Creation Science/Making Headway - Dallas News

[M.D. Rawlings]

All the leading scientists think that it's passed the requirements of the scientific method based on supporting evidence. Like i said, you just refuse to accept that, because you're a cartoon kind of guy who likes his peeps poofed into existence.

Evolutionary theory has nothing like the evidentiary backing or predictive power of the theories of the hard sciences, let alone the backing of the mathematical and rational proofs of demonstration traditionally applied to the hard sciences as well. Evolutionary theory is a collection of anecdotes and inferences predicated on the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the presupposition that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. How convenient, given the fact that the evidence actually fits a biological history entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time as well.

Mathematicians and engineers are the best informed skeptics. Evolutionary theory just doesn't add up in that regard.

 

[BillyP]

So you're a liar, eh?

I just corrected you're unlearned confusion concerning the difference between proofs and evidence, and you repeat your error again as you ascribe an assertion to me that I clearly did not and would not express.

I did not say that existence is a proof (mathematical/rational demonstrations) of the creation story. I said existence coupled with the ramifications of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness provide ample evidence for God's existence and creationism. Those are not the same assertions at all nor do they contain the same terms.

I gave you links to posts containing information pertinent to this assertion for you to read and think about, but you obviously didn't bother to process that information.

Hence, you're a liar. You're an ignoramus confounding proofs with evidence, thus, an ignoramus who really doesn't understand the methodology of science at all, as opposed to the concerns of mathematics and the logistics of rational arguments. LOL! Finally, you're a closed-minded ignoramus who obviously has never bothered to think about the information provided in the links regarding the ontological ramifications of existence or human consciousness, let alone the implications of the fact that, once again, the entire edifice of evolutionary theory is bottomed on nothing more than the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the unfalsifiable presupposition of a speciation of a common ancestry from the progressive nature of the fossil record and the recently falsified retroviral theory of genetics.

You're dismissed.

You have nothing so you call me all kinds of name, like a 6 year old schoolboy. That aside, how is our existence EVIDENCE of the creation story?
And how is god's existence a fact? To whom? Me?

 

[PostmodernProph]

All the leading scientists think that it's passed the requirements of the scientific method based on supporting evidence. Like i said, you just refuse to accept that, because you're a cartoon kind of guy who likes his peeps poofed into existence.

yes, I refuse to accept it.....because all those leading scientists are aware the evolution of a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism has NOT passed the requirements of the scientific method.....ask any one of them if its falsifiable....

 

[BillyP]

yes, I refuse to accept it.....because all those leading scientists are aware the evolution of a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism has NOT passed the requirements of the scientific method.....ask any one of them if its falsifiable....

You have to reject what scientists say because otherwise your humans-popped-into-existence theory is null. I get it. How sad.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You have to reject what scientists say because otherwise your humans-popped-into-existence theory is null. I get it. How sad.

you could solve this in a moment, BP.....just provide us an example of a scientific experiment in which a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism......then you would be justified in saying the hypothesis has been tested.....

 

[BillyP]

You have to reject what scientists say because otherwise your humans-popped-into-existence theory is null. I get it. How sad.

you could solve this in a moment, BP.....just provide us an example of a scientific experiment in which a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism......then you would be justified in saying the hypothesis has been tested.....

I already did provide an example, but it was too scientific for you, so you rejected it, as science scares you.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You have to reject what scientists say because otherwise your humans-popped-into-existence theory is null. I get it. How sad.

you could solve this in a moment, BP.....just provide us an example of a scientific experiment in which a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism......then you would be justified in saying the hypothesis has been tested.....

I already did provide an example, but it was too scientific for you, so you rejected it, as science scares you.

lol.....no child, you didn't......

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Said the literarily, hermeneutically, historically and theologically ignorant one who won't face the fundamental scientific, philosophical and theological problems of evolutionary theory.

..Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy...

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

Uh huh. As if in a free society politicians or judges had any legitimate business being involved in such disputes in the first place, as if the state had any legitimate authority to impose the metaphysics of evolutionary theory in violation of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law in a closed system of education in the first place, as if a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education were constitutional. It wouldn't be such an issue if busybodies like you didn't insist on exclusively imposing your religion on everybody in the first place.

Moving on. . . .

15 Answer to Evolutionist Claptrap

This is precisely the sort of games that evolutionists play as they unwittingly expose their ignorance about the nature of the core assertions of creationism and ID. The laymen conformists of atheism and popular culture believe Darwinism (which, historically speaking, took the field virtually overnight, decades before its adherents ever began to assert anything like the evidentiary demonstrations required by the hard sciences of physics, for example, let alone the additional mathematical and rational proofs required by the same) simply because the majority of biological scientists say so. The laymen conformists of atheism and popular culture appeal to a vested authority, and close their minds to the alternative evidentiary, metaphysical, mathematical and rational challenges.

