Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.

But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."

As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:

1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Creationism matches none of these criteria.

---

Quote:

---

But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
That he believes in god is irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Who says that?

---

Quote:

---

Whoot! chalk one up for creationism.

---

Quote:

---

his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mink:
Transitions in Action:

1) Fish - lives in water

2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin

3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs

Too broad for you? Okay:

1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape

2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face

3) Modern human - you know

What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?

It's okay to leave them to die.

---

Quote:

---

Naturalism works in tandem with materialism because it attempts to sustain the primacy of matter with the metaphysical claim of "self-creation" (i.e., abiogenesis). Of course, this claim suggests that living and dead matter are inseparable. Thus, living things are literally artificial entities that create themselves, an occult theme communicated through the Kabalistic myth of the golem.

---

Quote:

---

"the golem is based on faith that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life.

---

Quote:

---

As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. . . Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being;

---

Quote:

---

“The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

im more curious how non-living matter mutates into living matter

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time

who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe

i now bow to man, god of his own conscience

---

Quote:

---

Self-assembly is a branch of nanotechnology in which objects, devices, and systems form structures without external prodding. Nanotechnology is a field of engineering that deals with design, manufacture, and control on a scale of a few nanometers (nm) or less, where 1 nm = 10-9 meters. In self-assembly, the individual components contain in themselves enough information to build a template for a structure composed of multiple units. An example is the construction of a monolayer, in which a single layer of closely-packed molecules sticks to a surface in an orderly and closely-packed fashion.... Also see dendrimer, exponential assembly, positional assembly, and self-replication.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
To the non-believers in evolution, You miss the point. Entirely. Evolution is not a theory of biology, it's one of the key fundamental principles of the universe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sigmanunki:
Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Carton,

That's why I asked you for quotes in the other thread. I was trying to find what was in the book. The best I can tell, it's a collection of musings of various scientists about the universe, and doesn't specifically address evolution. You say that "Fred Heeren ... claims that evolution never could have happened" in the book, and I was looking for quotes that show that.

---

Quote:

---

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable'' foundation of biology.

The group, led by the writer Elie Wiesel, said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry.''

The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.

That increasingly popular idea argues that some features of the natural world are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. Its followers attack Darwin's evolutionary theory, which says natural chemical processes could have created the basic building blocks of life on Earth, that all life had a common ancestor and that man and apes shared a common ancestor.

Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a conservative Republican who has supported the proposed standards, said he was unmoved by the scientists' plea, which became public Thursday.

"I don't think anything should be taught as dogma,'' Abrams told the Lawrence Journal-World.

The standards, used in developing tests for students, came up for update under state law.

Besides Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the letter writers include chemists, physicists and medical experts from Wiesel's New York-based Foundation for Humanity.

In their letter, they lauded evolution, saying "its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA.''

The group said intelligent design can't be tested scientifically "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.''

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by heb:
Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Point of fact, one CAN be religous AND still believe in evolution. The problem with fundamentalists (and people like you) is that they (you) don't understand this concept. Hell, in the 50's we understood this. And you should know better than to say such things as I cited an article showing such in a thread just a little while ago that you participated in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
...and I was looking for quotes that show that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simonwho:
The trouble is that if you bring in a Nobel prize winner and say "Look, here's an expert, he believes in creationism", we can produce a dozen who don't. Pure faith overwrites basic sense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Heb:
He has a Nobel Prize in physics not biology.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by heb:
The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by heb:
I haven't read the book but I'll check it out if they've got it. But one answer to this problem is the Anthropic principle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by heb:
Also I'd ask how fine tuned things would have to be in order for a Creator to come into existence that could fine tune these constants, I think the same argument would apply.

---