Bible Discussion: Bias Of Evolutionists

Bias Of Evolutionists
Posts: 203

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
2003-09-21 11:57:43 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".

Blind evolutionary bias is a religion based on errors but supported by
faith in the "just so" stories. No honest person would actually fall for
such nonsence when all the dishonest contortions(Piltdown man. Peking
man, Java man, Neanderthal man, Nebraska man(pig's tooth) Spotted moth,
living fossils, earth's magnetic field flux, Polar ice caps with no salt,
ocean salinity, earth cooling and on and on...) are made known to
counterdict those who hold to an opinion of evolution. And evolution is
only an opinion of those who hate God.

Dave Oldridge
2003-09-21 13:24:00 EST
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in news:IknowHim-
2*1@pm6-09.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".

Actually a good deal has happened. The logically coherent evidence has
continued to pile up. The problem with special creation is that the
evidence just doesn't support it.

> Blind evolutionary bias is a religion based on errors but supported by
> faith in the "just so" stories. No honest person would actually fall
for
> such nonsence when all the dishonest contortions(Piltdown man. Peking
> man, Java man, Neanderthal man, Nebraska man(pig's tooth) Spotted
moth,
> living fossils, earth's magnetic field flux, Polar ice caps with no
salt,
> ocean salinity, earth cooling and on and on...) are made known to
> counterdict those who hold to an opinion of evolution. And evolution is
> only an opinion of those who hate God.

And you list a number of creationist pseudoscientific claims.
Interesting, since all of them are LIES. That's right. As science, they
are lies. And anyone with enough scientific background to know what they
are doing KNOWS they are lies, in my opinion.

Why are you lying in God's name? Were you deceived by these lies and
just tell them because you believe them or do you actually KNOW that
you're lying? I think to some degree you must now take responsibility
for your own part in spreading them, since you have already been warned
on several occasions.

Why do you think God wants you to violate His commandments? What kind of
witness is that to non-Christians?

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

David Horn
2003-09-21 16:43:31 EST
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
>
> 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

Where did you actually read this, or are you normally in the habit of
reading 74 year old journal articles?

> 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".

What a load of crap. A *lot* has changed; and all of it in the favor of
science and evolution. Evolution has continually been supported by
massive evidence showing the continuity of living things and the
relationships that they have to one-another.

> Blind evolutionary bias...

I so enjoy reading crap like this from ignorami like you. Tell me
something, nameless one, are you willing to claim that creationists have
no bias?

> ...is a religion based on errors

Such as...?

> ...but supported by faith in the "just so" stories.

Such as...?

> No honest person would actually fall for such nonsence

Even if they can spell "nonsense!"

> ...when all the dishonest contortions(Piltdown man. Peking
> man, Java man, Neanderthal man, Nebraska man(pig's tooth) Spotted moth,
> living fossils, earth's magnetic field flux, Polar ice caps with no salt,
> ocean salinity, earth cooling and on and on...) are made known to
> counterdict those who hold to an opinion of evolution.

Running up a list like this is a clear indicator to me that you don't
have a clue. What would happen, I wonder, if you were forced to
actually examine and discuss each of these things in detail? Would you
be up to the task? Or would it be that all you could muster is more
substanceless speech-making just as we are seeing here?

> And evolution is only an opinion of those who hate God.

Evolution is a conglomeration of scientific theories that explain how
life came to be what it is today--it has nothing to do with God, and
rightfully so.

---
Creationism: The "Maxwell Smart" of science.

Mark Johnson
2003-09-21 18:37:58 EST
David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:

>> And evolution is only an opinion of those who hate God.

>Evolution is a conglomeration of scientific theories that explain how
>life came to be what it is today--it has nothing to do with God, and
>rightfully so.

It's called, materialism - Dave. Everyone knows that.

Do you?

You're going to discover that science makes a _lousy_ religion.


Peace.

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

Theorem: All numbers are equal.

Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b

David Horn
2003-09-21 18:51:17 EST
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> And evolution is only an opinion of those who hate God.
>
> >Evolution is a conglomeration of scientific theories that explain how
> >life came to be what it is today--it has nothing to do with God, and
> >rightfully so.
>
> It's called, materialism - Dave. Everyone knows that.
>
> Do you?
>
> You're going to discover that science makes a _lousy_ religion.

