Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul by Ken Miller

Cold Foreign Object writes:

quote:

---

And herein we see Miller caught in his lies, or he is shown to be deluded or deceived.

---

...and this would be where you provide specifics.Except you don't. Therefore, your claims are not justified. Could you give us an example?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This might come under the heading of dignifying nonsense by responding.--Percy

I wish. Do you know how many times I've heard people like you say "I ain't come from no monkey..."

A little off topic, but I think I've solved the riddle of life.The reason we are seeing nonsensical combination of words that resemble sentences and paragraphs from cold foreign object is because he literally has a cold foreign object up his ass. Just imagine how angry you'd be with a cold foreign object up your butt.

I did.Miller, of course, rejects ID and preaches fanatically as to how evil it is. Yet, in his book, he accepts both phenomena (Intelligence and Design) to have been produced by evolution (= unguided material causation). I also said Miller assumes his audience stupid about the main claims of evolution in regards to Intelligence and Design. Evolution says both are absent in nature. But Miller acts like he and no one else knows this. He blends ID terminology in his book as outcomes of evolution, attempting to deceive his audience into believing that evolution produces ID so accept evolution as true and ID as an effect if you must.Miller's book is explained as the work of a double agent. He is a total fraud or like I said, totally deluded. Evolution says Intelligence and Design are not seen in nature. This is the whole point of dispute in the Creationism-ID-Evolution debate.Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" (2006).I could produce hundreds of quotes in support of the main claim of Darwinism in regards to ID. This Forum and every evolutionist who posts argues against any claim that says nature reflects ID.RayEDIT: Shermer also, in the book cited, in the form of a throwaway line, tells his readers that if they must accept ID then it was produced (IIRC) "from the bottom up by evolution." The difference being a throwaway line as opposed to a major supposition in Miller's book.RMEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : add text

They mean from an ancient ancestor who was a monkey or ape or chimp to be more correct.Stop misrepresenting the basic claim of human evolution. No one says or believes humans come from living or recently expired primates. Darwinism says mankind evolved from a very ancient ape ancestor.Ray

The theory of evolution has produced a huge body of evidence, which led to a well-tested theory that explains how mankind evolved from an ancient ape-like ancestor."Darwinism" is a figment of creationists' fevered minds, a term designed to denigrate the theory of evolution in the minds of creationists without the need to do the scientific research to actually argue against the theory, or the study to even understand it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Cold Foreign Object responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Except you don't. Therefore, your claims are not justified. Could you give us an example?

---

​

I did.

---

No, you didn't. You simply asserted. An example would be something along the lines of, "On page XXX, Miller says...," or, "At 34:27 of the video, Miller says...." All you did was make a claim with no supporting examples.

quote:

---

Yet, in his book, he accepts both phenomena (Intelligence and Design) to have been produced by evolution (= unguided material causation).

---

You do understand that intelligence and design are not the same thing as "intelligent design," yes?

quote:

---

I also said Miller assumes his audience stupid about the main claims of evolution in regards to Intelligence and Design.

---

That's all well and good, but where is your support for this claim? You need to provide examples to justify this or it will necessarily be rejected as unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

Evolution says Intelligence and Design are not seen in nature.

---

Incorrect. Evolution says no such thing. Evolution says that "intelligent design" is not seen. "Intelligent design" is not the same thing as intelligence or design."The chickpea is neither a chick nor a pea." Do you really need to discuss this?

quote:

---

I could produce hundreds of quotes in support of the main claim of Darwinism in regards to ID.

---

Then why didn't you? If you have all this evidence, why are you holding back?

quote:

---

This Forum and every evolutionist who posts argues against any claim that says nature reflects ID.

---

That's because no evidence has been brought forward. In fact, every example that has been shown, such as Behe's little list, has been shown to be evolved.So where are your examples? Be specific.Hint: Intelligence and design is not the same thing as "intelligent design."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

You guys are arguing with someone who comprehends nothing you say. If Ray hadn't proved he's genuinely who he is over the years, if you'd just encountered him for the first time, you'd think him a troll.--Percy

The ignorance of the ordinary evolutionist never ceases to amaze me.Darwinism (1889) by Alfred Russel Wallace - Free EbookRay

You are simply an angry evolutionist unable to address of refute anything I say. You are also advocating and threatening censorship.To prove that you are angry----without just cause----is seen in this very topic. I agreed with your criticism of Ken Miller, adding to your argument which testified to Miller's dishonesty. Of course you are not willing to go near that conclusion so you blame and slander the messenger. You and your administration do not like a taste of your own medicine----which is what I do here. I post so little here that banning me is not punitive. You have assembled a comfortable group of dumb Fundamentalists that pose no threat to your intellectual level. All others are treated like me.Experts like Saddam, Castro, Stalin and Mao agree: censorship works.Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist.

