|
|
|
cygonaut
New Member
12 Posts |
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
 Posted - 11/23/2001 : 19:35:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Christianity is funny (and sick).
http://www.cygo.com/bible.html
Ladies and gentlemen, what you get if you let 1 million monkeys type at typewriters for a million years.  
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is usually the father." -Bailey's First Law |
 |
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2001 : 19:52:22 [Permalink]
|
I thought you were supposed to get "Hamlet", and the rest pure nonsense. Aha! Now we know where the fundies get their ideas! Wow, their bananna bill must be enormous!
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Starvoyergirl
New Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2001 : 06:23:02 [Permalink]
|
The theme is akin to Beavis's "Oh yea" and "Fire! Fire! Fire!"
Flying Monkeys |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 03:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 04:29:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
I'm wondering just how you (Michael Denton actually - since you seem incapable of original thought as demonstrated by your inability to express your own thoughts but rather the need to post endless quotes from others) comes to the conclusion that Darwinian theory and religion are incompatible. Most main stream religious accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and not in violation of their church doctrine - with a bit of mental acrobatics.
quote:
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
Hmm, wonder what researchers such as Dawkins, Gould, and myriad others would have to say to this. Wonder what Dr. Slater would also have to say to this. As for me, I understand that evolution explains much in regards to providing us with the knowledge from which wild plants many of our staple crops come. Additionally, it also allows us an understanding of how to improve our crops, animals, and our medical conditions. So, seems to me that evolutionary theory has provided us with the understanding to many things which can be used to improve our *lot in life*.
quote:
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
That would to me seem as though Darwin were exploring possible arguments to his theory. However, Dawkins ascribes the *lack* or apparent lack of transitional forms to our [human] need to classify things into either this category or that category - I'm quite positive I've read this elsewhere also.
quote:
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
And what exactly is his definition of theory?
quote:
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
Likewise, religion has no proof that creation was an act of creation and not occuring by natural processes. It's a strawman. However, the proof from a scientific standpoint is stronger for natural processes than it is for creation. With creation the only available *proof* is the argument from authority - IOW because someone some long time ago said so.
quote:
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
Gee, a physicist who has studied nothing of evolution. Hmm, wonder how he'd feel if someone said that about SR and/or GR. Has little or nothing to do with anything - sorry Dalogos.
quote:
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
Huh? So. Again, physicists. And they know what of evolution - other than quoting the status quo of 100+ years ago?
quote:
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
OK? And the point of this quote is.... Too explain why if not evolution it must be creation. Please, someday another better theory may come along and replace or enhance evolution - oh wait, Darwin called it Natural Selection and it enhanced or provided the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Hmm....sounds like science is working as it should...
quote:
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
Um, is this trying to redirect evolution as not explaining abiogenisis? Evolution does not even atte |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 06:58:33 [Permalink]
|
Nice cut & paste job there DA. Must have taken you ages.
And it was a complete waste of time.
You're still wrong.
And we're still right.
Just call me a 'Fundie evolutionist'.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 06:58:39 [Permalink]
|
Nice cut & paste job there DA. Must have taken you ages.
And it was a complete waste of time.
You're still wrong.
And we're still right.
Just call me a 'Fundie evolutionist'.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 19:44:42 [Permalink]
|
I have probably mentioned this before but there are those who call the Institute for Creation Research the Institute for Quotation Research. The ICR sells books and tapes of quotes "useful when debating evolutionists."
Another thing. If some evidence came along that actually caused the theory of evolution to be thrown out in favor of a better theory, you can bet that it would be an equally naturalistic theory. Creationist think that if evolution falls they win by default. So they keep at it. But they can't back up a creation model with any real science of their own. It's kind of sad, if you think about it.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 21:16:11 [Permalink]
|
Darwin A.
Another poster just recently started a thread that deals specifically with the standard rhetorical strategies employed by creationists (The thread is titled "Does anyone recognize this" in the "Creation/Evolution" folder).
I would just like to point out item #5:
quote:
5) BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES.
Nobody is an expert in everything. The more quotes you pull up, the greater the chance that your opponents will not have the knowledge or data to refute at least one of them. You can then emphasize the quotes not dealt with and announce that "science has no response to them". (Note that this will not work unless you have managed to shed the burden of proof, as advised in step 2.)
If you really want to convince anyone here, you're going to have to try a little harder. Reading straight out of the standard creationist playbook won't work. We've already read it.
Edited by - Espritch on 11/26/2001 21:28:09 |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 05:49:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you really want to convince anyone here, you're going to have to try a little harder. Reading straight out of the standard creationist playbook won't work. We've already read it.
We've read it, know it, heck, the only thing we know more intimately is ourselves practically.
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is usually the father." -Bailey's First Law |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2001 : 05:29:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
James quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you really want to convince anyone here, you're going to have to try a little harder. Reading straight out of the standard creationist playbook won't work. We've already read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've read it, know it, heck, the only thing we know more intimately is ourselves practically
Speaking of "playbooks" I can't tell how disappointed I was with Mike Shermer's How to Debate a Creationist.It starts off with a big biuld up of his debate with Gish.He then goes on to declair how just before the "The Debate" he decides he's b]NOT GOING TO DEBATE GISH[/b](and this is in an article in Sceptic mag. in which the premise is HOW TO DEBATE ),but rather to share with the audience the various "creation myths" found in other cultures. ps.To Trish those quotes were from Evolutionist. My point in quoting them is that within the Church faithful of the dogma of evolution some are beginning to see the emperor(of evolution)has no clothes on
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2001 : 05:47:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My point in quoting them is that within the Church faithful of the dogma of evolution some are beginning to see the emperor(of evolution)has no clothes on
You keep claiming this and implying this, but you refrain from posting any evidence. What you do post are quotations which can be matched and bettered by opposing quotations we find.