Science isn't a religion, nor do I view it religiously.

As usual, we have a clueless creationist making a presumption about
another person without having all of the facts. Religiously and
philosophically, I am not a materialist. *Scientifically*, well, that's
another matter; but it also depends on how one applies the term.

By the way, *mark* your snips. I had other things to say that show the
context more clearly; and snipping it away as you did is dishonest and
diversionary. The point that your selective snippage conceals is that
the nameless person to whom I was responding was dead wrong on all
points, not just the last one.

[Snip]

By the way, is this Mark ARVID Johnson?

---
"Have fun stormin' the castle!" - Billy Crytsal, "The Princess Bride"

Mark Johnson
2003-09-21 19:57:05 EST
David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:

>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:

>> >> And evolution is only an opinion of those who hate God.

>> >Evolution is a conglomeration of scientific theories that explain how
>> >life came to be what it is today--it has nothing to do with God, and
>> >rightfully so.

>> It's called, materialism - Dave. Everyone knows that.
>> Do you?
>> You're going to discover that science makes a _lousy_ religion.

>Science isn't a religion, nor do I view it religiously.

>As usual, we have a clueless creationist making a presumption about
>another person without having all of the facts. Religiously and
>philosophically, I am not a materialist.

You suggested that you were. Do you understand what is meant by the
term?


>*Scientifically*, well, that's
>another matter; but it also depends on how one applies the term.

Are you attempting to explain something in this way? Could you
elaborate?


>diversionary. The point that your selective snippage conceals is that
>the nameless person to whom I was responding was dead wrong on all
>points, not just the last one.

I wasn't replying to that, but rather to your comment. You suggested a
purely materialistic outlook - which is pure NWO, these days, or
whatever you want to call it. And I just figured you were doing what
everyone else does who doesn't think about things, much.

I'm just going to guess that you would have a great deal of difficulty
explaining your support for evolutionism. But if you wish to prove me
wrong about that, please do so.


Peace.

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

. . . "art" inspired by nothing
fades to nothingness soon enough.

[Michelle Malkin, 24 NOV 2000
(discussing Marilyn Manson)]

David Horn
2003-09-21 20:11:03 EST
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> And evolution is only an opinion of those who hate God.
>
> >> >Evolution is a conglomeration of scientific theories that explain how
> >> >life came to be what it is today--it has nothing to do with God, and
> >> >rightfully so.
>
> >> It's called, materialism - Dave. Everyone knows that.
> >> Do you?
> >> You're going to discover that science makes a _lousy_ religion.
>
> >Science isn't a religion, nor do I view it religiously.
>
> >As usual, we have a clueless creationist making a presumption about
> >another person without having all of the facts. Religiously and
> >philosophically, I am not a materialist.
>
> You suggested that you were. Do you understand what is meant by the
> term?

I suggested no such thing. What you did was make a presumption and you
did so by selecing text out of context.

> >*Scientifically*, well, that's
> >another matter; but it also depends on how one applies the term.
>
> Are you attempting to explain something in this way? Could you
> elaborate?

Obviously, I was making a distinction that you are incapable of
discerning.

> >diversionary. The point that your selective snippage conceals is that
> >the nameless person to whom I was responding was dead wrong on all
> >points, not just the last one.
>
> I wasn't replying to that, but rather to your comment.

No, you "replied" to what you represented the comment to be; and you did
so without intelligent justification. I won't have any patience for
that, so I'm giving you fair warning now. I've been absent from these
debates for a while, but that doesn't mean I won't see the creationist
"tricks of the trade" any readily than I previously.

> You suggested a purely materialistic outlook...

I did no such thing. Either you need to learn to read for
comprehension, approach these discussions more honestly, not make
presumptions or, as I see it so far, combine these.

> which is pure NWO, these days, or whatever you want to call it.
> And I just figured you were doing what everyone else does who
> doesn't think about things, much.

Spare me. Look, junior, I didn't just fall off the truck. I have a
significant science education going back decades. I have done more than
just give this some thought. I've *studied* it--extensively--for
years.

> I'm just going to guess that you would have a great deal of difficulty
> explaining your support for evolutionism.

More dishonest wordplay. You *are* Mark ARVID Johnson, aren't you? I'm
curious why you snipped out that question.

