Journey Inside The Cell

Originally posted by caissad4
Here in the US the promotion of one religions' creation story, in deference to any other religions' version, in the public school system is not allowed by law. Your religious beliefs and attitude are misguided. If, as you state, Darwinism is "pure materialism" then it is an economic system akin to Capitalism. Again, you are misguided. Darwinism is not religion, it is science.

The Creationist lumps those who study biological evolution into a category called Darwinism, which is in fact misguided. But there are distinctions between Darwinism and the science of biological evolution. Creationists use "Darwinism" because they see it as a competing ideology, at least as the term is commonly used in the US. The Creationist is only too happy to see his opponent appear to support Darwinism when intending to support biological evolution.

Wikipedia has this to say:

Quote:

Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin.[1][2][3] The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term.[4] In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory.[5]

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[6] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas. As modern evolutionary theory has developed, the term has been associated at times with specific ideas.[4]

While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory.[7][8][9] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel,[10] having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.[11]

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh please, Robbie, do not lower yourself to the level of Vishva/Dasa, condemning those who do not agree with YOUR opinions.

Educate yourself and follow the link I presented above on Evolutionary Creation.

educate myself? You have the audacity to talk of education after having watered down Christian teaching and supplanted it with pure materialistic dogma. You are not a Christian for you have disowned the teaching of Christ and i can prove it scripturally, it has nothing to do with opinion, its a statement of fact.

A Christian is one who advocates the teachings of the Christ, you do not, you are advocating something entirely different. Christ taught that we were created without precedent, not that we evolved from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals. I consider your stance nothing short of apostasy. See to it!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
They are examples of speciation according to the accepted definition of the word 'species'. To request examples of the evolution of a new genus or family within the few hundred years since we began to classify the natural world is, I think, extraordinarily impatient, to say the least!

yes and rather convenient for me! No new species.

Originally posted by JS357
The Creationist lumps those who study biological evolution into a category called Darwinism, which is in fact misguided. But there are distinctions between Darwinism and the science of biological evolution. Creationists use "Darwinism" because they see it as a competing ideology, at least as the term is commonly used in the US. The Creationist is only too happ a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.[11]

It amounts to the same thing, a purely materialist view of the emergence and diversification of life, we are therefore justified in terming everything under materialism, regardless of the which appellations the secularists which to utilise to describe their particular faculty.

Originally posted by caissad4
Here in the US the promotion of one religions' creation story, in deference to any other religions' version, in the public school system is not allowed by law. Your religious beliefs and attitude are misguided. If, as you state, Darwinism is "pure materialism" then it is an economic system akin to Capitalism. Again, you are misguided. Darwinism is not religion, it is science.

No its not scientific, that is the whole issue, its purely metaphysics masquerading under the guise of science, indeed when one actually examines its tenets, its clear that it is nothing short of astounding what materialists are willing to believe.

If you are a materialist, you believe that a piece of excess skin on reptiles became feathers!

If you are a materialist, you believe that whales formed in the sea, evolved on land and then went back to the sea again,

If you are a materialist, you believe in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter (yet deny the resurrection, huh?)

haha, and you say its not a religion! Man, the Biblical miracles dont hold a candle to what you people are willing to believe! In fact it takes a greater leap of faith to believe what you materialists do than in a benevolent and loving god.

Why do these debates always end up with a pack of rabid materialists attacking an innocent servant of the most high God?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you are a materialist, you believe that a piece of excess skin on reptiles became feathers!
If you are a materialist, you believe that whales formed in the sea, evolved on land and then went back to the sea again,
If you are a materialist, you believe in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter (yet deny the resurrection, huh?)

I know that your sect of Christianity has only been around a short time. Is this new sect called Materialists (which you seem fixated upon) some kind of rival sect of your group? Do they have a church somewhere?
Reptiles became birds? No, I think some dinosaurs developed wings.
Whales have a bone structure which shows they were once on land.
In humans, are the sperm and egg each seperate lifeforms but combine magically to produce one lifeform? Which one died?

