Icons of Evolution: Science or Religion? (Clip 2)

[gregrutz]

No, it is 'Science proves the bible wrong again and again'.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz And I'll see you in hell :D

[gregrutz]

What a liar. It is Science proves the Bible wrong again and again.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz By science do you mean the fallible opinion of man? and by prove do you mean, if it's not naturally possible then it didn't happen? I find it risible that you would think such utter nonsense when it is the bible, that archaeologists refer back to when it comes to historical accuracy.

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel No I mean Science the total sum of man's discoveries. Like when science proved the earth is not the center of everything like the bible says.

Archaeologists are like every other scientists, they look at the facts not the myths.

The bible is a poor history book.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz Let us be clear. Accurate knowledge (truth) about physical reality can be discovered by the methods of both operation science and origin science. But truth claims in both areas may be false. Many “proven facts” about how things operate, as well as about how things originated have been or will be shown to be false. So, as best we can, we must be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and examine every truth claim against Scripture and look for faulty logic or false assumptions.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz Rather, it is a conflict between worldviews—a creationist’s starting assumptions (a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s starting assumptions (an antibiblical worldview).

The next time someone uses the word science in relation to the creation/evolution controversy, ask him first to define what he means. Only then can you begin to have a fruitful discussion about origins.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz Thus, creationists and evolutionists develop totally different reconstructions of history. But they accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves. So, the battle between the Bible and molecules-to-man evolution is not one of religion versus science.

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel But evolution is a fact. You can take your bible glassed off now.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz If you think that everything can be known by science you're wrong. In fact your comment refutes itself, if that is in fact what you believe. Because you cannot scientifically prove that the statement saying "evolution is a fact" you must use reason and logic to work that out from the observational experiments you've done, using science. I must say, I'm surprise that you actually admit that you evolutionists look through the world wearing "evolution glasses" that's first! Well done :D

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz Also during this time, creation geologists have been identifying evidence that points to the catastrophic formation of most of the rock record during the unique global Flood of Noah’s day. These present-day observations help us to consider the possible causes of past events, such as the formation of the Grand Canyon. But operation science cannot tell us with certainty what actually happened in the past.

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.

We know this from the fossils in it, the type of sand and the type of cross bedding.

There are 44 Distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK exposed in the Grand Canyon.

Some are slow growing corals like in the Redwall limestone.

Floods don’t do that.

Not all sedimentary rock is from water! Like ash layers.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz What have you shown me is an evidential argument for evolution, I think it's for evolution I'm not sure, you were extremely vague on that lol! But that's alright, your presuppositions are telling you how to look at the rock layers, and thus you look at the evidence in a way to supporter evolution. It is not possible to look at evidence from an objective view point because no one can approach evidence without taking a position first, and if you think you are, that is it self a position.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz Until quite recently, many geologists have used studies of current river erosion and sedimentation to explain how sedimentary rock layers were formed or eroded slowly over millions of years. In the past few decades, however, even secular geologists have begun to recognize that catastrophic processes are a better explanation for many of the earth’s rock layers.

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel No one says catastrophic processes don't happen. Geologist know the earth is old. Go look at all the layers in the Grand Canyon.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today. Creation scientists make these same observations, but they recognize that the change has limits and has never been observed to change one kind into another.

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel one kind into another. Dogs make dogs. Apes make Apes. That is why humans are still apes, still mammals. As per evolution.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz I don't see many children lying on their back, squirting their pee into their own mouth mister! That's what animals do. In fact animals kill their own kind If we did that we would be sent to prison for cannibalism, and more likely probably sent to a mental home.. Now.. don't you see how ludicrous that sounds?? That we are still apes. It's nonsense. I don't know of many evolutions who are convinced in thinking that people are still animals. we're are on a totally different level of life

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel ''In fact animals kill their own kind '' Do you live under a rock? Humans make war.

Learn so LOGIC dummy.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz At this point, you must realize that the debate is not about operation science, which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.

Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel Natural processes and time are sufficent to explain everything. What is your problem?

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz really? is that so? so natural processes are sufficient to explaining that In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL! My problem with atheists is that they're never able to live our their life consistently.

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel Who told you that bull shit? The big bang, an expansion of space-time, is not evolution. No one says ''nothing exploded'' except creatards.

Why can't religious people see the forces of nature?

''magically rearranged itself for no reason '' Grow up.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz Buddy, neither of us were talking about evolution, but you said that "Natural processes and time are sufficent to explain everything." and so I mentioned the big bang. and then you say that has nothing to do with evolution... are you TRYING to refute your own worldview here? as soon as you see the absolute absurdity in your own worldview you go. nup nup, THAT"S not what I believe, it can't be. How ironic lol!

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel I was talking about Evolution, not one of Hovinds may evoltuions. You know, the religion of Darwinism. The one that proves your bible wrong.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz And if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance which are not at all interested in making you intelligent, all it cares about is making sure you produce babies, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

[gregrutz]

@Woreyel ''as the atheist contends'' No, it is what SCIENTISTS contend.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.” But over the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific Revolution, the word science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth. Moreover, many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth. Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth.

[Woreyel]

@gregrutz People are generally unaware that dictionaries give a root meaning, or etymology, of science similar to this one from Webster’s: “from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens ‘having knowledge,’ from present participle of scire ‘to know.’” And most dictionaries give the following meaning of the word: “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.”

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

One-planet evolution is definitely insufficient to explain what we have here. The problem is with house-niggers like PZ Myers, getting in the way of the discovery process.