I, however, am an expert on evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, and have lived on both sides of the debate.

Answers #1, #4, #5 and #6 are straw men, counterarguments asserted against of the ignorance or confusion of some that learned creationists or ID scientists do not raise against evolutionary theory at all. These counterarguments pertain to the misapprehensions of theistic laymen; hence, we need not waste any time on these irrelevancies.

Check?


2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

Actually, the criticism of learned skeptics rightly observes that what survives, survives is a tautological anecdote that tells us absolutely nothing about life that we don't already know. The learned skeptic doesn't bother with the qualifier survival of the fittest as the broader implications of evolutionary theory are, in truth, irrelevant to the mathematical calculi of allele frequencies relative to baseline traits at the micro level, and the various mechanisms of evolutionary theory—mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow—cannot be directly tested or observed, let alone reliably predicted, in terms of macroevolutionary speciation, in spite of the claim that the processes of microevolution and macroevolution are identical in the theoretical time scales of a supposed common ancestry.

Check?


3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

And this is true because the notion of macroevolutionary speciation is ultimately predicated on the presupposition of the unfalsifiable apriority of metaphysical/ontological naturalism as opposed to the plausible potentialities of a speciation predicated on the presupposition of a mechanistic naturalism relative to the genetic and fossil evidence.

But evolutionists never directly address the actual essence of the skeptic's challenge in this regard as that would open the door to the real problem and reveal precisely why creationism/ID have an equally valid claim on the evidence. Instead, they prattle nonsense like the following from the article:

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.

False. Learned creationists and ID scientists make no such "blanket dismissal" on that basis whatsoever, as the author goes on to contradictorily acknowledge, albeit, in such a way as to suggest that evolutionists informed us or as if skeptics have ever seriously resisted the obvious exigencies of genetically driven morphological variations within species relative to changing environmental conditions. On the contrary, the efficacy of morphological variations within species have been observed by naturalist philosophers for centuries, long before Darwin came along. In fact, it was due to the observation of these kinds of variations that prescientific naturalists, like Aristotle, for example, proposed the now falsified notion of spontaneous generation.

These days even most creationists ["even most creationists" - LOL!] acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galapagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

And, as acknowledge by the author of this article himself, what does it all come down to:

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.

Yep. Macroevolution as well as the post-historical "predictions" presupposed in the theory's premise are ultimately predicated on the presupposition of the unfalsifiable apriority of metaphysical/ontological naturalism of a common ancestry.

From my blog:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of discrete, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an "error" begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . . The number of necessarily overlapping and simultaneous changes required, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal to a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!

Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species. The evidence for intermediate forms in the fossil record should be overwhelming! —M. D. Rawlings​

Check?


7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

Followed by this absurd claim:

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Biochemists, as the leading lights of abiogenetic research know, have learned no such things. It's not even close. In fact, the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that life could not have arisen via the processes of mere chemistry, and the origin of the prebiotic precursors doesn't resolve the real problems. This pseudoscientific crap permeates the Internet due to the gullibility of atheist know-nothings and the research-grant-fueled hype in academia, which irritated the likes of Miller, Shapiro, Orgel, Levy and others.

Here's a dose of reality from an expert on abiogenesis, namely, me:

http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html

Check?


8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

What learned creationists and ID scientists actually challenge on the basis of mathematical improbability does not so much pertain to evolution proper as much as it pertains to abiogenesis. Hence, tossing in a fully formed living organism of any cellular size is misleading. Indeed, #8 is straw man akin to #1, #4, #5 and #6, really, but I'm going to address it because it mangles a number of important distinctions that will not be apparent to the average laymen.

We know from abiogenetic research that proteins, for example, let alone nucleic acids (or even nucleotides), do not and cannot spring up by mere chance or by mere chemistry alone for complex reasons discussed in my article in the above, so let's get back to evolution proper, eh?

Under #8 the author writes:

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities.

Insofar as the conventions of post-biotic evolution are concerned, learned creationists and ID scientists know this. The suggestion to the contrary is bogus.