Originally posted by caissad4
I know that your sect of Christianity has only been around a short time. Is this new sect called Materialists (which you seem fixated upon) some kind of rival sect of your group? Do they have a church somewhere?
Reptiles became birds? No, I think some dinosaurs developed wings.
Whales have a bone structure which shows they were once on land.
In humans, ...[text shortened]... m and egg each seperate lifeforms but combine magically to produce one lifeform? Which one died?

I have adequately qualified my stance, and given definitions of terms.

Do we have a church? Nope we have Kingdom halls and incorporate the widest diversity of ethnicity of any religious organisation, from blackfoot indigenous Americans to Inuets of the northern Tundra.

As for dinosaurs (reptiles) developing fathers, you still believe that its was excess skin which formed them (actually i think it was recently published , as recently as last year that there were second thoughts on links between birds and reptiles, i remember arguing the point with Noobster after it was published) as for the old sperm or egg trick, which one evolved first, the male or the female or did they both evolve simultaneously in order to reproduce?

Those poor whales, it must have been tough for them to give up all that plankton on land.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes and rather convenient for me! No new species.

I find it peculiar that someone who is happy to accept fanciful ancient tales as the literal word of god can be so quick to dismiss peer reviewed scientific data. Still, whatever makes you happy...

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I find it peculiar that someone who is happy to accept fanciful ancient tales as the literal word of god can be so quick to dismiss peer reviewed scientific data. Still, whatever makes you happy...

Firstly there is a basis for accepting that the Bible is inspired. This includes such things as, its internal harmony, fulfilled prophecy, the practicality of the application of its principles. Its not a mere acceptance without recourse to any kind of study.

Secondly whether something is peer reviewed has no literal weight, its the guinea stamp for all that, why, simply because the basis for acceptance assumes certain premises, that being a purely material view of the emergence and diversification of life, and as we know from platonic philosophy, any argument which rests upon an assumption as its criteria of proof, is walking on thin ice. What is more, what is accepted in scientific circles today, may be overturned tomorrow, after someone re-evaluates the very same data or as more data comes to light.

I find it utterly astonishing that persons are willing to give credence to life having originated from non living matter and yet deny the resurrection simply because the former comes with glossy plastic scientific packaging. But who ever denied that advertising doesn't work!

Yes it makes me happy, did not Jesus say, 'happy are those conscious of their spirituality'?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not scientific, that is the whole issue, its purely metaphysics masquerading under the guise of science, indeed when one actually examines its tenets, its clear that it is nothing short of astounding what materialists are willing to believe.

If you are a materialist, you believe that a piece of excess skin on reptiles became feathers!

...[text shortened]... ays end up with a pack of rabid materialists attacking an innocent servant of the most high God?

Why do these debates always end up with a pack of rabid materialists attacking an innocent servant of the most high God?

Come on, less of the sensationalist theatrics.

Firstly, i know you like your easy black and white world but in this instance you are wrong again. Suzianne is a Christian, and 'The Cat' is not an atheist, so your characterisation of a 'pack of rabid materialists' is false. You must come to accept that your rather lazy view that materialism = evolution is wrong, there are many people worldwide who believe in God, in some shape or form, who accept evolution.

The 'debates', and i use that term in the loosest possible sense, always end up like this because you have no desire to learn anything on this subject. You just repeat the same old creationist canards over and over. You have, by your own admission, never read any books on evolutionary biology (albeit a few chapters of Origin of the Species, and never want to. I've even offered to post you some of my books, but you declined.

Your refusal to read anything of substance on the subject is an interesting one. I think deep down you know evolution is true, but then if you accept it, your left with an almighty conundrum as you pointed out in an earlier post -

In fact Jesus says that God created humans without precedent, evolution states that they gradually evolved from other species, both cannot be true.

The simple fact is that, evolution is true, Jesus and the Bible are wrong. But accepting that would shake your cherished beliefs in a way that you don't want to comprehend. It's far too frightening, so it's better not to look at all.

