Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 6:37 AM
207 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, RAZD, Son of Man, Tangle (5 members, 202 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,418 Year: 17,241/29,783 Month: 1,229/1,956 Week: 226/506 Day: 31/131 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   why 'evolutionism' is a religion
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 45 (2051)
01-14-2002 9:40 AM


evolutionism- the belief that today's ToE is indicative of reality.

Why is it a religion? Adherents to the ToE put their faith (yes faith) in the un-Holy trinity of Mother Nature, Father Time and some as yet unknown natural process(es). How so? There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses, in fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists. Why is that? All that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about." How convenient it is to be an evolutionist.
When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism. However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes. So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis. So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?

evolution is a religion

BTW, if you think life did originate via purely natural processes, the following link may interest you.

$1,350,000.00 Origins of Life Prize

------------------
John Paul


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 01-14-2002 10:42 AM John Paul has responded
 Message 6 by keenanvin, posted 01-14-2002 11:32 AM John Paul has responded
 Message 14 by lbhandli, posted 01-14-2002 6:18 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 34 by ?????, posted 03-06-2003 10:19 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4421
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 45 (2060)
01-14-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-14-2002 9:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
evolutionism- the belief that today's ToE is indicative of reality.

Why is it a religion? Adherents to the ToE put their faith (yes faith) in the un-Holy trinity of Mother Nature, Father Time and some as yet unknown natural process(es). How so? There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists.


Let me get this straight. If I have faith my Subaru will get me to work in the morning (and believe me, it does take a leap of faith) that this is a religion? Hey, it matches your definition.

And not the mother nature-father time story again! This really makes you sound silly. The "unholy" part is new, I have to admit, but who decides what is unholy? JP, we all know what a religion is. You expand the definition so as to make it meaningless.

quote:
We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses, in fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists. Why is that? All that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about."

Actually, there is enough time. We see it in the fossil record. Billions of years are represented and recorded.

quote:
How convenient it is to be an evolutionist.

We've been taking notes.

quote:
When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism.

Well, it seems to have worked before. We don't sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods any more, either.

quote:
However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes.

You mean other than the fact that everything else has occurred by naturalistic processes? Including evolution?

quote:
So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis.

I have never heard any evolutionist refuse to discuss abiogenesis with you.

quote:
So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?

If, if, if. Sorry, JP, invalid premise. On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 9:40 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 11:00 AM edge has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 45 (2061)
01-14-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
01-14-2002 10:42 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
evolutionism- the belief that today's ToE is indicative of reality.
Why is it a religion? Adherents to the ToE put their faith (yes faith) in the un-Holy trinity of Mother Nature, Father Time and some as yet unknown natural process(es). How so? There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Let me get this straight. If I have faith my Subaru will get me to work in the morning (and believe me, it does take a leap of faith) that this is a religion? Hey, it matches your definition.

John Paul:
I don't understand where faith is involved in your Subaru. Either it functions or it doesn't.

edge:
And not the mother nature-father time story again!

John Paul:
Truth hurts sometimes and this is one of those times.

edge:
This really makes you sound silly.

John Paul:
If reality makes me sound silly to you then so be it.

edge:
The "unholy" part is new, I have to admit, but who decides what is unholy? JP, we all know what a religion is.

John Paul:
I have my doubts. That is why this thread was started.

edge:
You expand the definition so as to make it meaningless.

John Paul:
And evolutionists use false extrapolations to support their faith. Is that also meaningless?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses, in fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists. Why is that? All that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Actually, there is enough time.

John Paul:
Great then let's see the experiment. No more hiding behind the time argument.

edge:
We see it in the fossil record.

John Paul:
You see time in the fossil record? No, you just assume it took time to create the fossil record. Huge difference. You see what you want to see in the fossil record. It is a great example of "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it."

edge:
Billions of years are represented and recorded.

John Paul:
Only if you first assume it took time to create it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Well, it seems to have worked before.

John Paul:
Really? Have you read anything about Newton?

edge:
We don't sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods any more, either.

John Paul:
That has to do with what exactly?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
You mean other than the fact that everything else has occurred by naturalistic processes?

