Bible Discussion: Bias Of Evolutionists

Bias Of Evolutionists
Posts: 177

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-06-26 19:45:22 EST
Bias of Evolutionists

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven
by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only
alternative , special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson,
"Adaptation, Nature, 124:233, 1929

Nothing has changed since he made this statement and pseudo-science is
still following after this statement-with a vengence for anyone who point
out " the Emperor is naked".

Leonardo Dasso
2003-06-26 21:41:48 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2606031645220001@pm4-33.kalama.com...
> Bias of Evolutionists
>
> "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be
proven
> by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only
> alternative , special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S.
Watson,
> "Adaptation, Nature, 124:233, 1929
>
> Nothing has changed since he made this statement and pseudo-science is
> still following after this statement-with a vengence for anyone who
point
> out " the Emperor is naked".

A few things have changed. On one hand, creationism is still clearly
incredible and only believed by retards. On the other the evidence
supporting evolution has increased enormously.
regards
leo



Adam Marczyk
2003-06-26 22:57:42 EST
IknowHimDoYou <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2606031645220001@pm4-33.kalama.com...
> Bias of Evolutionists
>
> "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven
> by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only
> alternative , special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson,
> "Adaptation, Nature, 124:233, 1929
>
> Nothing has changed since he made this statement and pseudo-science is
> still following after this statement-with a vengence for anyone who point
> out " the Emperor is naked".

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field,
including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
Scriptural record."
--from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

In essence, Answers in Genesis is saying that their members must pledge to
ignore any evidence that contradicts what they already believe. How's that
for pseudoscience?

--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------


JCSaves3
2003-06-26 23:55:16 EST
This is a very revealing quote. Evolutionists truly operate with a bias. How
could they not?

When you learn the evolution of species from grades 1-6, 7-12, college and
graduate school, it's awfully hard to break free from that paradigm.

Check out my creation/evolution page: http://mustsee.jcsm.org.

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

Mark Johnson
2003-06-27 01:22:53 EST
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:

>*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in news:IknowHim-
>*1@pm4-33.kalama.com:

>> Bias of Evolutionists

>> "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven
>> by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only
>> alternative , special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson,
>> "Adaptation, Nature, 124:233, 1929

>> Nothing has changed since he made this statement and pseudo-science is
>> still following after this statement-with a vengence for anyone who point
>> out " the Emperor is naked".

>Except that millions of creationists have learned to lie a lot and the
>evidence for evolution has gotten to be much stronger since 1929.

I notice you didn't reply to various replies I posted. So let me
suggest, again, that the history of fraud is found among
evolutionists, who even on these ngs, would excuse such - for the
cause (which is very dishonest).

The lie extends even to the artistic renderings of Dumb and Dumberer,
er . . you know, the ascent of Man, supposedly, and assorted
'specials' on ABC 'news' (sort of the cousin 'spinster' of the NY
Times, which just hasn't been caught, perhaps, telling so many tales).
All that 'artistry' is a lie. We're not even talking about the
fallibility of science, the trial and error of honest researchers.
We're talking about outright fraud. We're talking about, basically,
what IS . . The Theory of Evolution? People talk about The Theory of
Evolution. But they have no clue what they're talking about . . . .

to begin with.

Anyway.


Peace.

-----------------------------------

God and the Blessed Virgin and the Saints help a
poor ignorant soul trying to do his duty.

[Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 7,
Demeter Captain's log, last entry]

TSBDoulos
2003-06-27 03:09:08 EST

"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GoOKa.14957$xg1.6587@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> IknowHimDoYou <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
> news:IknowHim-2606031645220001@pm4-33.kalama.com...
> > Bias of Evolutionists
> >
> > "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven
> > by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only
> > alternative , special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson,
> > "Adaptation, Nature, 124:233, 1929
> >
> > Nothing has changed since he made this statement and pseudo-science is
> > still following after this statement-with a vengence for anyone who
point
> > out " the Emperor is naked".
>
> "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field,
> including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
> Scriptural record."
> --from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
>
> In essence, Answers in Genesis is saying that their members must pledge to
> ignore any evidence that contradicts what they already believe. How's that
> for pseudoscience?