The author continues:

Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

Again, learned creationists and ID scientists know this and agree insofar as microevolution is concerned, but when it comes to macroevolution, the creation of entirely new species, the inference of Darwinism's unfalsifible apriority, that which is not demonstrable or observable, we're talking about mathematical probabilities on an entirely different scale than the risible analogy provided by the author:

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

Natural selection is mindless. It doesn't begin with a targeted outcome "in mind;" i.e., it doesn't anticipatorily preserve "correctly placed" information as if it were operating from some definitively preconceived blueprint. The computer was programmed with a target in mind, namely, the definitively preconceived blueprint in the mind of an intelligent being who instructed the computer what to look for and preserve. The mathematical realities of an open-ended matrix entailing a series of synchronously overlapping and virtually limitless factors are something else altogether. Mathematicians and engineers know the difference; apparently some evolutionary biologists don't.

But allow this mathematician do drive the point home from my blog:

[E]volutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence.

(Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. . . .)

Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising within open-ended matrixes. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley's formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.

In other words, the classical model of irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole, that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead, it must build them or alter them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

. . . Debunked?

What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.

. . . In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. . . . —M. D. Rawlings​

Check?


That's all I have time for today. More tomorrow.

 

[Hollie]

All the leading scientists think that it's passed the requirements of the scientific method based on supporting evidence. Like i said, you just refuse to accept that, because you're a cartoon kind of guy who likes his peeps poofed into existence.

Evolutionary theory has nothing like the evidentiary backing or predictive power of the theories of the hard sciences, let alone the backing of the mathematical and rational proofs of demonstration traditionally applied to the hard sciences as well. Evolutionary theory is a collection of anecdotes and inferences predicated on the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the presupposition that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. How convenient, given the fact that the evidence actually fits a biological history entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time as well.

Mathematicians and engineers are the best informed skeptics. Evolutionary theory just doesn't add up in that regard.

It’s actually comical to read the ranting of a devout thumper, utterly unschooled in the science he hopes to vilify.

The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism. Were he able to see the results of his theory today, I have to believe that Darwin would be quite surprised at the many fields of science now brought into service that support his theory.
Invoking your religious fundamentalism to attack science providing answers to the natural world is fine as a matter of religious faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, there is no allowance for making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gawds. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to gawds. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
But their refutations are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose, if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma. Creationism is like a wild, cornered animal that has no way out, clawing and snapping at everything it can.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Said the literarily, hermeneutically, historically and theologically ignorant one who won't face the fundamental scientific, philosophical and theological problems of evolutionary theory.

..Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy...

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

Uh huh. As if in a free society politicians or judges had any legitimate business being involved in such disputes in the first place, as if the state had any legitimate authority to impose the metaphysics of evolutionary theory in violation of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law in a closed system of education in the first place, as if a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education were constitutional.

Judges and politicians have every right to intervene with respect to the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and to prevent creationism from being offered as an alternative viewpoint because faith has no business masquerading as science.

I used to battle against guys like you when I was an undergrad and in grad school studying all of which you dismiss and then I realized it's a fool's game and I actually had better things to do - like using evolutionary principles in my work.

My proposed solution to creationists is to go out and do their science and submit the results for public review and more importantly go out and USE the "science" they develop in the marketplace - develop new drugs using "creation science," make new discoveries using "creation science." Go forth and DO IT. Make your "creation science" real. Sophistry isn't science and I'm not interested in investing the effort here - others are doing fine.

I've moved onto bigger battles - liberal creationists are actually causing more harm to society than you religious creationists. I'm frankly surprised that you're one of these guys because your comments on other topics were well argued but here you're far off the mark.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Said the literarily, hermeneutically, historically and theologically ignorant one who won't face the fundamental scientific, philosophical and theological problems of evolutionary theory.

..Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy...

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

Uh huh. As if in a free society politicians or judges had any legitimate business being involved in such disputes in the first place, as if the state had any legitimate authority to impose the metaphysics of evolutionary theory in violation of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law in a closed system of education in the first place, as if a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education were constitutional.

Judges and politicians have every right to intervene with respect to the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and to prevent creationism from being offered as an alternative viewpoint because faith has no business masquerading as science.

I used to battle against guys like you when I was an undergrad and in grad school studying all of which you dismiss and then I realized it's a fool's game and I actually had better things to do - like using evolutionary principles in my work.

My proposed solution to creationists is to go out and do their science and submit the results for public review and more importantly go out and USE the "science" they develop in the marketplace - develop new drugs using "creation science," make new discoveries using "creation science." Go forth and DO IT. Make your "creation science" real. Sophistry isn't science and I'm not interested in investing the effort here - others are doing fine.

I've moved onto bigger battles - liberal creationists are actually causing more harm to society than you religious creationists. I'm frankly surprised that you're one of these guys because your comments on other topics were well argued but here you're far off the mark.