Oh, look! It's the nutjob who thinks that the widespread acceptance of evolution is a punishment from god in response to the widespread acceptance of evolution! I see you still haven't been taking your schizophrenia medication. How are things over there in wacky-land, where logic doesn't exist and accusing people of being "angry" somehow counts as a rebuttal?

I know Miller's book isn't a riveting topic of discussion, but it's still the topic of this thread.I haven't read any more of the book since I last posted about it. I still intend to get back to it, though, and will post more then.--Percy

I misunderstood your request.I assumed a broad overview would suffice. I have read Miller's book (it took a few hours). Upthread Percy offered some "similar" criticism. I agreed with it. I agreed because I have read the book. In essence Percy recognized that Miller was contrasting ID with evolution (but his point went further into actual criticism). I added that Miller was assuming, and thus equivocating, ID to be phenomena produced by evolution. In the context of the Creation-Evolution debate "Intelligence" and "Design" are recognized universally to be the attributes of an invisible Creator (if He exists). If nature contains either characteristic then the same corresponds to Mind and his power. Why is there a Evolution-ID debate?Why does every evolutionist here and everywhere vehemently protest any scientific claim that says nature reflects either attribute?Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" (2006).It appears, based on your points, that you believe ID to exist in nature, a product of evolution, is this true? Now you have contradicted yourself. Of course I have probably misunderstood. I agree: evolution says there is no evidence of ID----SHEESH.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : change one word

Cold Foreign Object responds to me:

quote:

---

I misunderstood your request.

---

Huh? What's to misunderstand? I asked for specifics. You refused to provide any.

quote:

---

I added that Miller was assuming, and thus equivocating, ID to be phenomena produced by evolution.

---

...and this would be where you provide specifics. How many times do I have to ask?

quote:

---

In the context of the Creation-Evolution debate "Intelligence" and "Design" are recognized universally to be the attributes of an invisible Creator (if He exists).

---

Incorrect. "Intelligence" and "design" are not "intelligent design." In the context of biology, we have never seen "design." Science understands about design since that's the entire point behind engineering.But what you need to do is provide evidence of a biological structure that was "intelligently designed." So far, every single example that has been brought forward has been shown to be evolved, not designed. Life in general shows no hallmarks of design: It's too complex. It's too redundant. We never see complete shifts in structure with wholesale removal of traits but instead see adaptation of existing structures to new environments.Those are all hallmarks of evolution. Where is your evidence of design?

quote:

---

Why is there a Evolution-ID debate?

---

There isn't. If you look at the literature, you don't find any discussion of "ID" because there has never been any evidence put forward for it.

quote:

---

Why does every evolutionist here and everywhere vehemently protest any scientific claim that says nature reflects either attribute?

---

They don't. They simply demand that you show your work and not assert it to be true. So far, you have not provided any specifics.

quote:

---

It appears, based on your points, that you believe ID to exist in nature, a product of evolution, is this true?

---

No, it is not. There is no evidence of design in biology. That's why I keep asking you for specifics. So far, every single example that has been brought forward has been shown to be evolved.You're the one making the claim. Therefore burden of proof is on you.

quote:

---

Now you have contradicted yourself.

---

Incorrect. Evidence is something that can withstand scrutiny. So far, every example of "ID" has been shown to be evolved. Therefore, it didn't withstand scrutiny and my original claim remains: No evidence has been brought forward.And on a more literal level, you have yet to provide any example that could possibly be examined.

quote:

---

I agree: evolution says there is no evidence of ID

---

Incorrect. It isn't evolution that says there is no evidence of "ID." It is science that does it. Not because of some pre-conceived notion but because every example that has been put forward as evidence of "ID" has not withstood scrutiny. Every single one has been shown to have evolved.So where are your specific examples? How many times do I need to ask?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.