I never said anything about evolutionISM. I don't even know what that
is. Every time one of you creationists uses the term and is asked for a
clear definition, we can never seem to get one.

> But if you wish to prove me
> wrong about that, please do so.

Well, for starters, I have said nothing about evolutionISM. Why are you
responding to things I did not say? Is that because you *are* ARVID
from the old evolution echo and you do like to play with words and twist
them around as a sophist does? Is it because you are more interested in
winning arguments than you are dealing with the truth?

That's what ARVID did in those days, and I stomped a mudhole in him for
doing that.

Are you ARVID?

Answer the question.


---
5th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.

The_Sage
2003-09-21 20:56:34 EST
>Reply to article by: IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou)
>Date written: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 08:57:43 -0700
>MsgID:<IknowHim-2109030857430001@pm6-09.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".

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt,
and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has
always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who
are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional
blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution
about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to
evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are
constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms
(Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of
Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in
Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ
1983)

Nothing has changed since Theodosius made that statement and the blind faith
ignorance of christianity is still stumbling into ditches trying to avoid this
reality.

But the real issue is, where is god? Where are the fossils of god or any
objective sightings of god or recordings of god? They don't exist anywhere
outside the imagination of christians. When will their make believing end and
reality begin?

>Blind evolutionary bias is a religion based on errors but supported by
>faith in the "just so" stories. No honest person would actually fall for
>such nonsence when all the dishonest contortions(Piltdown man. Peking
>man, Java man, Neanderthal man, Nebraska man(pig's tooth) Spotted moth,
>living fossils, earth's magnetic field flux, Polar ice caps with no salt,
>ocean salinity, earth cooling and on and on...) are made known to
>counterdict those who hold to an opinion of evolution. And evolution is
>only an opinion of those who hate God.

IknowHimDoYou and other christians have this grandiose belief that the whole
world revolves around them and their religion. Therefore they believe that you
and I cannot remain neutral in respect to their beliefs. Christians have issued
an ultimatum to all other religions in the world, that everyone must make a
choice between the only two religions in the world: Their's and everybody
else's. They have even deluded themselves into believing that they have a
moralistic religion with rules of what absolute right or wrong is. How can they
arrogantly claim to have all the answers for mankind when they can't even get
their own doctrines straight like their flip-flop on past issues of slavery,
women's rights, what consitutes proper dress, predestination, methods of worship
even, and so on? God says murder is absolutely wrong, yet turns around and has
Samuel go out and murder every man, pregnant woman, child or baby, and even
animal in the so-called Promise Land. So murder is absolutely wrong, yet
mass-murder, religious cleansing, ethnic cleansing, and racial cleansing, as
described in 1st Samuel 15:3, is alright? Do you want people who see nothing
wrong with believing in a God who does those kinds of things like that,
influencing or running your country in anyway, shape, or form? I know I don't.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

Josh
2003-09-21 22:27:13 EST
David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3F6E2C71.5A5874D1@cox.net>...
> Mark Johnson wrote:
> >
> > David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> And evolution is only an opinion of those who hate God.
>
> > >Evolution is a conglomeration of scientific theories that explain how
> > >life came to be what it is today--it has nothing to do with God, and
> > >rightfully so.
> >
> > It's called, materialism - Dave. Everyone knows that.
> >
> > Do you?
> >
> > You're going to discover that science makes a _lousy_ religion.
>
> Science isn't a religion, nor do I view it religiously.
>
> As usual, we have a clueless creationist making a presumption about
> another person without having all of the facts. Religiously and
> philosophically, I am not a materialist. *Scientifically*, well, that's
> another matter; but it also depends on how one applies the term.
>
> By the way, *mark* your snips. I had other things to say that show the
> context more clearly; and snipping it away as you did is dishonest and
> diversionary. The point that your selective snippage conceals is that
> the nameless person to whom I was responding was dead wrong on all
> points, not just the last one.
>
> [Snip]
>
I am jumping in in the middle of a conversation it looks like i dont
understand the whole convo but it sounds like one of you thinks
evolution is true and the other doesn't.

I agree you should mark your snips of crucial info. Such as a
reason for believing something. I have gone to a christian school my
whole life. I am christian but not one of the goody-goody type of
christians. My biology teacher taught me a lot of stuff. Including
the THEORY of Evolution. Evolution is a theory. There is no proof
what so-ever we evolved from the primordial soup. If you are familiar
with the experiment done to prove evolutionism (i forget who did it)
the guy why did it had to make that experiment. He did not throw
everything together turn it on and it worked. There is as much chance
of that as there is of you putting a chicken some milk and cake mix
next a heat source and expecting a cake to appear. How likely is
that? not very. Same principal applies to anything in life. Take a
part a watch completely, everything all that screws put it in a box
and shake it around. Will the watch put itself back together? no.

I understand this might be the same thing the letter was saying
before but i have not seen it so i am going off of what i ve read and
learned.

Josh

Hello! Please e-mail and let me know what you think of this
J*7@maplenet.net

Thomas McDonald
2003-09-21 22:50:38 EST



"Josh" <josh87@maplenet.net> wrote in message
news:9aa7e25e.0309211827.69964733@posting.google.com...
> David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<3F6E2C71.5A5874D1@cox.net>...
> > Mark Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > David Horn <askifyoureallywanttoknow@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> And evolution is only an opinion of those who hate God.
> >
> > > >Evolution is a conglomeration of scientific theories that explain how
> > > >life came to be what it is today--it has nothing to do with God, and
> > > >rightfully so.
> > >
> > > It's called, materialism - Dave. Everyone knows that.
> > >
> > > Do you?
> > >
> > > You're going to discover that science makes a _lousy_ religion.
> >
> > Science isn't a religion, nor do I view it religiously.
> >
> > As usual, we have a clueless creationist making a presumption about
> > another person without having all of the facts. Religiously and
> > philosophically, I am not a materialist. *Scientifically*, well, that's
> > another matter; but it also depends on how one applies the term.
> >
> > By the way, *mark* your snips. I had other things to say that show the
> > context more clearly; and snipping it away as you did is dishonest and
> > diversionary. The point that your selective snippage conceals is that
> > the nameless person to whom I was responding was dead wrong on all
> > points, not just the last one.
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> I am jumping in in the middle of a conversation it looks like i dont
> understand the whole convo but it sounds like one of you thinks
> evolution is true and the other doesn't.
>
> I agree you should mark your snips of crucial info. Such as a
> reason for believing something. I have gone to a christian school my
> whole life.

Josh,

What kind of Christian school do you go to, and what grade are you in?

I am christian but not one of the goody-goody type of
> christians. My biology teacher taught me a lot of stuff. Including
> the THEORY of Evolution.

Would you be willing to tell us what your teacher taught you about the
theory of evolution?

> Evolution is a theory.

Would you please tell us what you understand the term "theory" to mean
in a scientific context?


There is no proof
> what so-ever we evolved from the primordial soup. If you are familiar
> with the experiment done to prove evolutionism

Stop right there. No one has done any experiment to prove
'evolutionism'.
No more than anyone has done experiments to prove "gravitism". The term you
are looking for is "evolution"; and science doesn't deal in proof, but
rather evidence.

I think you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, which was to
investigate the issue of abiogenisis. It had nothing to do with the theory
of evolution. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, but rather
starts with the fact of life already in existence.

If your bio teacher didn't teach you that, your parents should ask for a
refund.

(i forget who did it)
> the guy why did it had to make that experiment. He did not throw
> everything together turn it on and it worked. There is as much chance
> of that as there is of you putting a chicken some milk and cake mix
> next a heat source and expecting a cake to appear. How likely is
> that? not very. Same principal applies to anything in life. Take a
> part a watch completely, everything all that screws put it in a box
> and shake it around. Will the watch put itself back together? no.

You parrot the common creationist line. I'm a bit surprised you didn't
use the "tornado in a junkyard can never result in a 747" bit. It is
irrelevant.

Unless you wish to explain the astronomical odds against the Christian
God's creation of the universe in six days a little over 6000 years ago in
exactly the way described in the Bible, as opposed to the thousands of other
stories about the creation.

>
> I understand this might be the same thing the letter was saying
> before but i have not seen it so i am going off of what i ve read and
> learned.
>
> Josh
>
> Hello! Please e-mail and let me know what you think of this
> Josh87@maplenet.net

--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply


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