John Paul:
That is nothing but a baseless assertion.

edge:
Including evolution?

John Paul:
And another baseless assertion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
I have never heard any evolutionist refuse to discuss abiogenesis with you.

John Paul:
The point is evolutionists distance themselves from abiogenesis with statements such as 'How life started is not important. Evolution is after life was started.'
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
If, if, if. Sorry, JP, invalid premise.

John Paul:
That is all evolutionists have are IFs. That is whay I started this thread.

edge:
On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?

John Paul:
Baseless assertion. IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions? Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering?

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 01-14-2002 10:42 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:21 AM John Paul has responded
 Message 7 by edge, posted 01-14-2002 11:41 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 4 of 45 (2065)
01-14-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
01-14-2002 11:00 AM


quote:
edge:
On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?

quote:
John Paul:
Baseless assertion. IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions? Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering?

I see that the Creationist, unable to substantiate Creationism as a science, must now attempt to label evolution as a religion in a desperate bid to make the two seem to be equals.

"IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions?"

Because "ideal conditions" just happens to be an enormous number of "random" reactions (not "really" random of course because they follow the laws of chemistry) occuring over millions of years of time, an experimental setup not available to researchers. Alternatively we could try to build one, molecule by molecule, but that technology does not yet exist.

"Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering"

Probably because the "great transformations" took millions of years of parallel mutations to come about. Genetic engineering technology is not advanced enough to manipulate that many genes in parallel. In fact, biochemists are still trying to figure out what gene codes for what protein and how protein folding is conveyed through genetics (hint: introns may play a role). In fact, transfering a handful of genes to an organism across species is still a big achievement. The best we could do is what evolution does, modifying one gene at a time across thousands of generations. Also don't forget that what we do with genetic engineering is unnatural, often not necessarily moving towards greater fitness. And finally, there is no research funding to attempt a "Great Transformation". You might be interested to know that "great achievements" so far in genetic engineering consist of bacteria that eat oil, bacteria that produce insulin, and an organism that grows on strawberries to protect them from frost. Genetic technology is not even advanced enough to move much faster than microevolution, yet you expect a macro - like feat? Have some patience. You want to build a supercomputer out of an abacus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 11:00 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:24 AM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 1:31 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 3:04 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 45 (2066)
01-14-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by gene90
01-14-2002 11:21 AM


Also you seem to have forgotten that if we did generate a new living thing through GE, it would be an act of "Creation" and your side would feel vindicated. Therefore, in this manner, Creationism is yet again shown to be non-falsifiable. Suggest to Creationists that if they want serious consideration, they should try playing fair.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:21 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 01-14-2002 2:01 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 9:15 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
keenanvin
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 45 (2069)
01-14-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-14-2002 9:40 AM


re∑li∑gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Evolution does not follow 1,2 or 3. Evolution is NOT a religion, according to the definition. -Kv


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 9:40 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 1:40 PM keenanvin has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4421
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 45 (2072)
01-14-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
01-14-2002 11:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
edge:
Let me get this straight. If I have faith my Subaru will get me to work in the morning (and believe me, it does take a leap of faith) that this is a religion? Hey, it matches your definition.

John Paul:
I don't understand where faith is involved in your Subaru. Either it functions or it doesn't.


You obviously don't know my car. See, I can't PROVE that it will even start. I have faith that it will. And I can't PROVE that it doesn't burn oil instead of gasoline, either.

quote:
edge:
You expand the definition so as to make it meaningless.

John Paul:
And evolutionists use false extrapolations to support their faith. Is that also meaningless?


How do you know they are false? Can you PROVE that they are?

quote:
John Paul:
Great then let's see the experiment. No more hiding behind the time argument.

Evolution is tested countless times a day at all of the paleo digs around the world. We use micropaleontology to tell us where we are in an exploration well, AND to predict what is ahead. Face the facts, it works. If not, the oil companies would refuse to use it.

quote:
edge:
We see it in the fossil record.

John Paul:
You see time in the fossil record? No, you just assume it took time to create the fossil record. Huge difference. You see what you want to see in the fossil record. It is a great example of "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it."


Sorry, but many geological processes are known. They take time. And yes, to a trained person the geological record reads like a history book.

quote:
edge:
Well, it seems to have worked before.

John Paul:
Really? Have you read anything about Newton?


Newton denied that nature was responsible for the natural environment? He thought that god moved the planets, or what?

quote:
edge:
We don't sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods any more, either.

John Paul:
That has to do with what exactly?


Well, people used to think that volcanos were not natural and were controlled by the gods. Sacrifices were supposed to appease them. Now, we know (well, some of us do) that natural processes explain eveything that we see in nature.

quote:
However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes.

edge:
You mean other than the fact that everything else has occurred by naturalistic processes?

John Paul:
That is nothing but a baseless assertion.


Good, then you can give us many clear cut examples of non-natural effects of non-natural processes in our environment.

quote:

So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis.

edge:
I have never heard any evolutionist refuse to discuss abiogenesis with you.

John Paul:
The point is evolutionists distance themselves from abiogenesis with statements such as 'How life started is not important. Evolution is after life was started.'


No, JP, we are just trying to help you understand the difference. We are usually glad to talk about it once that is cleared up. Numerous evolutionists have told you that there is a big difference in the evidence for evolution versus the evidence for abiogenesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 11:00 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 45 (2083)
01-14-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by gene90
01-14-2002 11:21 AM


edge:
On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?

quote:

John Paul:
Baseless assertion. IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions? Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering?
Gene90:
I see that the Creationist, unable to substantiate Creationism as a science, must now attempt to label evolution as a religion in a desperate bid to make the two seem to be equals.

John Paul:
-ism: a system, principle or ideological movement. Creationism isnít a science any more than evolutionism is. Both are PoVs.

John Paul:
"IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions?"

gene90:
Because "ideal conditions" just happens to be an enormous number of "random" reactions (not "really" random of course because they follow the laws of chemistry) occuring over millions of years of time, an experimental setup not available to researchers. Alternatively we could try to build one, molecule by molecule, but that technology does not yet exist.

John Paul:
Thank you. You are proving my point.

John Paul:
"Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering"

gene90:
Probably because the "great transformations" took millions of years of parallel mutations to come about. Genetic engineering technology is not advanced enough to manipulate that many genes in parallel. In fact, biochemists are still trying to figure out what gene codes for what protein and how protein folding is conveyed through genetics (hint: introns may play a role). In fact, transfering a handful of genes to an organism across species is still a big achievement. The best we could do is what evolution does, modifying one gene at a time across thousands of generations. Also don't forget that what we do with genetic engineering is unnatural, often not necessarily moving towards greater fitness. And finally, there is no research funding to attempt a "Great Transformation". You might be interested to know that "great achievements" so far in genetic engineering consist of bacteria that eat oil, bacteria that produce insulin, and an organism that grows on strawberries to protect them from frost. Genetic technology is not even advanced enough to move much faster than microevolution, yet you expect a macro - like feat? Have some patience. You want to build a supercomputer out of an abacus.

John Paul:
I have patience. But in the absence of such experimentation all you have is faith that someday such evidentiary support will come. And with that faith the belief it will substantiate your (evolutionists') claims.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:21 AM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 01-14-2002 1:52 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 4:10 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 15 by lbhandli, posted 01-14-2002 6:20 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 7:15 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 20 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 12:59 PM John Paul has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 45 (2084)
01-14-2002 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by keenanvin
01-14-2002 11:32 AM


re∑li∑gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

keenanvin:
Evolution does not follow 1,2 or 3. Evolution is NOT a religion, according to the definition. -Kv

John Paul:
Did you know the US Supreme Court considers humanism to be a religion? Also a religion can be defined as a thing that one is devoted to- from Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder. (see also http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

And that a synonym of religion is belief?

Evolution as in 'a change in allele frequency over time' may not be a belief system, but extrapolating that to mean the ToE is indicative of reality surely makes it one.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by keenanvin, posted 01-14-2002 11:32 AM keenanvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 01-14-2002 2:06 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 16 by lbhandli, posted 01-14-2002 6:21 PM John Paul has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 45 (2085)
01-14-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
01-14-2002 1:31 PM


You know since I first heard it I have been bothered by that label of evolutionist or evolutionism....

I would prefer to say that I accept that the ToE is the best current naturalistic explanation of the evidence...

I would not call myself an evolutionist as if sufficient developments occurred I would be able to reassess my position something that a subscriber to "evolutionism" presumably wouldn't....

quote:
John Paul:
"IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions?"

gene90:
Because "ideal conditions" just happens to be an enormous number of "random" reactions (not "really" random of course because they follow the laws of chemistry) occurring over millions of years of time, an experimental setup not available to researchers. Alternatively we could try to build one, molecule by molecule, but that technology does not yet exist.

John Paul:
Thank you. You are proving my point.


you asked a question the content of which was if it was possible we would conduct the experiment so why dont we?

Gene replies we cant conduct the experiment (due to the huge scale required)...

how has he proved your point?

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 1:31 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 45 (2087)
01-14-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
01-14-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Also you seem to have forgotten that if we did generate a new living thing through GE, it would be an act of "Creation" and your side would feel vindicated. Therefore, in this manner, Creationism is yet again shown to be non-falsifiable. Suggest to Creationists that if they want serious consideration, they should try playing fair.

Indeed. Creationist veterinarian Randy Wysong in fact pre-rejected any such feats in his 1976 book. Interestingly, he actually thoiught that life HAD been created in the lab - he merely claimed it to be evidence not of evolution, but of design, because the scientists added that magical ingredient "KNOW-HOW" (caps in original).

Absurd.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:24 AM gene90 has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4421
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 12 of 45 (2088)
01-14-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
01-14-2002 1:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
From keenanvin:
re∑li∑gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

keenanvin:
Evolution does not follow 1,2 or 3. Evolution is NOT a religion, according to the definition. -Kv

John Paul:
Did you know the US Supreme Court considers humanism to be a religion?


And?

quote:
Also a religion can be defined as a thing that one is devoted to- from Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder.

Ah, good. Then football is a religion. I've been telling my wife this for years...

quote:
And that a synonym of religion is belief?

And "idea" is a synonym of "belief." And "proposal" is a synonym of "idea." And "request" is a synonym of "proposal." So, is evolution a request?

quote:
Evolution as in 'a change in allele frequency over time' may not be a belief system, but extrapolating that to mean the ToE is indicative of reality surely makes it one.

Are you saying that a change in allele frequency can't be real?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 1:40 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3149 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 45 (2095)
01-14-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
01-14-2002 1:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
edge:
On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?

quote:

John Paul:
Baseless assertion. IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions? Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering?


That natural methods were responsible for abiogenesis is not baseless assertion. Every single observed process is the result of a material naturalistic process. BAR NONE.

The supernatural/God has never been observed. NEVER.

So to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed is baseless.

To infer something that has NEVER been observed, over something that has ALWAYS been responsible, where mechanisms are evident (without fail), is the most craven act of pseudoscience yet.

This is tantamount to saying pink fairies did it.

This is purely a God of the gaps argument. Take two paragraphs from your opening post.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses, in fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists. Why is that? All that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about." How convenient it is to be an evolutionist.
When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism. However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes. So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis. So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?


There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists - Gap

We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses - Gap

in fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists - Gap

All that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about." How convenient it is to be an evolutionist. - Gap

However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes - Gap

How many pieces of evidence have you brought in support of creation?

God of the gaps - 5

Objective, creation science - 0

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 1:31 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 8:25 AM mark24 has responded

    
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 45 (2101)
01-14-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-14-2002 9:40 AM


Morris' article is simply non-sense. Evolution addresses the history and diversity of life on Earth in context of the scientific method. It says nothing of the supernatural since science has no way of addressing it. If you want to call it a religion address the science and demonstate that it is wrong--saying it isn't doesn't do the job.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 9:40 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 45 (2102)
01-14-2002 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
01-14-2002 1:31 PM


The scientific method doesn't require experiments, but observations and testing. Experiments are a reliable method of doing such, but not a requirement of the scientific method. Please stop misrepresenting science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 1:31 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018