[quote='TheDarkestOfAngels' pid='106588' dateline='1290472719']
[quote] You set up a valid logical syllogism based on a faulty and erroneous premise that lacks empirical evidence, just like all creationists. Lethe's answer to your statements is not wrong and moreover you never addressed her actual statement as she made it. Your attempt at misdirection to address the issue that she has been brought up is showing once more. [/quote]
Ahh, you’re back. Sweet. I like when you post because they are pretty small time and I can respond with far less effort than it takes to respond to other posts on here.
Actually the burden of proof is on you since you have to prove that my premises are indeed false. Too just assert they are means nothing. I set up the valid syllogism, now the ball is in your court to demonstrate that either one of the premises are false.
Again, a case of ignorance or dishonesty is displayed in your post. I am unsure which one it is right now. I have never seen this argument used before, and I am thinking the reason for that is because it stinks. So the fact that I have a cell phone proves the Earth is old? Laughable.
Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on. That’s why it comes as no surprise that the worst regimes of the 20th century were heavily influenced by Darwinian Theory. Many of Darwin’s own relatives were part of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century.
As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science. Let’s see whether some well known atheists agree with you or me on the subject.
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
- Michael Ruse Professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
– Malcolm Muggeridge, Popular Atheistic British journalist and philosopher
“I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.”
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History
Is Evolution really used that much in Biology for discovery? Doesn’t look like it….
“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.”
-Larry A. Witham, Author of “Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America”
Does Evolution lead to the destruction of morality? According to Dawkins it does…
Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30
As to your assertion that Evolution is good for modern science…
"Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
- Philip Skell
The Scientist Vol. 19
As too your ridiculous assertion that Creationists have never contributed anything to modern science…
I hope you are aware that modern science itself arose from the monotheistic religions (Whitehead’s Hypothesis). The modern science we see today also directly arose from the Christian Reformation. Let’s see if any creationists actually contributed anything that is used still today…
Francis Bacon- The Scientific Method (that’s used quite a bit today I would say)
Geraldus Mercator- Funny you brought up GPS units, considering they use the Mercator Projection.
Galileo Galilei
Johann Kepler- Hmm, planetary motion? That may be used with GPS too haha.
Blaise Pascel
Robert Boyle- Gas Dynamics, mildly important today haha.
Isaac Newton- Let’s see, is Newtonian Physicist still used today? Haha this is too much fun.
John Dalton- Atomic Theory and Gas Law
John Kidd, M.D.- Chemical Synthetics, used in medicine today.
Joseph Henry- The Electric Motor
James Joule- Thermodynamics
Gregor Mendel- Genetrics
Louis Pasteur- Modern immunization practices.
P.G. Tait – Vector Analysis
Alexander MacAlister - Modern Anatomy
George Washington Carver
Nicolae Paulescu- Modern Physiology and Medicine
Richard Porter- Human spine and foot surgical pioneer
William Ramsay- Isotropic chemistry and element transmutation
J Rendle-short – Autism Research
I could go on, but I think I proved my point. So on the contrary, you can’t point to one area of Science that does not owe its very foundations to Young Earth Creationists. Just think how advanced we would be now if we still allowed them to work freely and did not persecute them? We’d probably have time machines by now haha.
So in short, Darwinism gives us Holocausts; Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity- easy enough.
[quote] You set up a valid logical syllogism based on a faulty and erroneous premise that lacks empirical evidence, just like all creationists. Lethe's answer to your statements is not wrong and moreover you never addressed her actual statement as she made it. Your attempt at misdirection to address the issue that she has been brought up is showing once more. [/quote]
Ahh, you’re back. Sweet. I like when you post because they are pretty small time and I can respond with far less effort than it takes to respond to other posts on here.
Actually the burden of proof is on you since you have to prove that my premises are indeed false. Too just assert they are means nothing. I set up the valid syllogism, now the ball is in your court to demonstrate that either one of the premises are false.
Again, a case of ignorance or dishonesty is displayed in your post. I am unsure which one it is right now. I have never seen this argument used before, and I am thinking the reason for that is because it stinks. So the fact that I have a cell phone proves the Earth is old? Laughable.
Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on. That’s why it comes as no surprise that the worst regimes of the 20th century were heavily influenced by Darwinian Theory. Many of Darwin’s own relatives were part of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century.
As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science. Let’s see whether some well known atheists agree with you or me on the subject.
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
- Michael Ruse Professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
– Malcolm Muggeridge, Popular Atheistic British journalist and philosopher
“I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.”
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History
Is Evolution really used that much in Biology for discovery? Doesn’t look like it….
“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.”
-Larry A. Witham, Author of “Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America”
Does Evolution lead to the destruction of morality? According to Dawkins it does…
Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30
As to your assertion that Evolution is good for modern science…
"Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
- Philip Skell
The Scientist Vol. 19
As too your ridiculous assertion that Creationists have never contributed anything to modern science…
I hope you are aware that modern science itself arose from the monotheistic religions (Whitehead’s Hypothesis). The modern science we see today also directly arose from the Christian Reformation. Let’s see if any creationists actually contributed anything that is used still today…
Francis Bacon- The Scientific Method (that’s used quite a bit today I would say)
Geraldus Mercator- Funny you brought up GPS units, considering they use the Mercator Projection.
Galileo Galilei
Johann Kepler- Hmm, planetary motion? That may be used with GPS too haha.
Blaise Pascel
Robert Boyle- Gas Dynamics, mildly important today haha.
Isaac Newton- Let’s see, is Newtonian Physicist still used today? Haha this is too much fun.
John Dalton- Atomic Theory and Gas Law
John Kidd, M.D.- Chemical Synthetics, used in medicine today.
Joseph Henry- The Electric Motor
James Joule- Thermodynamics
Gregor Mendel- Genetrics
Louis Pasteur- Modern immunization practices.
P.G. Tait – Vector Analysis
Alexander MacAlister - Modern Anatomy
George Washington Carver
Nicolae Paulescu- Modern Physiology and Medicine
Richard Porter- Human spine and foot surgical pioneer
William Ramsay- Isotropic chemistry and element transmutation
J Rendle-short – Autism Research
I could go on, but I think I proved my point. So on the contrary, you can’t point to one area of Science that does not owe its very foundations to Young Earth Creationists. Just think how advanced we would be now if we still allowed them to work freely and did not persecute them? We’d probably have time machines by now haha.
So in short, Darwinism gives us Holocausts; Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity- easy enough.
