Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

[Orogeny]

Dear YEC Donna,

The anti-evolutionists you are talking about (AiG, and Kolbe Center) get their “science” from the Bible.

Exactly. They ignore any evidence that opposes their preconceived notions of science. In fact, at AiG, they sign a “Statement of Faith” that requires them to do just that. So much for your “science” sources.

Too bad you don’t understand basic science and aren’t willing to learn any, YEC Donna, because it is fascinating.

Peace

Tim

 

[danielsgram]

Oh Tim:

Geneticist Maciej Giertych lectures on genetics at a Polish University. He does not use the bible to come to his conclusions. He uses his knowledge of genetics. You know, you could prove me wrong by reading up on what he has to say and quoting all the biblical references that you find.

This is the same ole same ol. You denegrate the man because you have no “come back” for his writings. Its clear to me.

Donna

 

[Orogeny]

But Steve the evolutionists do indeed believe that amphibians evolved into frogs. www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/amph3.htm

Those silly evolutionists!!! Next thing you know, they will be trying to tell us that mice are mammals!!!

Ahem, er, YEC Donna, frogs ARE amphibians. So are salamanders, newts and toads. You know, basic science stuff. Oh yeah, I forgot that you don’t care to learn that athiestic stuff. Sorry.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Oh Tim:

Geneticist Maciej Giertych lectures on genetics at a Polish University. He does not use the bible to come to his conclusions. He uses his knowledge of genetics. You know, you could prove me wrong by reading up on what he has to say and quoting all the biblical references that you find.

This is the same ole same ol. You denegrate the man because you have no “come back” for his writings. Its clear to me.

Donna

Oh YEC Donna. Once he publishes his quack ideas in a peer-reviewed article in a peer-reviewed journal, he will be discussed seriously. Until then, I don’t care where he gets his quack ideas.

I don’t denigrate the man. I have done a lot of reading and I have come to the conclusion that he is a quack. Just as you have come to your conclusions about evolution. I just followed your lead.

Peace

Tim

 

[danielsgram]

Okay Tim you caught me in a mistake. But it isn’t my work that you need to consider but the antievolution scientists. I will consider any atheists scientific work but I will seek out an antievolution scientist to see what he has to say on a topic. I’m betting antievolution scientists wouldn’t make this mistake. I’m the researcher here, not the authority.
I’m easy to refute, don’t waste your time refuting me. Did you ever see the T.V. commercial where a man is parking his car in reverse and is all happy with himself that he can do that until the camera pulls away and it show a virtually empty parking lot? That is how easy it is for you to win in a debate with me. My role that I have chosen here is to point out where to find scientists on the other side of the debate. Look into what the scientists on the other side have to say. I don’t mind pointing out that you folks are heavy on the ad hominem and feather light on substance to counter the scientists who disagree with you.

Donna

 

[danielsgram]

Oh YEC Donna. Once he publishes his quack ideas in a peer-reviewed article in a peer-reviewed journal, he will be discussed seriously. Until then, I don’t care where he gets his quack ideas.

I guess he is teaching quack ideas in a Polish University. You should bring the powers that be up to speed. Maybe they will fire him.

I don’t denigrate the man. I have done a lot of reading and I have come to the conclusion that he is a quack. Just as you have come to your conclusions about evolution. I just followed your lead.

How about posting some of his quackery and refuting it. You are the scientist here it should be a piece of cake for you.

Donna

 

[Orogeny]

Okay Tim you caught me in a mistake. But it isn’t my work that you need to consider but the antievolution scientists. I will consider any atheists scientific work but I will seek out an antievolution scientist to see what he has to say on a topic. I’m betting antievolution scientists wouldn’t make this mistake. I’m the researcher here, not the authority.

Sorry, YEC Donna, but I choose not to believe you when you say that you will consider any athiests scientific work. You have shown here and in other forums that your mind is closed.

As far as “anti-evolution scientists” go, I have considered their “work” and I reject it completely. They are no more scientists than you are.

I don’t mind pointing out that you folks are heavy on the ad hominem and feather light on substance to counter the scientists who disagree with you.

Donna

Your avoidance of the science presented to you here and in other places makes this constant crying about ad hominem attacks laughable. Your sources are not scientists. They don’t do science because they let their idea of faith stop them dead in their tracks when it comes to evidence. It is not an ad hominem when it is true.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I guess he is teaching quack ideas in a Polish University. You should bring the powers that be up to speed. Maybe they will fire him.

Care to give me a link to ANY of his course notes where he teaches that stuff?

How about posting some of his quackery and refuting it. You are the scientist here it should be a piece of cake for you.

How about posting some of his quackery and supporting it. You continuously use him as a source. Why not show where he has sucessfully defended his faith, er, beliefs, er, science in a peer-reviewed paper in a peer-reviewed journal? Hmmm?

Peace

Tim

 

[danielsgram]

How about posting some of his quackery and supporting it. You continuously use him as a source. Why not show where he has sucessfully defended his faith, er, beliefs, er, science in a peer-reviewed paper in a peer-reviewed journal? Hmmm?

Tim, can you show where you have successfully defended your faith, er, beliefs, er, science in a peer-reviewed paper etc.?

Another thing, I noticed that you didn’t show his quackery so that you could deal his science a death blow. Its because you can’t do that little thing. Neither can Phil that’s why he keeps telling people not to listen to antievolutionists. BTW, can you quote him using bible verses to back up his science?

Donna

 

[zian]

… The author tries his hand at being funny I hope that you will look past that to read what he says. In no way do I mean to demean your (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject and I am afraid that that is what you might think if I ask you to read it. kolbecenter.org/fishwick_fairytales.html

Well, Donna, I am a bit put off to the article you link from the beginning, since the author does not think his (or her) wit so devastatingly clever that he (or she) deigns to give us the benefit of their real name. There is one section of the text I sympathisize with -
Lobes Humanist Darwinson:

The New York Times pontificated … Because very little scientific fact is known about Tiktaalik roseae we are, as always when it comes to evolutionism, presented with an enormous deluge of philosophical speculation and assumption.

As the New York Times is not a refereed science journal, I am not concerned about what they may “pontificate” about. Like you, I would imagine, I am occasionally annoyed by the philosphical speculations that can accompany news stories like this (Tiktaalik in this case) in the popular press. I’d much rather the press would just give us a good discussion of the science involved, and perhaps a modest look at some potential implications. Alas, I fear this will never happen. They have to sell newspapers and magazines after all, and flash seems to always trump substance. {sigh}

The rest of the article seems to just throw up a reminder about the Piltdown hoax (a hoax revealed by evolutionists using the scientific method) and then to make a passing reference to Berthault’s research as if this has overthrown the whole modern understanding of geology. Real geologists (I am not one) disagree. Perhaps more data will change the situation. We shall see.

 

[PhilVaz]

Donna says look here:

kolbecenter.org/fishwick_fairytales.html
creationontheweb.com/content/view/1702
uncommondescent.com/archives/1711

I ask: Who is the author, what peer-reviewed publication is that in, why should anyone care what the Kolbe Center says on Tiktaalik? Who is CreationOnTheWeb and why should anyone care about them? We’ve covered the Polish scientist in other threads. Apparently he thinks there is good evidence that human beings lived with the dinosaurs. What is that evidence?

Donna << Please c/p all the references to the bible that you find. You are very good at ad hominem Phil. Deal with the information…And find all the references to the bible form me in “Pro-ID geneticist Maciej Giertych in his own words” Deal with the information, not the man. >>

I’ve been here too long. Here is what “anti-evolutionist” geologists think and why:

In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation edited by John Ashton (2000)

There are 3 creationist geologists in the book.

Geologist #1: Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology from the Univ of Sydney

He begins his chapter:

“So why do I believe in the biblical account of creation by God over six literal days as the origin of life on earth, followed later by a year-long global geological catastrophe that totally renovated the earth’s surface, as described in the biblical account of Noah’s flood? The reason is that the Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day creation and a global flood, not only in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, but also throughout the Old and New Testaments, including being confirmed by Jesus Christ himself. No matter how clever we scientists are in our research, we can only study all the evidence today (as it exists today) and then extrapolate backwards into the past. In doing so we have to make assumptions, and we can never be absolutely certain that our assumptions are correct and, therefore, our interpretations of what happened in the past is correct. On the other hand, the Bible claims over 3000 times to be the Word of the transcendent, personal God, who has always existed, who is all knowing, and is totally truthful.” (pages 291-292)

Geologist #2: Elaine Kennedy, Ph.D. in geology from USC

She begins her chapter:

“As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and ‘it was.’ So it probably seems strange to some that I believe God created this world in six literal days…” (page 314)

“As a Christian, I find abundance evidence for the existence of a Creator and the greatest evidence is found in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is my experience and it is from this platform of faith that I look at the geologic data.” (page 315)

“Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates; however, we do know that much research needs to be done and we know multiple interpretations of the distributions concerning the processes involved are possible. Despite this possibility, dates are often used to refute biblical chronologies as though no questions or arguments oppose these conclusions. When interpreting scientific data, I use the same techniques and approaches as my colleagues, but my assumptions come from my biblical paradigm. I often recognize conflicts; indeed, the geologic literature reminds me daily that conflict exists, and many aspects of the geologic record are difficult to explain to the satisfaction of my colleagues or myself.” (page 315)

She ends her chapter:

“I believe that our Creator revealed to us in the Bible an honest and accurate account of our origins and weekly I rejoice in the memorial of that six-day event…I realized that I consider God’s revelation more valid than human reason, because I experience His recreative power in my life daily.” (page 316)

Geologist #3: Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, studying (amazingly) under Stephen Jay Gould

He ends his chapter:

“…it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis…Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear. Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.” (page 355)

Bible, Bible, and Bible. That’s where they get their science. My point established. All they need to do is find a Devonian sheep. No I am not talking about this:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/DevonianSheep.jpg

Phil P, bahhhhhh

 

[PhilVaz]

PhilVaz says << The anti-evolutionists you are talking about (AiG, and Kolbe Center) get their “science” from the Bible. >>

Donna says << I don’t know about AIG Phil. How about proving that assertion regarding the Kolbe Center. >>

AiG proven above. Now for Kolbe Center. DONE.

Kolbe Center Mission Statement

“The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is a Roman Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to glorifying the Most Holy Trinity by proclaiming the truth about the origins of man and the universe. The Kolbe Center seeks to educate the public, particularly within the Catholic Church, in the truth of creation as revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and as confirmed by the findings of modern science.”

Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible. Hello?

Next paragraph…

“The Kolbe Center is committed in a special way to defending the Catholic teaching that “the literal and obvious sense of Scripture” as intended by the sacred authors must be believed unless reason or necessity force us to reject that teaching in favor of an exclusively figurative interpretation.”

Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible. Hello?

With a little bit of tradition and early Popes and early Fathers thrown in since they’re Catholic.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, can you show where you have successfully defended your faith, er, beliefs, er, science in a peer-reviewed paper etc.?

Another thing, I noticed that you didn’t show his quackery so that you could deal his science a death blow. Its because you can’t do that little thing. Neither can Phil that’s why he keeps telling people not to listen to antievolutionists. BTW, can you quote him using bible verses to back up his science?

Donna

Good try, YEC Donna. If you can’t substantiate his arguments, you should not use them. I don’t have to debunk that which has no merit to begin with.

Peace

Tim

 

[danielsgram]

Hello everyone who has been interested in this topic.

