Some Evidence Against Evolution

Thank you for recognizing my point. And if I may use this post as an occaison to further expand this criticism.Logidemic is the language that cancer researchers use between themselves. Pandemic is the language that they use to explain their research to doctors, and Practidemic is the language that the doctors use to explain it to their patients.Take the above paragraph and insert "paleontologist" in place of cancer researcher. Whatever truth is being determined at the logidemic level between paleontologists, they must at some point convey it into the pandemic so it can {hopefully} make it to the practidemic. Of what use is anything if it cannot be understood by ordinary intelligent humanity ?Creationists believe that the intercourse between paleontologists on the logidemic level is biased in favor of their starting assumption that a Creator doesn't exist, which according to post #112 "renders every claim of certainty defective and suspect". Which {if true } matriculates down to the practidemic.The error here is the unqualified transfer of expertise from the field of paleontology TO the field of religion/divine.It all boils down to trust and credibility.Neo-Darwinism IS offered as the explanation of the origin of life in place of "irrational" creationism. This makes Paleontologist the Priest/Preacher, which is also part of the subject of post #112.Paleontologist and his subordinates are the clergy of Scientism which is the branch of science that has set itself up in place of God to explain creation. Identical to their counterparts in religion {the fundementalists} they rule subjectively under the guise of the principles of rational enquiry.Stephen Hawkings said it plainly "if I can understand the way something works then I can be the master of it". And if the master then that makes you the person that everyone looks to for the answers.
This inadvertedly seats you in God's chair.We intelligent creationists do not challenge the brilliant discoveries of science - we stand in awe of them. Where we depart is the interpretations and conclusions that the branch of science called scientism makes.We creationists will not take paleontologists word on anything because they cannot be trusted because of their known starting assumptions contained in their worldview which said worldview begins with the admitted position that God does not exist.If the logidemic spring is contaminated by minds darkened God {post #112} then everything that flows from it will contain the beginning error.The context of this post is post #1 and post #112 which cites the claims of Richard Milton who becomes independant corroboration that the claims of neo-Darwinism are fundementally flawed. This is some evidence against evolution.

Willowtree,The early scientists working on the fossil record were creationist. They were so troubled by what they encountered, that they could no longer accept a literal biblical worldview. However, they were so dependent apon the bible for their beliefs, that they tried to reconcile it, and proposed the concept of "multiple creations", with God destroying the world in between each creation. They kept having to pile on more and more separate creations, until eventually the scientific community was all but forced to accept evolution. However, the key is that they kept resisting acknowleging *evolution*, and instead insisting that there must have been *creation* as was listed in the bible.Thus, your claim that there must be some taint because of a presupposition of no God is false. It is furthermore disproven by the fact that a good portion of scientists actually believe in theistic evolution.By the way - and please don't take this in the wrong way, I mean no insult by it - but you or someone else in a relatively small isoteric group made up those words. I can't find a single reference to them anywhere else. I mean, we can use them for the context of this discussion, but they're not real words.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Really? The only hint of this I have run across is that some evolutionary like process may have been involved after a self-replicator with imperfect replication arose to move it from chemical to something we would be more likely to agree is "alive". However, it is not offered as any kind of final explanation and it is not something included in the ToE but is, rather something which borrows from the ToE.Could you site your souces for this assertion?

1)The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.
2)The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.From: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0147500.html I presume from the above that you are using the second definition. In what why are paleontologists suggesting that science is justifiable in all fields of inquiry? Specifically, what fields are they suggesting using it in that you disagree with.I think you are making up your own definition of "scientism". If so would you share it with us? There is not branch of science called scientism. There is a view held by some people that science can somehow answer all questions but, as many here have noted, it is generally understood that is not true. Then just exactly what data are you not taking their word on and how do you draw your conclusions from those obeservations? Which particular ones?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-09-2003]

With the other minor issue of my level of science out of the way I want to quickly respond to the sidebar religious point.Basic theology teaches that the initiative starts with God. {prevenient grace is the doctrine} This doctrine says that any desire for God no matter how miniscule can only originate from God.He calls people, it is a spiritual thing. When He called me I thought it was ridiculous but I could not deny deep down that He was.Am I saying that if a person has no desire for God then He is not calling them - no - the doctrine is saying that and the doctrine is derived from His word. Deists have desire for God and the source of that desire is from God and it is something that you are born with but not always. Anyway I am off topic.One more thing, could you review posts #112 and #136, seems I cannot get basic respect that is due in the form of a legitimate intelligent response. One line dismissals from other posters are discussion busters.

Pandemic, at least, is a real word: it means an exceptionally large epidemic. Not, as far as I can tell, much to do with language, though.

Ned: I do not understand how you cannot understand the statement that you pasted and cutted.I am not trying to be a ***hole with you but what I said is neo- Darwinism 101. I just don't get what you don't get.

Source for my belief of the definition of the word "scientism" : Professor Huston Smith author of "Why Religion Matters" and the teaching of Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D. Stanford University}
Pastor Melissa Scott presents Dr. Gene Scott - The Official SiteNed I am not ignoring the rest of this post - I will get back to it sooner than later. Thank You.

Ned I explained this in post #136If you do not ultimately credit the Creator for what is made then the reason you do not is because He has darkened your insight as the penalty for denying Him as Creator. Thus persons in this penalty state making claims of certainty {whatever they are } are claims that cannot be credible or trusted because they are rejected by God.
{see post #112 where I expound this}Am I saying that only believers {at whatever level} to be the only ones qualified to present truth ? NO I AM NOT. I am saying if your world view excludes God then ANY statement about the truth that you have discovered that is offered to deny God as Creator then becomes biased which makes one wonder what else might be defective.

quote:

---

Source for my belief of the definition of the word "scientism" : Professor Huston Smith author of "Why Religion Matters" and the teaching of Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D. Stanford University}

---

The guy with the cigar and the horses? Is he still around? Brings back old memories -- I used to see him on TV late at night.

quote:

---

Ned: I do not understand how you cannot understand the statement that you pasted and cutted.

​

I am not trying to be a ***hole with you but what I said is neo- Darwinism 101. I just don't get what you don't get.

---

If you mean the bit about the origin of life, what Ned doesn't get is the connection between Darwinism and the origin of life. Darwinian evolution, like evolutionary biology in general, deals with changes in life. The study of the origin of life is a different field -- with some overlap (hence his comment), but not a lot.

No the subject of my post was the members of neo-Darwinism, not theistic evolutionists.I plainly told you where these words originate - from cancer researchers.

Willow, this is circular reasoning: We deny him as creator because he punishes us for denying him as creator by making us deny him as creator?You may have to explain this further, as it makes no sense to this poor atheist.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Is it like hockey? Do we get out of the penalty box and back on the ice in three minutes? We really need this in practidemic language....

My desire for God began with indoctrination, literally beginning before I can even remember. I just wasn't impressionable enough to retain it forever. I was pushed into a mold for two decades (in fact, some family members still try) but eventually I found the space to form myself. All those years, without a doubt in the world, I felt exactly what I was told to expect. How do you know you're any different? A feeling is never enough to answer that.Oh yeah. We're off topic. You can start another thread if you want.I have to run, but I'll see if I can review the other posts in the morning.

quote:

---

Ned: I do not understand how you cannot understand the statement that you pasted and cutted.
I am not trying to be a ***hole with you but what I said is neo- Darwinism 101. I just don't get what you don't get.

---

You may as well type the word out. The meaning expressed is identical....