29 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI could say the same thing about evolutionist and even creationist
And I would have no problem with scientists doing just that. But that is not what supporters of ID are doing.
What ID supporters are doing is attempting to discredit evolution using non-scientific methods including faked results and other lies, for religious reasons.
You for example want it taught in school before the 'investigation' has even started.
when it comes to fakers from time to time, that alone does not
discredit evolution, ID, or creation only the num-skull that is trying
to make a name for themselves by coming up with a fraud to make
a spash.
The thing I like and dislike about ID is that you have to have eyes
to see, for example we can say I see patterns that have meaning,
but unless you grasp the pattern for that, you will not see the design
or the meaning and could miss the whole point.
Kelly
29 Jun 07
7 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis evolutionist said that "truth of evolution" must be established by Spontaneous Generation.
And who has denied any of that or are you incapable of comprehending basic English?
Maybe you should be realistic and either admit that you are wrong, stupid or intentionally not reading what we post.
This speaker, I do not know. The quotation is written by E.C. Wren in The Case For Creation page 29. and quoted by Fred John Meldau in Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution, 8th edition, 1974, p.323
"Evolution is more than proved by the bare consideration that no alternative remains ... except creation ..."
Did you get that "Origins is not part of Evolution Crowd"? Evolution Verses Creation - a question of Origins.
Again the quote:
"Evolution is more than proved by the bare consideration that no alternative remains ... except creation ... ... Spontaneous generation is quite the ordinary thing; we have only to remember that matter was from the very first ready to produce life. ... At some time or other spontanous generation MUST have taken place. If the hypothesis of evolution is true, living matter MUST have arisen from non-living matter; therefore life DID originate thus, AND THE TRUTH OF EVOLUTION IS ESTABLISHED." [my emphasis in the last sentence]
To this Evolutionist ( I apologize that I cannot recover the name of the Evolutionist) Spontaneous Generation must establish the truth of Evolution.
So, I suggested, in this spirit, that if the Theory has a major flaw, possibly its failure to answer the origin of life is that flaw.
The reaction from the Forum Evos was that the theory is separate from the problem of the Origin of Life - gracious, EVERYBODY knows THAT.
According to the above Evolutionist everybody knows that Spontaneous Generation of life is needed to establish "the truth of Evolution."
29 Jun 07
1 edit
+++++++++++++++++++++++
intentionally not reading what we post.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have not replied to every post that you and others have posted.
Probably, some I may not have read. I saw someone's discussion of non living bacteria. No comment at the moment.
The original question is a fair one - Where are the Evos saying Life's Origin is a part of their Theory. I intend to explore that further and demythosize your myths saying "We Evos never intended to include Life's Origin as a part of the Theory of Evolution".
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillGoogling for "generation is quite the ordinary thing" brings up one article:
This evolutionist said that [b]"truth of evolution" must be established by Spontaneous Generation.
This speaker, I do not know. The quotation is written by E.C. Wren in The Case For Creation page 29. and quoted by Fred John Meldau in Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution, 8th edition, 1974, p.323
"Evolution is more than ...[text shortened]... hat Spontaneous Generation of life is needed to establish [b]"the truth of Evolution."[/b]
http://remnantprophecy.sdaglobal.org/Librarypdf/Creation-Evolution/Creation-not-Evolution.pdf
which says, on page 238, just before the quote:
"Consider the "logic" or a prominent evolutionist who said"...
You don't know who this prominent evolutionist is, neither do I and neither it seems does Fred John Meldau or he would have named him. Where did the quote really come from? Nobody seems to know. I don't think we can accept such a quote.
--- Penguin.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillOk, fair enough. Personally I think you will be gone a long time looking for it but please let us know what you find either way.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++
intentionally not reading what we post.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have not replied to every post that you and others have posted.
Probably, some I may not have read. I saw someone's discussion of non living bacteria. No comment at the moment.
The original question is a fair one - Where are the Evo ...[text shortened]... ing "We Evos never intended to include Life's Origin as a part of the Theory of Evolution".[/b]
Until someone comes up with evidence for evolutionists commonly saying that evolution could account for the origins of the first replicators, I will maintain my assertion that they never did.
--- Penguin.
29 Jun 07
3 edits
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If the hypothesis of evolution is true, living matter MUST have arisen from non-living matter;"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any other Evolutionists who agree with this assessment?
Sure.
"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the contraversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer."
[George Wald, :The Origfin of Life, Life: Origin and Evolution, Readings from Scientific American, 1979, pp 47-48)
When you see the tree diagrams portrayed by artists depicting Evolutionary development of life ASK about the ROOT of the tree.