All the leading scientists think that it's passed the requirements of the scientific method based on supporting evidence. Like i said, you just refuse to accept that, because you're a cartoon kind of guy who likes his peeps poofed into existence.

Evolutionary theory has nothing like the evidentiary backing or predictive power of the theories of the hard sciences, let alone the backing of the mathematical and rational proofs of demonstration traditionally applied to the hard sciences as well. Evolutionary theory is a collection of anecdotes and inferences predicated on the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the presupposition that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. How convenient, given the fact that the evidence actually fits a biological history entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time as well.

Mathematicians and engineers are the best informed skeptics. Evolutionary theory just doesn't add up in that regard.

It’s actually comical to read the ranting of a devout thumper, utterly unschooled in the science he hopes to vilify.

The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism. Were he able to see the results of his theory today, I have to believe that Darwin would be quite surprised at the many fields of science now brought into service that support his theory.
Invoking your religious fundamentalism to attack science providing answers to the natural world is fine as a matter of religious faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, there is no allowance for making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gawds. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to gawds. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
But their refutations are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose, if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma. Creationism is like a wild, cornered animal that has no way out, clawing and snapping at everything it can.

So what we have here is a series of non sequiturs regarding the limitations of scientific inquiry, which I certainly don't dispute as you falsely imply, albeit, pseudoscientifically asserted as if the objectives of science constituted the limits of reliable knowledge, which any sensible person knows to be false, as that would necessarily mean that empirical evidence interprets itself sans the conventions of mathematical logic or the classical laws/principles of rational thought universally apparent to all, of course, as it would be impossible for humans to coherently relate information or ideas to one another otherwise.

That's the first half of your post.

The second half of your post is a series of non sequiturs that contradict the implications of the first half of your post that the objectives of science constitute the limits of reliable knowledge, as you claim to know all kinds of things about a system of thought that according to you necessarily resides beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Worse, we have your poorly considered assumption that even if Darwinism were true that would necessarily mean that the historical Adam and Eve of the Imago Dei, original sin and soteriology were false.

Well, why not? You might as well finish a serious of non sequiturs off with yet another mindless non sequitur of staggering stupidity and ignorance.

Let me know when you're ready to actually demonstrate any real knowledge about evolutionary theory and abiogenetic research, or any actual understanding of the mathematical, evidentiary or philosophical challenges to evolutionary theory.

 

[BillyP]

Why can't evolution be part of god's creation? Everything evolves, like the universe which is expanding/evolving. Ok, so the bible is wrong, time to move on from that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Said the literarily, hermeneutically, historically and theologically ignorant one who won't face the fundamental scientific, philosophical and theological problems of evolutionary theory.

..Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy...

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

Uh huh. As if in a free society politicians or judges had any legitimate business being involved in such disputes in the first place, as if the state had any legitimate authority to impose the metaphysics of evolutionary theory in violation of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law in a closed system of education in the first place, as if a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education were constitutional.

Judges and politicians have every right to intervene with respect to the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and to prevent creationism from being offered as an alternative viewpoint because faith has no business masquerading as science.

I used to battle against guys like you when I was an undergrad and in grad school studying all of which you dismiss and then I realized it's a fool's game and I actually had better things to do - like using evolutionary principles in my work.

My proposed solution to creationists is to go out and do their science and submit the results for public review and more importantly go out and USE the "science" they develop in the marketplace - develop new drugs using "creation science," make new discoveries using "creation science." Go forth and DO IT. Make your "creation science" real. Sophistry isn't science and I'm not interested in investing the effort here - others are doing fine.

I've moved onto bigger battles - liberal creationists are actually causing more harm to society than you religious creationists. I'm frankly surprised that you're one of these guys because your comments on other topics were well argued but here you're far off the mark.

You're arguing just like a statist when you claim that judges, politicians or YOU have a legitimate right to impose your metaphysics, your Darwinian religion, on others in the schools. Those who reject macroevolution don't reject science or the scientific method; they reject the metaphysics of materialism and ontological naturalism. Guys like you just can't wrap your heads around the fact that the metaphysics of materialism/ontological naturalism and science proper are not the same thing.

Hollie's a classic example of that. You should know better.

You're arguing just like a fascist or a Marxist in this regard when you assert that the individual's inalienable rights of natural and constitutional law are irrelevant. So the opinion of the mob or the collective or an elected official or a judge trumps the inalienable rights of the individual, eh?

You're out of your mind if you think you're a defender of liberty when you assert that self-anointed elites of academia or science or government have a legitimate right to impose their metaphysics in a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education, arrogantly decreeing what does or does constitute faith, religion or even science against the convictions of the individual.