Funny you edited the last part of that quote out. It being in whole:

"In essence, Answers in Genesis is saying that their members must pledge to
ignore any evidence that contradicts what they already believe. Of primary
importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by
fallible people who do not possess all information. "

Rather than ignoring evidence it accepts that evidence needs to be given
extensive checking to avoid personal bias and interpretation.

Why did you skip that sentance?


>
> --
> "We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
> to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
> --Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
> two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
> quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>



Chris Devol
2003-06-27 05:23:36 EST
"TSBDoulos" <tsbdoulos@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bdgqij$hl0$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GoOKa.14957$xg1.6587@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...

<snip>

> > "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any
field,
> > including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
> > Scriptural record."
> > --from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
> >
> > In essence, Answers in Genesis is saying that their members must pledge
to
> > ignore any evidence that contradicts what they already believe. How's
that
> > for pseudoscience?
>
> Funny you edited the last part of that quote out. It being in whole:
>
> "In essence, Answers in Genesis is saying that their members must pledge
to
> ignore any evidence that contradicts what they already believe. Of primary
> importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation
by
> fallible people who do not possess all information. "
>
> Rather than ignoring evidence it accepts that evidence needs to be given
> extensive checking to avoid personal bias and interpretation.
>
> Why did you skip that sentance?

The actual quote on the AiG website is:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always
subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all
information."

I think this is rather poorly stated. I believe what is meant is not,
strictly speaking, "evidence" but "conclusions". No actual evidence
contradicts the Scriptural record. But many conclusions based on false
premises and/or incomplete or misunderstood evidence do contradict
Scripture. I think that is what the writer meant to say.

The following would be better:

"By definition, no conclusion based on apparent, perceived or claimed
evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that
evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not
possess all information."

The unbelievers want no authority higher than their own minds (the contents
of which they often call "science"). They want to "interpret" things
according to their own ideas, and they want, not God, but themselves, to be
the ones who establish truth. They are in rebellion against God, and they
want all others to join their rebellion. That is why it seems to them like a
travesty that anyone should accept God's word above the words of men as the
unique standard for truth.



Midwinter
2003-06-27 07:13:53 EST
On 27 Jun 2003, Chris Devol held forth thus:

> The unbelievers want no authority higher than their own minds (the
> contents of which they often call "science"). They want to "interpret"
> things according to their own ideas, and they want, not God, but
> themselves, to be the ones who establish truth. They are in rebellion
> against God, and they want all others to join their rebellion. That is
> why it seems to them like a travesty that anyone should accept God's
> word above the words of men as the unique standard for truth.


If God exists, then He created the world. Indeed, He may have created
the universe itself. His word - "God's word" - is all around us. He
speaks to us through every plant, animal, and stone. His face is above
us in the skies and below us in the earth we walk on. His handiwork can
be seen in everything from the crafting of mountains using his tools of
geological pressures, to the orbits of atoms, which He has made using His
tools of electromagnetic forces.

His work, if He exists, is spectacular, and He has given it to us to
learn from. But what do His 'followers' prefer to do? They reject His
work, in favour of a book - the "words of men" - that their human
predecessors wrote thousands of years ago. And they do this in His name.

I suggest that those who would rather take the words of that book,
written by humans, above the existing work of God Himself - ie, the world
we live in - could themselves very effectively be the subjects of Chris
Devol's last paragraph with only a couple of minor modifications:

"The believers want no authority higher than their own minds (the
contents of which they often call "faith"). They want to "interpret"
things according to their own ideas, and they want, not God, but
themselves, to be the ones who establish truth. They are in rebellion
against God, and they want all others to join their rebellion. That is
why it seems to them like a travesty that anyone should accept God's word
above the words of men as the unique standard for truth."