If the many branched process is true, how did the ROOT get established? "Pre-biotic" evolution is an attempt to include the formation of that ROOT in the Evolutionary process.
Pre-biotic evolution is a subclass of evolution theory. Therefore Evolutionists, some of them, are searching for a near seamless flow of one idea into the other.
Revisionists of history are here to tell us "We Evos NEVER extended the theory of Evolution over the Origin of Life problem. You don't know what Evolution is."
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillWhen it comes to SCIENTIFIC theories, Evolution IS the only game in town.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++
Hoyle was an idiot though. Ask Stephen Hawkins.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It would be interesting to hear Hawkings talk about Hoyle. However, this doesn't mean we should easily discredit everything the man says.
I don't think much of Stephen Hawking's idea that a Computer Virus qualifies to be defined as a lif ...[text shortened]... ght? Throw out the baby with the bathwater. Evolution's the only game in town. Right?[/b]
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillCreation SCIENCE? Don't make me laugh! That's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You could use it to discredit most of science: "gravitational theories lack a proper foundation because we don't know what causes mass". In the end, everything we know is based on the assumption that the universe came into existance and, since we don't know exactly how that happened, we should throw out all of science. D ...[text shortened]... cience ?
You want ALL the lattitude and want to give non to others. Evolve already !
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillYes, and Daniel Dennett does the same.
[b]Intelligent Design doesn't need to be scrapped because it isn't a scientific theory in the first place and never has been.
These are good assertions. It has a kind of authoritative tone to it too.
I think you're a Pseudo Buddhist. The appearance of a design is an illusion.
Your boy Dawkins writes in page one of The Blind Wat ...[text shortened]... allow this religious view of yours and pass it on as the only viable scientific attitude.
They then spend the next 300 pages showing why a designer isn't necessary.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillwere you drunk when you posted this gibberish?
This evolutionist said that [b]"truth of evolution" must be established by Spontaneous Generation.
This speaker, I do not know. The quotation is written by E.C. Wren in The Case For Creation page 29. and quoted by Fred John Meldau in Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution, 8th edition, 1974, p.323
"Evolution is more than ...[text shortened]... Spontaneous Generation of life is needed to establish [b]"the truth of Evolution."[/b]
30 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]You're getting confused.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If the hypothesis of evolution is true, living matter MUST have arisen from non-living matter;"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any other Evolutionists who agree with this assessment?
Sure.
"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation theory of Evolution over the Origin of Life problem. You don't know what Evolution is."
Evolution doesn't extend to the origin of life - period.
But, clearly that doesn't stop scientists and other interested people from thinking about how life might arise.
Of course life arose from non-living matter. If you're not religious, there's no other option, is there?
We have a number of working models to describe how that process might happen, although we're far from a theory that has the gravitas of Evolution in the origin of life field.
I'll go back to a question I asked many moons ago which for the most part people failed to answer - why does it matter to you? Your life goes on, you eat sleep, screw, whatever, regardless of the theory of evolution, so why do you care so much?
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillIf no-one can identify it, it's probably a strawman.
Hold on Penguin, I didn't say Meldua was an Evo. Obviosly from the title of his book he probably is not.
Did I not apologize and admit I did not know the name of the Evo doing the speaking?
I think I made it clear that, this was unknown to me, speaker.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillNo, you're quite right, he was/is not an evolutionist. But he claims to be quoting an evolutionist who he does not name. So we have no way of knowing whether he is quoting an evolutionist or not.
Hold on Penguin, I didn't say Meldua was an Evo. Obviosly from the title of his book he probably is not.
Did I not apologize and admit I did not know the name of the Evo doing the speaking?
I think I made it clear that, this was unknown to me, speaker.
--- Penguin
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you saying that every bit of evidence for evolution is faked? If not then you cannot equate the two. No single piece of scientific evidence for ID has ever been verified or stood up to public scrutiny. Any scientific hypothesis which is shown to be based entirely on fraudulent results is either discarded or left as an unproven hypothesis. At no point can it be called a Theory and on no account should it be taught in school alongside the fraudulent results.
I could say the same thing about evolutionist and even creationist
when it comes to fakers from time to time, that alone does not
discredit evolution, ID, or creation only the num-skull that is trying
to make a name for themselves by coming up with a fraud to make
a spash.
The thing I like and dislike about ID is that you have to have eyes
to see, for example we can say I see patterns that have meaning,
but unless you grasp the pattern for that, you will not see the design
or the meaning and could miss the whole point.
Kelly
In other words it is not science by your own admission. Science must have verifiable evidence, predictions etc which can be shown to anyone regardless of their personal inclinations. If there is, as you claim, a pattern, then that pattern can be described mathematically or scientifically.