Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
48 online now:
Juvenissun (1 member, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
Inactive Member

Message 6 of 141 (10338)
05-24-2002 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
05-24-2002 6:22 PM

Originally posted by Percipient:

I think narrowing the topic would help. I suggest focusing on just JPs first point for now, the one about there being no evidence that life could originate from non-life through natural processes, the upshot being that without such evidence evolutionary theory is suspect.

Technically, the ToE doesn't need to explain abiogenesis because the ToE isn't concerned with the start of life - just the changes thereafter. If it would help JP to focus on offering a legitimate challenge, I would stipulate that gawd, or IPUs or Leprechauns in Labcoats created terrestrial life in the form of single-celled organisms.

Now...turn the page....

Now we can discuss JP's loathing of science ( which he always denies...but always seems to be trying to change it ).

JP have you ever decided to share with us the means & methods to qualify and quantify the supernatural, by using nasty old naturalistic materialistic science ?

That's like handing someone a transistor radio and demanding he watch primetime television on it !

" what do you mean, there are no TV shows !?! - there are hundreds of them"

" No, I didn't say there were no TV shows, I said I can't see them on this..."

YECie (interrupting):
" You can't see them ?? ...you mean you REFUSE to see them because you don't believe they exist !

I'm telling you they DO EXIST !!!"

" Excuse me, I never said they don't exist....I don't have the means to say one way or the other with just a transistor radio whether they...."

YECie (interrupting again):
" See what I mean ?
These radios stink !
Radios Suck !!
….they shouldn't even be allowed to teach them in basic Transistor-Radio classes because it doesn't account for the data found in the full spectrum of radio-signals"

" Well if you don’t want to teach basic Transistor-Radios in a basic Transistor-Radios classroom…what would you teach ?”

" We should teach Television !! “

"…but then it wouldn’t be a Transistor-Radio class anymore. Why can’t you teach television in a Television class and just keep it separate from Transistor-Radio theory ?”

" because your forcing your own narrow mindedness on the public at large…they might think television doesn’t exist because they were told to study a radio”

"…But there is no conflict between studying radios and studying TV, why just…. “

YECie ( back to interrupting again ):
" Yes there IS !! …because…er…. I hate radios ! they suck !!
you can’t even watch Captain Kangaroo on a radio !! “

"…but you’re not expected to watch TV signals on a radio, they aren’t….”

YECie ( now always interrupting ):
"See ??? You’ve been brainwashed !! Your mind has been corrupted by Audio-centric, imaginative, theater-of-the-mind radio-mongers!
We NEED to put TVs back into the Radio classes before its too late !”

( Fades into dramatic muscial theme....)

So JP, please tell us how YOU watch CNN ( qualify and quantify the supernatural ) on an old RCA tube radio ( by using nasty old naturalistic materialistic science ).

If we observe a miracle…HOW do we USE SCIENCE to determine it was miraculous ?

Have a great holiday everyone !!



PS – welcome back John Paul !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 05-24-2002 6:22 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Philip, posted 05-25-2002 1:42 AM Jeff has responded
 Message 33 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 7:06 PM Jeff has responded

Inactive Member

Message 8 of 141 (10347)
05-25-2002 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Philip
05-25-2002 1:42 AM

Originally posted by Philip:
--Correct me please, but, I think you may be into one aspect of ‘evolution’, the one we honestly should construe as the misnomer for ‘beneficial life-form-mutations’, essentially (if there be such a thing).
Does not the ToE exist with stellar events (stellar evolution) and other events PRIOR to ‘life’?

While evolution does co-exist with & within the cosmos, it's explanations do not address cosmic phenomena. I hope we are not insinuating that before we can discuss biological adaptations, we must first explain the big bang, the hydrogen collapse, then stellar formation....etc.

I certainly don't have to research Background Radiation Theory in order to complete my daily crossword puzzle.

The LA authorities were not compelled to solve the 'Jack the Ripper' murders before charging OJ with slaying his wife.

No, we observe a phenomena;
we attempt to explain said phenomena.

Do Christians have to re-read every blurb of Genesis before sitting down with a hot mug for several hours worth of interpretting Revelations ??

Why continue to re-invent the wheel every time you need to make a beer run ? Make use of prior knoledge and, as did Newton, stand on the shoulders of giants.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Philip, posted 05-25-2002 1:42 AM Philip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 12:04 PM Jeff has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 38 of 141 (10568)
05-29-2002 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John Paul
05-28-2002 7:06 PM


Originally posted by John Paul:
Now we can discuss JP's loathing of science ( which he always denies...but always seems to be trying to change it ).

John Paul:
Seeing that engineering is applied science and I have an engineering degree, it would be safe to say I don't loathe science. After all applied science is my life's work. I even got a quite substantial bonus at work for my "scientific approach...". What I loathe is what evolutionists are doing to science in the name of their dogma. Too bad jeff is too narrow minded to see the difference.

If we listen to jeff's stupid remark it would also mean that Newton, Pasteur, Pascal, Mendell, Linne et al. also loathed science, after all they were Creationists.

Ah yes, JP’s blizzard of misinformation…or should we just consider them lies ?

Did I say you hated science because you’re a YEC ? No, it’s more likely the other way around: you hate science and it led you to become a YEC.
I am merely stating an observation, based on your many posts over the last two years.
You want to change science. WHY would you want to change science ? Answer: because you are not satisfied with its conclusions. So you voice an agenda to politically abduct science and define it to suit one particular religious view and the rest be damned.

Another John Paul factual perversion:
Newton was not a creationist. “Creationism” wasn’t invented until the 20th century – as a political reaction to science. How could Newton be a creationist ? Do you have an article penned by Isaac stating so ?
Why would you lie like that ? Is your position THAT desperate ?
Newton wasn’t really a true ‘christian’ so to speak, he denied the divinity of Jesus.

Yep, that claim is a pile of bovine scatology, but typical considering the source.

I can cite articles that indicate Pascal & Mendell WERE scientists and they conducted science. Can you cite an article or quote stating that they claimed to be creationists and they tried to railroad science to accept their narrow view of religion…or is this just another desperate lie from a miserable liar ?

Perhaps the difference between these examples and yourself is, they were wise enough not to compromise their scientific endeavors with religious precepts.
Perhaps THEY valued both more highly than you.

Just for conversation, I’ll list the sciences you despise:
Biology – reason is self evident
Geology – indicates a very old earth
Cosmology – indicates an even older universe where the laws of physics have been at work for tens of billions of years
Paleontology – indicates organisms have been living and dying for billions of years
Nuclear Physics – allows us to assess the age of various layers in the geologic column via radiometric techniques
Biogenetics – illustrates the means by which change occurs in organisms over many generations and indicates common descent.
Archeology – has failed to present evidence for a global flood and a creation week.

Here’s your chance to put me in my place: Tell everyone here that you embrace all the disciplines above.
Oh…but you don’t dislike them ? …you only disagree with their conclusions ?…well then you oppose their methodology too.

Is it coincidence or conspiracy that all these disciplines suggest the creation account in Genesis is false ?


Science is a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, especially concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe.

Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.

So you’ve mistaken applied science for theoretical science ? I see…
According to you then, OJ Simpson SHOULD have been acquitted. And I guess Timothy McVeigh didn’t bomb Oklahoma City either. …and the holocaust didn’t happen…and the bible is wrong too.
Theoretically speaking, you don’t exist either, John Paul. You can’t name your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather …so he probably didn’t exist…so you don’t either because everyone KNOWS you have to have had a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather unless you were just *poofed* here by gawd or LaLah or which ever sky-man rules your world.


… The theory of evolution takes an observation (variation in organisms) …

Perhaps THIS is why you can’t understand science. Do you think the ToE was based on a single observation ? Do you really think its based on just variation in organisms ?
What about the fossil record that YECism can’t explain ? What about the fact that Darwin formed his hypothesis without knowing of the mechanism involved with inheritable changes, and his hypothesis was vindicated by the discovery of DNA almost a hundred years later ?
The ToE is NOT just based on variation in organisms, but also on the historic record in the geologic column. It’s a very long story too, requiring several billion years to encompass. The best part is, the ToE doesn’t need magic as an integral element of its mechanism.
I’m sure the converging agreement between all the scientific disciplines that indicate the ToE is especially unnerving to you. So much work to un-do… so many sciences to redefine…so many brilliant ideas to bury.

It’s quite sad when one is convinced they need to use science to validate their religious beliefs.


…and falsely extrapolates it without the benefit of objective testing and definitely without verification. The fossil record is no ally of the ToE as about 99% does not show evolution.

I suppose it doesn’t when you’ve already concluded that it does not show evolution – before conducting any investigation. I can claim the newspaper has no Headlines if I never open it up and actually LOOKED. But it doesn’t mean there are no headlines…it means I am in denial that there are headlines.

Your refusal to acknowledge evolution doesn’t make it go away – which is why you must seek political satisfaction. Your ‘science’ certainly doesn’t satisfy anyone – your self included.

99% ?? Where did you get this number ? You act as if willful ignorance were a virtue.


Yet edge thinks it has to be explained and the ToE allegedly does that (not).

No, you are wrong. Evolution HAPPENED. Life has been ongoing for billions of years. There have been at least 5 major extinction events in the past, separated by millions of years. There is a definite progression of complexity in living things over that span of time. The theory attempts to explain HOW. Right now there is no other explanation that even comes close to explaining the evidence. You and all other YECs have given up the quest for ‘truth’ as you like to call it – you’re not interested in objective results. You already HAVE your results and you want to pervert the rest of the world to conform to your particular perversion.

Why else would YECs try to change the methodology of science thru political means ?
Answer: because their ‘science’ fails on its own merits and political leverage is all that is left to them.

Are you going to finally tell us how science will evaluate the supernatural ? Or can we conclude from Theoretical musings on your past avoidances that you have no answer and your position is intellectually & ethically bankrupt ?

Nevermind. You’ve given us your answer.

"I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolf Hitler 1923 - Creationist, Man of God

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 7:06 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 4:08 PM Jeff has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020