Are you an atheist? Most atheists are statists after all. Typically, that's their default. It is the rare atheist that is not a statist.

Let's get something straight here: I'm a former evolutionist steeped in the theory, biochemistry, microbiology and abiogenetic research. I know the science better than virtually anybody else on this or any other forum I've posted on over the years, and there's only one evolutionist that I've encountered on this board who's my equal and rightly understands the scientific, philosophical, theological or mathematical challenges raised by the learned skeptics of evolutionary theory, and it sure as hell isn't you, given your bullshit about sophistry.

Though he doesn't believe I'm right in the end, JimBowie understands why the creationist's model of speciation is scientifically and rationally credible in light of the DNA and fossil evidence. I seriously doubt that you have ever encountered or honestly considered the ramifications of the challenges I'm raising, given your politically immature understanding of the principle of separation of church and state and your inconsistent application of First Amendment rights. If you did understand the ramifications, you'd appreciate just how far out of line you are.

You might as well be spouting the Marxist construct of separation. Indeed, isn't it curious that the farther this nation gets from the notion of divinely endowed and, consequently, inalienable human rights, the more tyrannically centralized the power of the federal government becomes? Just saying.

I've only encountered five self-identified evolutionists over the years on this or any other forum who have even demonstrated a respectable degree of competence in evolutionary theory itself. Not one of the idiots on this thread have ever done that here or anywhere else on this forum.

You say they're doing alright. You're obviously talking out of your bias, not from any objective assessment of the reality.

I'm wiping the floor with them. Look at their posts. They demonstrate no real understanding of evolution or provide any real counterarguments to the challenges I've raised. We've got one idiot on this thread who doesn't even understand the difference between empirical evidence and mathematical/rational proofs, even after it's explained to him. We've got Pseudoscientific Hollie in the above who's about rational as a hoard of fire ants. Everyone of their posts, including yours, by the way, attack the man, but never address the actual arguments. Why? Because they don't actually grasp the pertinent issues. They are all what I call pop-cultural evolutionists. All they really know is that the majority of biologists hold evolutionary theory to be true. They are the mindless conformists of scientific authority.
.
In fact, one of the atheist evolutionists on this forum who was arguably competent in evolutionary theory got the wake up call of a lifetime when he thought to challenge my authority on the facts of abiogenetic research. He was spouting the same hype as that in the article in the above. At first he was derisive, then evasive, then clearly uncertain and unsteady, as everything he thought was true was systematically destroyed. He not only left the field, but the forum when I got done with him.

Sophistry? When you've got more than what 99% of evolutionists typically spout on these forums, something more than drive-by insults, you know, like real arguments, let me know, and watch what happens.

And finally, let's get the difference between you and me straight. It's not I who am politically inconsistent. It's you.

Even when I was an evolutionist I opposed lefty's collectivistic educational scheme. I recognized and respected the inalienable rights, especially the parental authority, of creationists, and, consequently, the constitutional necessity of universal school choice. I never arrogantly acted as if I owned their children. Who the hell do you think you are? God? You hypocritically get your panties in a wad at the prospect of the creationist imposing his belief of speciation on you or your children in the state schools, but you have no problem shoving yours down his throat in the same, just like any other bootlicking statist.

I've never been a bootlicking statist myself and have never raised my metaphysics, as a evolutionist or a as a creationist, in a statist fashion against another human being in my life, and even while I was an evolutionist, I despised arrogant evolutionary pricks who shoved their metaphysics on Christians in the state schools.

Go ahead and hide behind your talk about how creationism is not credible as you pretend that the unfalsifible presupposition of metaphysical naturalism on which Darwinism is ultimately predicated isn't faith-based all you want: you still don't have any legitimate right to impose your metaphysics on the creationist, not in his home or in the schools, not on him or his children, not in the public or private sectors. Are you a conservative/libertarian of classical liberalism or not? While you go on about sophistry, explain how the hell you contradictorily come down on the side of the education agenda of progressive fascists like Horace Mann or cultural Marxists like Marcuse?

As long as bootlicking statists impose a collectivistic system of education on him in the absence of school choice, the creationist has every right in the world to shove right back in self-defense.

You talk about the market. Earlier you alluded to the principle of the survival of the fittest when you challenged the leftist evolutionist over his philosophical inconsistency. He didn't get your point, but I did. Pffft. Let there be an unfettered market of ideas in an educational system of universal choice, a free and open debate on equal footing between creationism and evolution. Yeah. You’d have to actually do more than just attack the man or make baby talk about sophistry against real ontological challenges that you apparently don't understand.

But you think it’s fool’s game, while you apparently support an education system that's a constitutional abomination, one that violates the rights of all and is increasingly hostile to Christians most of all. But that poses no threat to liberty, eh?

Fine. At the very least, perhaps you'll take a few minutes out of your day and wrap your head around the reality of what you're defending in the state schools, just like a leftist, as you pretend that you've actually encountered creationist arguments of the caliber I'm putting down on this thread. Seriously? You don't grasp the difference between governmental force over a matter of ideology and a matter of criminality? What's wrong with you?

See link: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/11/revisions-and-divisions.html

Sorry, if you don't like my tone, but I don't do the fool’s game either. My posts are about exposing the vapid scientism that evolutionary theory ultimately is for the sake of others, and I won't allow you or anyone else to obscure the truth with vapid statements.

 

[BillyP]

Said the literarily, hermeneutically, historically and theologically ignorant one who won't face the fundamental scientific, philosophical and theological problems of evolutionary theory.

..Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy...

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

Uh huh. As if in a free society politicians or judges had any legitimate business being involved in such disputes in the first place, as if the state had any legitimate authority to impose the metaphysics of evolutionary theory in violation of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law in a closed system of education in the first place, as if a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education were constitutional.

Judges and politicians have every right to intervene with respect to the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and to prevent creationism from being offered as an alternative viewpoint because faith has no business masquerading as science.

I used to battle against guys like you when I was an undergrad and in grad school studying all of which you dismiss and then I realized it's a fool's game and I actually had better things to do - like using evolutionary principles in my work.

My proposed solution to creationists is to go out and do their science and submit the results for public review and more importantly go out and USE the "science" they develop in the marketplace - develop new drugs using "creation science," make new discoveries using "creation science." Go forth and DO IT. Make your "creation science" real. Sophistry isn't science and I'm not interested in investing the effort here - others are doing fine.

I've moved onto bigger battles - liberal creationists are actually causing more harm to society than you religious creationists. I'm frankly surprised that you're one of these guys because your comments on other topics were well argued but here you're far off the mark.

You're arguing just like a statist when you claim that judges, politicians or YOU have a legitimate right to impose your metaphysics, your Darwinian religion, on others in the schools. Those who reject macroevolution don't reject science or the scientific method; they reject the metaphysics of materialism and ontological naturalism. Guys like you just can't wrap your heads around the fact that the metaphysics of materialism/ontological naturalism and science proper are not the same thing.

Hollie's a classic example of that. You should know better.

You're arguing just like a fascist or a Marxist in this regard when you assert that the individual's inalienable rights of natural and constitutional law are irrelevant. So the opinion of the mob or the collective or an elected official or a judge trumps the inalienable rights of the individual, eh?

You're out of your mind if you think you're a defender of liberty when you assert that self-anointed elites of academia or science or government have a legitimate right to impose their metaphysics in a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education, arrogantly decreeing what does or does constitute faith, religion or even science against the convictions of the individual.

Are you an atheist? Most atheists are statists after all. Typically, that's their default. It is the rare atheist that is not a statist.

Let's get something straight here: I'm a former evolutionist steeped in the theory, biochemistry, microbiology and abiogenetic research. I know the science better than virtually anybody else on this or any other forum I've posted on over the years, and there's only one evolutionist that I've encountered on this board who's my equal and rightly understands the scientific, philosophical, theological or mathematical challenges raised by the learned skeptics of evolutionary theory, and it sure as hell isn't you, given your bullshit about sophistry.

Though he doesn't believe I'm right in the end, JimBowie understands why the creationist's model of speciation is scientifically and rationally credible in light of the DNA and fossil evidence. I seriously doubt that you have ever encountered or honestly considered the ramifications of the challenges I'm raising, given your politically immature understanding of the principle of separation of church and state and your inconsistent application of First Amendment rights. If you did understand the ramifications, you'd appreciate just how far out of line you are.

You might as well be spouting the Marxist construct of separation. Indeed, isn't it curious that the farther this nation gets from the notion of divinely endowed and, consequently, inalienable human rights, the more tyrannically centralized the power of the federal government becomes? Just saying.

I've only encountered five self-identified evolutionists over the years on this or any other forum who have even demonstrated a respectable degree of competence in evolutionary theory itself. Not one of the idiots on this thread have ever done that here or anywhere else on this forum.

You say they're doing alright. You're obviously talking out of your bias, not from any objective assessment of the reality.

I'm wiping the floor with them. Look at their posts. They demonstrate no real understanding of evolution or provide any real counterarguments to the challenges I've raised. We've got one idiot on this thread who doesn't even understand the difference between empirical evidence and mathematical/rational proofs, even after it's explained to him. We've got Pseudoscientific Hollie in the above who's about rational as a hoard of fire ants. Everyone of their posts, including yours, by the way, attack the man, but never address the actual arguments. Why? Because they don't actually grasp the pertinent issues. They are all what I call pop-cultural evolutionists. All they really know is that the majority of biologists hold evolutionary theory to be true. They are the mindless conformists of scientific authority.
.
In fact, one of the atheist evolutionists on this forum who was arguably competent in evolutionary theory got the wake up call of a lifetime when he thought to challenge my authority on the facts of abiogenetic research. He was spouting the same hype as that in the article in the above. At first he was derisive, then evasive, then clearly uncertain and unsteady, as everything he thought was true was systematically destroyed. He not only left the field, but the forum when I got done with him.

Sophistry? When you've got more than what 99% of evolutionists typically spout on these forums, something more than drive-by insults, you know, like real arguments, let me know, and watch what happens.

And finally, let's get the difference between you and me straight. It's not I who am politically inconsistent. It's you.

Even when I was an evolutionist I opposed lefty's collectivistic educational scheme. I recognized and respected the inalienable rights, especially the parental authority, of creationists, and, consequently, the constitutional necessity of universal school choice. I never arrogantly acted as if I owned their children. Who the hell do you think you are? God? You hypocritically get your panties in a wad at the prospect of the creationist imposing his belief of speciation on you or your children in the state schools, but you have no problem shoving yours down his throat in the same, just like any other bootlicking statist.

I've never been a bootlicking statist myself and have never raised my metaphysics, as a evolutionist or a as a creationist, in a statist fashion against another human being in my life, and even while I was an evolutionist, I despised arrogant evolutionary pricks who shoved their metaphysics on Christians in the state schools.

Go ahead and hide behind your talk about how creationism is not credible as you pretend that the unfalsifible presupposition of metaphysical naturalism on which Darwinism is ultimately predicated isn't faith-based all you want: you still don't have any legitimate right to impose your metaphysics on the creationist, not in his home or in the schools, not on him or his children, not in the public or private sectors. Are you a conservative/libertarian of classical liberalism or not? While you go on about sophistry, explain how the hell you contradictorily come down on the side of the education agenda of progressive fascists like Horace Mann or cultural Marxists like Marcuse?

As long as bootlicking statists impose a collectivistic system of education on him in the absence of school choice, the creationist has every right in the world to shove right back in self-defense.

You talk about the market. Earlier you alluded to the principle of the survival of the fittest when you challenged the leftist evolutionist over his philosophical inconsistency. He didn't get your point, but I did. Pffft. Let there be an unfettered market of ideas in an educational system of universal choice, a free and open debate on equal footing between creationism and evolution. Yeah. You’d have to actually do more than just attack the man or make baby talk about sophistry against real ontological challenges that you apparently don't understand.

But you think it’s fool’s game, while you apparently support an education system that's a constitutional abomination, one that violates the rights of all and is increasingly hostile to Christians most of all. But that poses no threat to liberty, eh?

Fine. At the very least, perhaps you'll take a few minutes out of your day and wrap your head around the reality of what you're defending in the state schools, just like a leftist, as you pretend that you've actually encountered creationist arguments of the caliber I'm putting down on this thread. Seriously? You don't grasp the difference between governmental force over a matter of ideology and a matter of criminality? What's wrong with you?

See link: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/11/revisions-and-divisions.html

Sorry, if you don't like my tone, but I don't do the fool’s game either. My posts are about exposing the vapid scientism that evolutionary theory ultimately is for the sake of others, and I won't allow you or anyone else to obscure the truth with vapid statements.

All this mumbo-jumbo that goes nowhere boils down to: you're wrong about your no-evidence creation, and science is right about evolution.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why can't evolution be part of god's creation? Everything evolves, like the universe which is expanding/evolving. Ok, so the bible is wrong, time to move on from that.

That's a question for JimBowie. He's believes it’s part of God's creation.

Everything evolves? In what sense?

There's nothing inherently parallel about an expanding universe and macroevolution. Prior to the implications of the general theory of relativity, which Einstein himself initially resisted, Lemaitre's subsequent Big Bang Theory and the affirmation of comic microwave background radiation, the universe was held to be eternally static for centuries, before and after the rise of Darwinism.

The most significant thing about the Big Bang is that it affirms the biblical account of a finite universe.

 

[BillyP]

Why can't evolution be part of god's creation? Everything evolves, like the universe which is expanding/evolving. Ok, so the bible is wrong, time to move on from that.

That's a question for JimBowie. He's believes it’s part of God's creation.

Everything evolves? In what sense?

