Journey Inside The Cell

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
In this instance, quite apart from wrongly attributing the quote he was allegedly lampooning, RBHill butchered Dawkins' original quote to dramatically change the meaning. Dawkins, a very respected scientist, asserted that ignorance [b]or stupidity or insanity or wickedness would be at the root of any rejection of the process of evo ...[text shortened]... ow recognised in law as not constituting a credible scientific alternative to evolution.[/b]

One has recourse to artistic license, has one not?

Whether it can be demonstrated in reality is again entirely open to debate, in fact, its generally understood that it cannot be falsified, that the fossil record does not show a gradual transmutation, that life appears suddenly, that mutations do not produce new species and are always inferior, that the DNA has a self mechanising system to prevent and fix aberration, blah de blah de blah. Also if a respected scientist makes claims about creationists whether its or/and that he inserts between his insults then you cannot expect anything less in return and you cannot cry because RBHill mimics the same.

The fact that its protected by law says nothing about the issue, its a guinea stamp (you must read Burns to understand this last statement)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One has recourse to artistic license, has one not?

Whether it can be demonstrated in reality is again entirely open to debate, in fact, its generally understood that it cannot be falsified, that the fossil record does not show a gradual transmutation, that life appears suddenly, that mutations do not produce new species and are always inferior, ...[text shortened]... hing about the issue, its a guinea stamp (you must read Burns to understand this last statement)

The world goes round and life changes but you can be guaranteed Robbie will still be churning out the same old creationist canards.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The world goes round and life changes but you can be guaranteed Robbie will still be churning out the same old creationist canards.

wicked and insane materialist! 😠

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One has recourse to artistic license, has one not?

Whether it can be demonstrated in reality is again entirely open to debate, in fact, its generally understood that it cannot be falsified, that the fossil record does not show a gradual transmutation, that life appears suddenly, that mutations do not produce new species and are always inferior, ...[text shortened]... hing about the issue, its a guinea stamp (you must read Burns to understand this last statement)

The fact remains that evolution does happen. The same cannot be said for ID. Dawkins accuses RBHill of no more than ignorance - RBHill accuses Dawkins of being ignorant, stupid, insane and wicked. The difference between 'or' and 'and' is the difference between a reasonable if provocative statement and an egregious insult.

And regarding the legal status of ID, guinea's stamp or not it seems to me that in view of the duration of the proceedings, the strength of feelings involved, the money spent and the consequences for the education systems of the west, it says rather a lot about the issue. One might even say that the verdict is the "gowd", for a' that.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
The fact remains that evolution [b]does happen. The same cannot be said for ID. Dawkins accuses RBHill of no more than ignorance - RBHill accuses Dawkins of being ignorant, stupid, insane and wicked. The difference between 'or' and 'and' is the difference between a reasonable if provocative statement and an egregious insult.

And regarding t a lot about the issue. One might even say that the verdict is the "gowd", for a' that.[/b]

I will leave others to debate about whether it 'actually happens', or not.

This last point is more interesting, for Finnegan tried to assert the very same, that the introduction of intelligent design in the education system would, 'destroy that system', which of course is a nonsense, for creationists do not want to eradicate present Darwinian evolution, they simply want to present an alternative interpretation of the very same data. It is utterly bigoted that they should not be allowed to do that, for on the one hand they are subject to base materialism, but on the other they cannot present their own perspective merely because it has religious connotations? What has in fact transpired is that materialist have framed their position through decree, merely because of their abhorrence of religion.

I have a dream when little theist kids and little materialists shall go to school hand in hand knowing that both materialism and intelligent design may be part of the curriculum and that they shall be free to choose which one seems more plausible to them based on an evaluation of the data.

"Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children—creationists and materialists will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Creationist spiritual: 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty (insert materialist illuminary, lets say Darwin), we are free at last!"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will leave others to debate about whether it 'actually happens', or not.

This last point is more interesting, for Finnegan tried to assert the very same, that the introduction of intelligent design in the education system would, 'destroy that system', which of course is a nonsense, for creationists do not want to eradicate present Darwinian ev ...[text shortened]... ionist spiritual: 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

It does happen, of that there is no doubt - whether it alone is responsible for the development of life as we see it is certainly not beyond argument, I'll grant you that.

Intelligent Design can still be taught in schools, just not under the label of science since it is, ultimately, unscientific according to the broadly accepted definition of the word 'science'.

Now let you and I hold hands while I fight for your freedom to hold unscientific beliefs and you for my freedom to reject your lord's salvation! You see? Your dream is reality!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What has in fact transpired is that materialist have framed their position through decree, merely because of their abhorrence of religion.

There must be an awful lot of materialists out there who abhor religion. In fact, large numbers of these materialists who support the teaching of evolution as science in schools and support the teaching of religion as religion in classes on that subject just happen to be members of religions themselves. I guess the religions they abhor must only be those that wish to teach creationism as science.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It does happen, of that there is no doubt - whether it alone is responsible for the development of life as we see it is certainly not beyond argument, I'll grant you that.

Intelligent Design can still be taught in schools, just not under the label of science since it is, ultimately, unscientific according to the broadly accepted definition of the fs and you for my freedom to reject your lord's salvation! You see? Your dream is reality!

