusses the theoretical "ancient RNA world" in relation to the early evolution of life. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/...80917081316.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) I'll be happy to refer you to dozens of peer-reviewed papers and publications on the latest work in RNA Here's a link to a good article from 1998 in ScienceDaily. The article is about an important peer-reviewed paper that was published in Nature, and discusses the theoretical "ancient RNA world" in relation to the early evolution of life. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/...80917081316.htm "Peer review" can be as meaningless as "evolution". Peer = Equal. Wrong = Wrong Dumb = Dumb A theory reviewed by someone who belongs to the same cult as the theorist will certainly agree with other members of the cult. Like getting Posner to peer review Bugliosi's book. More sensible would be reviews of theories by those who question the theory and know the questions to ask to deflate the theory. Peer review depends on who the peer is. Jack Edited February 18, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now