--
Midwinter

Chris Devol
2003-06-27 07:40:32 EST

"Midwinter" <midw688@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdh8tg$jus$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> On 27 Jun 2003, Chris Devol held forth thus:
>
> > The unbelievers want no authority higher than their own minds (the
> > contents of which they often call "science"). They want to "interpret"
> > things according to their own ideas, and they want, not God, but
> > themselves, to be the ones who establish truth. They are in rebellion
> > against God, and they want all others to join their rebellion. That is
> > why it seems to them like a travesty that anyone should accept God's
> > word above the words of men as the unique standard for truth.
>
>
> If God exists, then He created the world. Indeed, He may have created
> the universe itself. His word - "God's word" - is all around us. He
> speaks to us through every plant, animal, and stone.

It is certain that God has never spoken to you at all, since you are careful
to preface your remarks with "if God exists".

Those to whom God has spoken never, ever talk like that.

Nice try. No cigar.




Michael Gaskell
2003-06-27 08:55:33 EST

"Midwinter" <midw688@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdh88t$hq6$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
> On 27 Jun 2003, Mark Johnson held forth thus:
>
> >>IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in news:IknowHim-
> >>2606031645220001@pm4-33.kalama.com:
> >
> >>> Bias of Evolutionists
> >
> >>> "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be
> >>> proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the
> >>> only alternative , special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S.
> >>> Watson, "Adaptation, Nature, 124:233, 1929
>
>
> It is this comment that interested me. I hope I have attributed it
> correctly.
>
> It is worth mentioning here that scientific theory is never 'proven to be
> true'. Most theories exist only as stop-gaps until some new experiment
> or phenomenon demonstrates them to be untrue. The purpose of science is,
> in many ways, to disprove things rather than prove them.
>
> (I use the word 'prove' in its colloquial sense of 'demonstrate to be
> true', rather than its more accurate sense of 'test'.)
>
> Evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory because there is a
> great deal of evidence to support it, and no research has yet produced
> any information which shows it cannot hold. Creationism, on the other
> hand, has only assertion to support it, and the Creationists' motives
> towards their 'theory' are to 'show true' rather than to 'test to
> destruction'.
>
> In that sense, Watson was right. Evolution holds because no other
> reasonable theory has yet challenged its validity. The only suggested
> alternative, being that God created the world in six days (but of course
> that actually MEANS six thousand years...), and formed man out of dust,
> is too ludicrous to offer any opposition.

Try to think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bomb
create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a Big Bang produce a rose,
apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, hummingbirds, polar bears-thousands
of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose, and mouth? A child can
see that there is "grand design" in creation. Try this interesting
experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber
and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten
years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it
for 20 years. If that doesn't work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving
it for 10,000 years. Here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to
make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years.

Jim Holt, Wall Street Journal science writer, "New scientific revelations
about supernovas, black holes, quarks, and the big bang even suggest to some
scientists that there is a 'grand design' in the universe." (U.S. News &
World Re-port, March 31, 1997) "The universe suddenly exploded into
being...The big bang bears an uncanny resemblance to the Genesis command."

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God-nothing
"evolved." Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own
kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1. Dogs do not produce cats. Neither
do cats and dogs have a common ancestry. Dogs began as dogs and are still
dogs. They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will
not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat/dog) throughout God's creation. Frogs
don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs, and pregnant pigs don't give
birth to rabbits. God made monkeys as monkeys, and man as man. Each creature
brings forth after its own kind. That's no theory; that's a fact. Why then
should we believe that man comes from another species? If evolution is true,
then it is proof that the Bible is false. However, the whole of creation
stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution. Dr. Kent Hovind of
Florida has a standing offer of $250,000 to "anyone who can give any
empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution." Evolution- true
science fiction. His website is www.drdino.com.

Now since God created the Earth and all that's in then, we need to make sure
we're prepared to give an account of our lives to Him.

--

Michael


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron