Did Darwin Dethrone God? - Page 2

No he didn't

why whould he?

I mean, the evolutionary fact, its that, a fact, you can't say you don't belive it, it just its, so evolutionary theory, wich is the scientific model darwing proposed its about explaining the development of species though time, not it origins.

You wanna belive god set evolution in motion and that ID its right, well ok, but think about this, as evolution does not explain life ORIGINS, ID doesn't either, if you say well I don't know, but life is so complex god must've done it, well think again, if you atribute something to a supernatural unproven being you solve nothing, that supernatulral guy might as well be Thor or Mikey Mouse, either way that doesn't explains how life began.

But the fact its, our knoledge about life spawn on earth its growing stronger every day, so for example, if you take the basical chemicals of the primal soup, and apply electricity, you'll have amino acids, the stuff ARN its made of, that has been proven in lab tests and reproduce over and over again, so that: "how can't something come out of nothing?" its not quite right.

Learn, study, do reserch, and if you say "evolution its stupid", pal, you might not relly understand the whole model yet. keep studying.

Dr Bruce Lipton has some profound ideas and theories about evolution and our connection to God, look him up on UTUBE, quite a mind opener.

Lipton claims ID is right coz its OBVIOUS...

pretty convincing.

(''

besides that pseudo scientific nonsense about quantum self-help crap has no bases at all.

sorry, not a reliable source for me.

Lipton talks about cells having 'self antennas' and cells choosing which genes they want to use depending on their percieved environment. I don't recall Lipton ever mentioning I D.

he actually says that there is a purpose, a pattern that shows we are not here by random, that life it self shows there must be an intelligent being behind all things, so, as stupid as ID, you can watch he's videos under the "beyond Darwin" label on youtube.
Then he merges it with he's usual weird epigenetic theories.
Add he'sNur-Ab-Sal science and like "what the bleep do we know" tapes and books and you'll get my point.

Lipton is talking about the current mass extintion on Earth due to our own design. I didn't catch him mentioning anything about an external all powerfull being. I first heard of him in a film called 'Kymatica'.

quote:

---

But the fact its, our knoledge about life spawn on earth its growing stronger every day, so for example, if you take the basic chemicals of the primal soup, and apply electricity, you'll have amino acids, the stuff ARN its made of, that has been proven in lab tests and reproduce over and over again, so that: "how can't something come out of nothing?" its not quite right.

Learn, study, do research, and if you say "evolution its stupid", pal, you might not really understand the whole model yet. keep studying.

---

which is to say that science can neither prove (approve) nor disprove God

Tracer165's post of Dec.5 2008 is composed of nothing more that a misconception of the actual science that supports
Abiogenesis [Abg] and the Theory of Evolution [ToE] and is saturated throughout with numerous expressions of personal incredulity.

Had Tracer bothered to read all the posts in this topic, he may have informed himself of his error prior to writing such a poorly constructed exemplar of creationist drivel.

I take the opportunity to advise the reader that Tracer also is not the original author of his post but a plagiariser of a much longer article that can be found at the site presented here:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/freestuff/onlinelibrary/tabid/106/ctl/viewme
dia/mid/447/iid/93/lng/en/7/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test/sc/r/d
efault.aspx
And at this site as well: http://www.crcbermuda.com/sermons-seminars/library-of-sermons/537-how-ev
olution-flunked-the-science-test

Amazing Facts began as a single radio program back in 1966 and has blossomed into a large ministry under its founder Joe Crews. Its theology is largely that of the Seventh Day Adventists.

Tracer is a thief of other people's work. Obviously he would like you to believe that he is the author as he has not attributed one idea in his post to anyone but himself.

Each of his sub-topics is based on spurious interpretations of real science, outright lies concerning science and out-of-context quote selection from reputable scientists who support the facts and evidence for evolution. Given the length of his post, it therefore is beyond the scope of this discussion group for me to refute his and Crew's assertions item by item. Let it be accepted that given the authors' religious affilliations and their propensity to lie, misrepresent and quote-mine, then the rationally-minded, the followers of logic and plain common sense, will discover that Abg and the ToE have nothing to fear from this quarter.

I will point out though that Tracer's and Crews' hypocrisy is revealed by their incompetent quote-mining of apparent out of context passages from evolution scientists that give a facade of fundamental disagreement as to the mechanisms of evolution. Science freely acknowledges the controversy and admits to incompleteness of knowledge.