Look, we are biased. We have spent time educating ourselves and have concluded that evolution and natural selection are fact. So of course we will not easily accept an opposing viewpoint. This is human nature, and it applies just as well to you and your faith.
But it does not mean that we are unchangeable. The frequent posters on this board BY DEFINITION change their minds even when biased against it when the evidence demands it. What it does mean is that you actually have to present the evidence and address the counter-arguments. If you actually do this, you will find us a most pleasant crowd who will grumble and fuss when proven wrong but who will ultimately admit any wrongness.
The problem is that you are claiming proof without demonstrating it, referring to evidence without showing it, and claiming a scientific approach while relying on theology.
Despite what you may think, no one here is upset with your beliefs, your stance, your position. It is only your methods that fluster us because your methods are flawed.
Heck, we have 'skeptic heroes' who are not atheist; Martin Gardner for one. I recommend his "Did Adam and Eve Have Navels" for a couple of articles dealing with this topic.
(Edited for grammar)
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 12/03/2001 05:50:51 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2001 : 17:09:00 [Permalink]
|
Hi, I'm back!
D: I can't tell how disappointed I was with Mike Shermer's How to
Debate a Creationist.It starts off with a big biuld up of his debate with Gish. He then goes on to declair how just before the "The Debate" he decides he's NOT GOING TO DEBATE GISH(and this is in an article in Sceptic mag. in which the premise is HOW TO DEBATE),but rather to share with the audience the various "creation myths" found in other cultures.
This article not only appeared in Skeptic but several of us who are here at SFN also received it as an E mail. Michael (not Mike) is an intellectual. I've had the pleasure of meeting him and a more charming fellow you couldn't ask for. A very dry, almost acid, wit. His magazine is aimed at intellectuals, and it never "talks down" to people. His piece on "debating" Gish had me laughing out loud. If you didn't get it, don't worry. You aren't the target audience.
To Trish those quotes were from Evolutionist. My point in quoting them is that within the Church faithful of the dogma of evolution some are beginning to see the emperor(of evolution)has no clothes on
Odd that you should use that reference. Hans Christian Andersen wrote that story as a satire on a renowned minister of his day.
It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the
universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
Of course Denton isn't a molecular biologist-it's impossible to actually do that job without a working knowledge of evolution. He makes a very good living selling creationism to the gullible.
I'm assuming that by "modern times" he is trying to exclude Galileo and Copernicus who did a fine job showing people 'their" actual "place in the universe.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
I find it impossible to believe that Louis Bounoure ever said this. A web search gives a number of Kristian anti-education sites that repeat this quote but attribute it to several different publications over a twenty year span (1983).
If you check in with the Centre National De La Recherche Scientifque (www.cnrs.org) you will find that their life sciences department is doing cutting edge research on evolution. No one there takes it as a fairy tale.
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
With this we are lead to believe that all knowledge of evolution ceased in the nineteenth century. Why do we never see quotes from Niles Eldredge who explained all this thirty years ago?
As for where the "halfway" species are--all one need do is look in a mirror.
Or take a ride with me the next time I rescue a pinniped (which would also explain why my Forester has such a distinct fragrance)
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
You forgot to put in the emphasis.
Of course evolution takes predictions. Albeit they are complicated to do they aren't impossible. This is how they are able to have flu shots ready in time for a flu bug that doesn't exist yet.
I can't help but notice that so many of the creationist quotes are old. They date before research was done and give the impression of a lack of knowledge where there is none. In the Historic Jesus thread claims from 1935 of a second century bible in the British Museum were used to bolster the idea of pre-Constantinian Christianity. Modern tests show that these bibles-like all others- come from post 350 AD. Yet it was felt necessary to quote as facts information that is now known to be erroneous. Creationists must by necessity go out of their way to find old quotes that agree with their viewpoint when present day information clearly contradicts them.
Peters in 1976 could not have heard of James Gleck's "chaos" work in 1987. But that is not an excuse for someone in 2001.
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow
This is laughable. Did he follow it up by running his forefinger over his lips and going "bibble, bibble, bibble"?
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
What his complaint is, is that evolution is a known fact and that scientists take known facts into consideration. It's interesting that he refers to it as a "religion" in order to discredit it . While all the time supporting a religion of his own he wants to bend his observations to exclude evolution on purely philosophical grounds.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
Shall we check with the Linneans now in the twenty first century and see just how many support Haugton? Shall we check with Haugton in the 1860's to see if he didn't change his mind?
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
Again we are left with the impression of ignorance on the part of science. 1957--Crick hadn't done his DNA and RNA work yet.
And again science is supposed to be a religion.
I must say that the effect of all of these quotes so far is to convince me that creationists are willful liars.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
Evolution isn't a theory in crisis. It's as solid a fact as one can have in science. The support for it isn't illusionary, i |
|
|
|
Lecroix
New Member
USA
4 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2001 : 20:59:47 [Permalink]
|
Question.
Okay, I'm the first one to admit that I have not done much research on this topic besides the links that others have posted here. I will say that I have never seen any scientific proof that leads me to believe in Creationism.
But, I do have a question for the Creationists, (and even the Evolutionists, I suppose).
If a god did create humanity, and we do not evolve, then why do we have a part in our body that does absolutely nothing? I'm talking, of course, about the human appendix.
I also have this whole question about male pattern baldness...but never mind about that.
Take it easy.
Don't look at me, ~I~ didn't create this mess. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