There are certain persons who also think that Darwinian evolutionary theory is pure metaphysics 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
There must be an awful lot of materialists out there who abhor religion. In fact, large numbers of these materialists who support the teaching of evolution as science in schools and support the teaching of religion as religion in classes on that subject just happen to be members of religions themselves. I guess the religions they abhor must only be those that wish to teach creationism as science.

Yes that is correct, no surprises there, wicked, insane and ignorant materialists, your falling over them everywhere you look! Evolution is pure metaphysics!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There are certain persons who also think that Darwinian evolutionary theory is pure metaphysics 😉

Indeed, however these persons are wrong. Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is a scientific theory based on a careful and rational examination of observed facts and from which testable predictions can be made. Intelligent Design conversely is a philosophical theory, which is a different animal entirely.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Indeed, however these persons are wrong. Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is a scientific theory based on a careful and rational examination of observed facts and from which testable predictions can be made. Intelligent Design conversely is a philosophical theory, which is a different animal entirely.

No its not the same, one does not observe life spontaneously arising from non life, indeed, all attempts to replicate it have failed (the closest anyone has got is synthesising self replicating RNA strands, and please dont try to state that this belongs to abiogenesis, the two share the very same foundation, a materialistic view of the emergence and diversification of life), one does not see a gradual transmutation of one species into another, ones sees a spontaneous generation of life, without precedent into certain families. One notices that in squillions of experiments on mutations, there were NO new species produced after observation. You will need to accept these scientifically established facts. Evolutionary theory is pure metaphysics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will leave others to debate about whether it 'actually happens', or not.

This last point is more interesting, for Finnegan tried to assert the very same, that the introduction of intelligent design in the education system would, 'destroy that system', which of course is a nonsense, for creationists do not want to eradicate present Darwinian ev ...[text shortened]... ank God Almighty (insert materialist illuminary, lets say Darwin), we are free at last!"

Sorry to burst your bubble Rob, but you seem to be (deliberately?) neglecting the fact, that many theists do accept evolution. I know it's nice and convenient for you to follow this simple formula -

Atheism = Materialism = Evolution = Bad
Theism = Spiritualism = Creationism (or Intelligent Design to give it it's new sexy name) = Good

but it's not as simple as that is it? There are millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people who believe in God and accept evolution, theistic evolution is it's name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Your organisation doesn't accept evolution, but there are countless people who do within the Christian faith and other religions worldwide. Let's not tarnish them all with them same brush.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not the same, one does not observe life spontaneously arising from non life, indeed, all attempts to replicate it have failed (the closest anyone has got is synthesising self replicating RNA strands, and please dont try to state that this belongs to abiogenesis, the two share the very same foundation, a materialistic view of the emergence and ...[text shortened]... need to accept these scientifically established facts. Evolutionary theory is pure metaphysics.

Darwinian Evolutionary Theory does not address the origins of life. There are enormous numbers of fossils that show characteristics of different species, groups and families, so many indeed that they are referred to generally as transitional fossils. Evolutionary scientists freely admit that the pace of evolutionary change appears to be incredibly rapid at times, and while various mechanisms have been suggested to explain this widespread agreement thereon has not been established.

Finally, this website details a number of new species shown to have evolved from pre-existing species:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

You, sir, will need to accept these scientifically established facts, and the scientifically established process of evolution.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry to burst your bubble Rob, but you seem to be (deliberately?) neglecting the fact, that many theists do accept evolution. I know it's nice and convenient for you to follow this simple formula -

Atheism = Materialism = Evolution = Bad
Theism = Spiritualism = Creationism (or Intelligent Design to give it it's new sexy name) = Good

but it's not tian faith and other religions worldwide. Let's not tarnish them all with them same brush.

My dear Noobster, you know as well as I do, they also accept situation ethics (lying), abortion (murder of innocents), war (mass murder of innocents) and a whole host of other infidelities. The acceptance therefore of a theory which is diametrically opposed to the revealed word of God is hardly a surprise, is it? It is no wonder that they are like ships without a port, unable to distinguish between truth and plausability, blind guides, indeed, we shall ask them, on what religious basis do they accept the theory, and they have no answer, for it cannot be established spiritually. Indeed, i challenge you or anyone else to show why a Christian should accept it.


eerie silence. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Darwinian Evolutionary Theory does not address the origins of life. There are enormous numbers of fossils that show characteristics of different species, groups and families, so many indeed that they are referred to generally as transitional fossils. Evolutionary scientists freely admit that the pace of evolutionary change appears to be incredibly r ...[text shortened]... e scientifically established facts, and the scientifically established process of evolution.[/b]

sorry, but the transition was soooo not happening you had to invent a theory to counterbalance the anomalies, its termed punctuated equilibrium, and indeed we find this type of reasoning throughout the hypothesis. Its pure metaphysics, nothing more. Shall i direct you towards drosophila (fruit fly experiments), where literally tens of thousands of attempts were made to establish a new species through mutation, result, in each and every instance the mutated fly was inferior to the parent. No new species!

I will never accept evolution, it runs contrary to the revealed word of God and is unscientific and my dear Sir, if you think that i shall be sucked in to another futile debate about the incongruities of your metaphysical theory, think again!