The smug complacency of their hypocrisy lies in the facts of there being several thousand sects of the christian religion, all utterly certain of their rectitude, within the USA alone. Each sect sees its rivals destined for an eternity of torment for heresy. Real, mainstream science is far less sanguine about the appearence of heresy.

Lastly, I will point out that the first suggestion of life, of Abiogenesis, is most likely to be found in a self-replicating molecule, a chemical composition nothing like a cell. The creationist tactic of stating a cell is the foundation of life and then demolishing the statement with self-righteous personal incredulity is called a STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT. This is a favourite tactic of the creationist. It is dishonest of course, but such dishonesty is considered legitimate in the furtherance of their god's glory. Perhaps VAINGLORY would be a more apt word for a figment so vain as to be so demanding of constant praise and worship.

Science has clearly demonstrated to those who will read and/or listen that Creationism is a lie, that Intelligent Design is a lie and the Anthropic Principle is a lie. One's mind must be shackled, bound-down and dedicated to grotesque obsequiousness in order that it NOT be convinced otherwise.

quote:

---

Science has clearly demonstrated to those who will read and/or listen that Creationism is a lie, that Intelligent Design is a lie and the Anthropic Principle is a lie. One's mind must be shackled, bound-down and dedicated to grotesque obsequiousness in order that it NOT be convinced otherwise.

---

Oh, I am sorry but I don't accept your evaluation as correct . . . not on some bases of religious view nor on these sited statements given. An absurd idea that life evolves or chemical composition gives the preception of form which is called the laws (rules) of science. I did read an article by an ID type that from a biological view, the very complexity of such systems should not evolve as any missing steps or interrelated development would not produce in effect the necessary component of Darwin's evolution theory based on the matter of coincidence. As for myself, I looked upon a butterfly that appearence (coloration) resembled a humingbird & thought 'what foolishness the idea that it was an accident of nature. That is my opinion but that life forms do contain numerous examples of progressively complex systems that do formed by ( very selective ) chemical reactions.
If you want to believe that life is all great coincidence by all means 'do so but DON'T deceive others by saying that science in anyway confirms your theology.

Squarepants

Lipton used to be a good scientist, but now he has the reputation of a fate teller.
he did really good work back on he's early career, but then he went nuts.
Now he just not only speaks about that quantum stupidity of a new age healing-pseudo science, but he also supports ID in he's own twisted way, saying "yes, there is a pattern, must be a high level intelligence that told our cells how to act".
Just bullshit and not evidence at all.

quote:

---

which is to say that science can neither prove (approve) nor disprove God

---

oh boy, all your posts are a fallacy after another.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, google it.


by the way, I repeat my self, since YOU belivers say there is a god, you have to back up it up.

gosh, theist have no idea about logic not even 101

Riot, that I have faith is of a personal experiences & tereforedo not apply to others therefore I do not contend to 'Prove that GOD exist'
As to the matter of Science, 'Darwin's Theories' are in fact theories, not laws of science. Which is to saythat science academically has not found enough evidence to raise it to the level of being a scientific truth. But then your previous post does make that assertion!

Science has never come across a truth, if it has then its not science, all theories can be proven wrong never proven right.

Alot of our so called science today is riden with dogma, science is more of a way of thinking than worldly facts. Its as if science has become a culture of parroting than questioning.

quote:

---

A lot of our so called science today is ridden with dogma, science is more of a way of thinking than worldly facts. Its as if science has become a culture of parroting than questioning.

---

Nicely stated suarepants. which to an extent we might see our educational system at fault. Science has always been the accounting of man's (pc=>mankind's) accumulated knowledge or understanding of his environment. That we must form ( build) a platform of knowledge in order to reach out for more or better understanding. While the act of building the platform is or tends to become parroting but the act of reaching out is more creative act. Which is not so easy to teach . . . Ex. Painting, Teaching the basics of this art form is one thing but application of the knowledge is the artistic expression of the individual artist. For me, I either paint with light (photography) or it is sometimes applying a new coat to the side of the house, The latter being practical application but not to creative in nature.

Darwin put forth a theory, nothing more. His attempt to explain what he could not fully understand or prove.