[ianmac2010]

Eugenie Scott says "There is no controversy among scientists about...."

That statement is propaganda, and it's chilling. There is obviously controversy among scientists about EVERYTHING.

The fact is that many scientists and philosophers are silent on Darwinism (or tow the party line) out of fear. It's understandable. Who wants to ruin their career over a principle?

Science is ruled by fascists. Look at the Climategate scandal. It parallels this debate. Step out of line, and they shoot you.

[Fuglebolle]

@ianmac2010 What Eugenie Scott says is correct.

Both David Berlinski and Scott Minnich are fellows at the Disovery Institute, which is the christian fundamentalist group that redefined the bible myth and called it a scientific theory.

Among real scientists, those who aren't paid money by religious fundamentalists, there is no controversy to the theory of evolution. It is as fundamental as gravity, and there are no scientific evidence to the contrary.

[Information39]

@ianmac2010 Really? The History Channel doesnt think it is propaganda (watch Ape to Man). Nova doesnt think it is propaganda (watch Becoming Human), National Geographics doesnt think so either (Human Origin Project) nor does the Smithsonian Institute. Seems the only place that thinks it is propoganda is the Discovery Institute, which I am sure is where you are getting your information. Watch "Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial" if you think the info you are getting is correct.

[HPoelzig]

Seeing as the scheme to sneak Creationism into schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design" failed in the US courts, Creationism seems to have joined Communism and Fascism on the trash heap of history, while science marches on. Of course you'll still find vids for those other obsolete ideogies on You Tube, too, but that doesn't mean they've got any teeth left.

[loonpolice1]

It blows my mind what absolute idiocy people will suck up. Ask one of these idiots how we get from mud to a living cell and they'll give you happy meals like 'piggy backing crystals.' TACDFA

That's A Complete DF Answer.

And yet if you suck on that really well, I mean really really well, you'll go places.

Why, because that'll give drug companies full reign to do WTFTW.

[gregrutz]

Science vs. Science ?!?

Tell 'em Eugenie

[evolutionisus]

It is very sad that Berlinski is not honest about who funds him. He is a fellow of Discovery Institute and they only support ID, be it be by some god or the aliens. Lets stop with all the ego bull and get to work and do real science.  Let's use what we know about evolutionary mechanisms to produce a sustainable and healthy world. Lets stop wasting time on egotistical non-issues, please!

[jim0watkins]

sounds good... what are the evolutionary mechanisms?

[lexscripta1]

"Very true, the 'ID movement' has been completely intellectually debunked"

Well, I suppose that since you made this statement it must automatically be true? Evolution looks silly, is logically goofy, and those that believe it have to make leaps of faith in the face of contrary evidence by the admissions of their own evolutionist priesthood.

[thrassian]

drummrath, couple points:

1) Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the earth.

2) If ID is to be taught in schools it should first present a working scientific theory (ie. more than "gosh it's complex, a wizard must have done it!") and start attending scientific meetings and defend its arguments there. If it is able to defend its position there then it will *automatically* begin to appear in textbooks as a valid theory.

[SkinnerRichard]

It's like this: These people cannot get over that genesis is just a story. If they want their God, that's fine, Evolution does not take God away; it makes no comment on this being. The universe - and God is this being exists - is far more elegant and complex than any millenia-old holy book can provide.

[mejc2]

Science. they are talking about science. No one is talking about religion.

[animecha]

ID is religion. period.

[lexscripta1]

"ID is religion. period. "

No, its an obvious conclusion to the data that's available.

[macomoto]

Hey, look up "cdesign proponentsists" so that you can educate yourself.

[ryanmail2004]

I agree, ID being religion is "an obvious conclusion to the data that's available"

[gregrutz]

That is not what the courts ruled, they said ID is creationism and can't be taught in school. You lost.

[jim0watkins]

how do you support that argument?

[tabeflave]

I'm just curious what you thought about Richard Dawkins comment at the end of the movie Expelled? He basically said that there is some possibility of a higher life form that started it all. Even as far as to offer aliens as a possible option. I just think that I.D. is trying to explain how it all started and as far as I know, the only evolutionary explanation is the "Big Bang". What say you?

[macomoto]

The comment of Richard Dawkins was edited and cut and paste so to look as if he mentioned intelligent design. Google "lying for jesus" so that you can educate yourself

[TheFallibleFiend]

There is no "growing number of scientists." David Berlinski is one of a very few evolution nay-sayers who is not a religious fundamentalists. The ID movements own records who that ID is just a wedge for getting religion in the classroom. The controversy is manufactured. The dissent is *NOT* scientific. It's political and religious.

[ngarey]

Very true, the 'ID movement' has been completely intellectually debunked as science, and now they are desperatly fighting their last stand in politics and in the media, with these new propoganda movies like 'expelled', its quite sad really.

[mejc2]

the evolutioinary fairy tale is unwinding before your eyes. It's like the emporer's clothes, he isn't wearing any.

[drummrath]

It has always bothered me that 1) Evolution is the only theory of the formation of the Earth taught in school, and in a science room no less. If taught at all it should be taught in a philosophy setting.

2) Evolutionists have become like the Creationists they so hate. Not allowing anyone to doubt there beliefs. Firing teachers for giving ID a chance. Only evolution to be taught in schools. This is wrong and should be stopped.

[lexscripta1]

"The dissent is *NOT* scientific. It's political and religious. "

Well, that's what happens when evolutionists start cramming garbage up peoples noses. It sort of stinks and causes nose bleeds.

The data is much more in support of ID than evolution.