There's nothing inherently parallel about an expanding universe and macroevolution. Prior to the implications of the general theory of relativity, which Einstein himself initially resisted, Lemaitre's subsequent Big Bang Theory and the affirmation of comic microwave background radiation, the universe was held to be eternally static for centuries, before and after the rise of Darwinism.

The most significant thing about the Big Bang is that it affirms the biblical account of a finite universe.

Evolution is part of the creator's plan (if creator there is). Humans are getting taller over time, that's evolution. Species adapt to different circumstances and sometimes change because of it, that's evolution. The sun will grow bigger then die out, that's evolution. The universe is evolving as it expands... People's thinking about how the universe came to be... evolves with new discoveries... There are tons of example throughout the world and universe that it has to be part of the overall structure of existence itself.

What's the biblical account of a finite universe?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

My proposed solution to creationists is to go out and do their science and submit the results for public review and more importantly go out and USE the "science" they develop in the marketplace - develop new drugs using "creation science," make new discoveries using "creation science." Go forth and DO IT. Make your "creation science" real. Sophistry isn't science and I'm not interested in investing the effort here - others are doing fine.

My proposed reality check for evolutionists is that macroevolution is an unobservable and indemonstrable inference, as you very well know. The fact of the matter is that it plays no part whatsoever in the develop new drugs or new discoveries. The latter are predicated on the observable processes of microevolution which are perfectly consistent with creationism. Darwinism has no exclusive claim on that.

The idea that creationists submit their theory to peer review is an argumentatively stupid attempt at sarcasm. Worse, it's intellectually dishonest, as creationism is not a scientific account, but a theological account of origins, as you very well know too. But what you're ultimately suggesting with your careless logic intended to disparage is pseudoscientific claptrap, as science is not the only means by which we attain knowledge. If it were, science itself wouldn't be possible in the first place. Oops.

Creationism is in fact perfectly consistent with the DNA evidence and the fossil record, and the implications of special and general relativity, and quantum physics dramatically support the biblical account of cosmological origins.

Macroevolution is arguably consistent with the DNA evidence and the fossil record too, but its alleged processes and its inextricable presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism are no more subject to scientific falsification than creationism is. Most evolutionists, especially the atheists among them, are just too stupid or dishonest to grasp that fact.

Finally. . . .

First, evolutionists dismissed the "flat earthers" who pointed out the general lack of what should be a vast array of unmistakable intermediate forms in the fossil record, while the former advanced the notion of punctuated equilibrium, a construct intended to account for the general lack of what should be a vast array of unmistakable intermediate forms.

Then evolutionists claimed that so-called vestigial organs constituted the best evidence for their theory, but that claim is unraveling in the face of recent medical discoveries.

Recently, evolutionists claimed that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) constituted the very best evidence for their theory, but now we're finding out that ERVs were not initially harmful or necessarily the left-over junk of a common ancestry; but elemental, viral material passed via ingestion from one well-established species to another that could not possibly be directly related. They’re intricately fine-tuned components that perform vital regulatory functions . . . just like a vast array of beneficial bacteria.

This potentiality was anticipated by the "flat earthers" who recognized that the evolutionist's contention was teleological in nature and evidentiarally premature.

 

[BillyP]

Ok, I'm not going to quote and dissect all that huge pile of turds, but here: "quantum physics dramatically support the biblical account of cosmological origins." So quantum physics support the world being made in 6 days and then god taking a break?

Or this: "The fact of the matter is that it (macroevolution) plays no part whatsoever in the develop new drugs or new discoveries." Not quite as smelly a turd as the previous quote, but wtf does that have to do with anything anyways?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ok, I'm not going to quote and dissect all that huge pile of turds, but here: "quantum physics dramatically support the biblical account of cosmological origins." So quantum physics support the world being made in 6 days and then god taking a break?

Or this: "The fact of the matter is that it (macroevolution) plays no part whatsoever in the develop new drugs or new discoveries." Not quite as smelly a turd as the previous quote, but wtf does that have to do with anything anyways?

Behold: the results of the public education system. Ignorance and stupidity beyond repair.

 

[BillyP]

Ok, I'm not going to quote and dissect all that huge pile of turds, but here: "quantum physics dramatically support the biblical account of cosmological origins." So quantum physics support the world being made in 6 days and then god taking a break?

Or this: "The fact of the matter is that it (macroevolution) plays no part whatsoever in the develop new drugs or new discoveries." Not quite as smelly a turd as the previous quote, but wtf does that have to do with anything anyways?

Behold: the results of the public education system. Ignorance and stupidity beyond repair.

Wrong again! Try explaining the first quote at least.