Your stance reminds me of a true story i have in a book about a creationist Christian who was having an online debate with an evolutionist. It was the typical debate we have in this forum from time to time. The creationist went off to do some online research to back up her claims but got a little more than she bargained for. Here's an excerpt (copied without permission) -

The idea of researching the opposing side's viewpoint never occurred to me; at least, not until i was involved in an online debate about evolution and intelligent design. I had never had the experience of arguing against people who knew the subject matter better than I. The discovery of this uncharted territory was unsettling and forced me to realize that my knowledge of evolution was insufficient at best. Having confidence that I would emerge victorious, I embarked upon a mission to study this theory, hoping to find holes in it. Needless to to say i was shocked when i discovered the wealth of information contradicting my beliefs. I was compelled to conclude that my faith was based soley on argumentum ad ignorantiam - and that the answers has been there the whole time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have adequately qualified my stance, and given definitions of terms.

Do we have a church? Nope we have Kingdom halls and incorporate the widest diversity of ethnicity of any religious organisation, from blackfoot indigenous Americans to Inuets of the northern Tundra.

As for dinosaurs (reptiles) developing fathers, you still believe that ...[text shortened]... ce?

Those poor whales, it must have been tough for them to give up all that plankton on land.

“...as for the old sperm or egg trick, which one evolved first, the male or the female or did they both evolve simultaneously in order to reproduce? ...”

they did not “evolve simultaneously in order TO reproduce” because the living organisms could reproduce just fine before there was any male/female distinction.
FIRST there was only asexual reproduction -bacteria are an example of that, THEN sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction in the same life form evolved but BEFORE male and female distinction evolved -the single-celled ciliates are a classical example of this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciliate “Ciliates can undergo both asexual and sexual reproduction “ ) and THEN the ability to reproduce was lost by selection as it ceased to become advantageous in the changing environment and THEN male/female distinction evolved along side the evolution of specialised sex cells.

“...Those poor whales, it must have been tough for them to give up all that plankton on land. ...”

don't be silly, the land-bound ancestors of whales did not feed on plankton.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It amounts to the same thing, a purely materialist view of the emergence and diversification of life, we are therefore justified in terming everything under materialism, regardless of the which appellations the secularists which to utilise to describe their particular faculty.

If by secularist you mean a commitment to exclude any of the varieties of supernaturalism from scientific theories on the emergence and diversification of life, I agree, science is secularist. If by materialist you mean those who believe physical matter is the only reality, then with respect I disagree that science and materialism amount to the same thing and hope that you will agree, if not today, someday. Many, many scientists are theists who would reject the idea that they are materialists. The problem is that many "advocates" for science don't make the distinction, and contribute to the misunderstanding. So I disagree with you on this regardless of whether you are a theist or nontheist.

Granted, many scientists are also nontheistic. But here's an example (wikipedia) of an Evangelical Christian who is a noted scientific leader and who considers scientific discoveries as "an opportunity to worship."

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950), is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time".[1][2] He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Collins has written a book about his Christian faith. He founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation before accepting the nomination to lead the NIH. On October 14, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Francis Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.[3]
...
In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Why do these debates always end up with a pack of rabid materialists attacking an innocent servant of the most high God?

You say "Why do these debates always end up with a pack of rabid materialists attacking an innocent servant of the most high God?"

Because these debates are free to all who care to speak up, including those who do not understand that science requires an intellectual commitment to naturalistic explanations while doing science, but does not require an ideological commitment to this approach, at any time. One can publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper and be in awe of God and His creation.

There are people on BOTH sides in this debate, who lack that simple understanding. I think some of those people would rather have the argument, than accept that it's based on false premises.

Originally posted by JS357
You say "Why do these debates always end up with a pack of rabid materialists attacking an innocent servant of the most high God?"

Because these debates are free to all who care to speak up, including those who do not understand that science requires an intellectual commitment to naturalistic explanations while doing science, but does not require an ideolog ...[text shortened]... f those people would rather have the argument, than accept that it's based on false premises.

Just to clarify, i didn't say that, it was Robbie Carrobie. I copied it to respond to it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Just to clarify, i didn't say that, it was Robbie Carrobie. I copied it to respond to it.

My apologies.