Tim has snubbed his nose at Professor Maciej Giertych. He calls the professor a “quack”. Tim tells us he will not take him (Giertych) seriously unless he gets his work published in a peer-reviewed publication. Now, I already knew how sinister some of those peer-reviewed publications can be but if I had said so without evidence I would have been ridiculed. I’ll probably be ridiculed anyway. If you read the first url you will see that ridicule is one of the arrows in the quiver of the evolution religion’s apologists. You see it regularly on this exact forum. If you read what the author on the first url writes and are not finally convinced that evolution is a religion then you must not understand English. (Professor Giertych calls evolution a philosophy but I have decided that it is a religion complete with dogma that is considered infallible)

attw.org/TCQarticles/9.2/9-2Sullivan.pdf

On the second url below you can see what the high priests of evolution do to their heretics.

rsternberg.net/

I’d like to point something else out. When I made a mistake Tim jumped on it and put little rolling and laughing icons on the bottom. What I meant to write is “fish to amphibian” instead I wrote “frog to amphibian”. He couldn’t wait to point out my mistake in ridiculing fashion. Since he calls Professor Giertych a “quack” I asked him to give an example of his “quackery”. Now, don’t you know that if he could do that little thing he would? Complete with the rolling laughing icons.

Donna

 

[steveandersen]

Hello everyone who is interested in this topic:
Steveanderson writes:

But Steve the evolutionists do indeed believe that amphibians evolved into frogs. www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/amph3.htm

But Donna, frogs are amphibians

The quote above is nothing that you can prove.

well yes it is since, as I posted two pages ago, there have been observed instances of speciation
All evolution states is that populations that are isolated from each other will diverge genetically for a variety of reasons which we have seen in the lab and in the field. Over time these difference will become significant enough for speciation to occur.

There is no observable mechanism to stop genetic differentiation from occurring.

You cannot prove that “you can’t go backwards” it is clear to you that “you can’t jump to another path” but you cannot prove

there is nothing to “prove”, that is what the data are.

that “It starts with your primrose (which was a product of one of at least 6 observed mechanisms for speciation IIRC) and goes on from there step by miniscule step.”

don’t just say I can’t prove it
State specifically what your objections are and offer alternative explanations.
Your statements indicate that you know little about what evolution actually says.

You simply take that on faith.

I most certainly do not
There is no need to
Phylogeny is an observable fact
Lab and field work (as previously pointed out) strongly support evolution as the mechanism for phylogeny

I take serious exception to your assertion that I would have “faith” in something as trivial as biology

I’m telling you that there are reasonable alternative interpretations for all the evidence that evolution scientists have.

Yes I know, and I’m telling you that you’re wrong.
By your own admission you’re not a scientist and the sources you are citing have little or no support in the wider scientific community. So how you can claim that they hold reasonable alternatives I don’t know.

Remember this isn’t rocket science…it is actually much more complex. So for you to dismiss the life’s work of tens of thousands of scientists (representing millions of man-hours of effort) on the words of someone like Giertych, whose own department is keeping him at arms length, is just beyond my understanding.

 

[danielsgram]

Steve:
Did you read the my message just above the last one that you posted?
Donna

 

[Orogeny]

Hello everyone who has been interested in this topic.

Tim has snubbed his nose at Professor Maciej Giertych. He calls the professor a “quack”.

Yep. Any “scientist” that says there is no evidence for evolution is a quack.

Tim tells us he will not take him (Giertych) seriously unless he gets his work published in a peer-reviewed publication.

Actually, YEC, that is how science works. I know that is a foreign idea to you, but, well, too bad.

Now, I already knew how sinister some of those peer-reviewed publications can be but if I had said so without evidence I would have been ridiculed. I’ll probably be ridiculed anyway. If you read the first url you will see that ridicule is one of the arrows in the quiver of the evolution religion’s apologists. You see it regularly on this exact forum. If you read what the author on the first url writes and are not finally convinced that evolution is a religion then you must not understand English. (Professor Giertych calls evolution a philosophy but I have decided that it is a religion complete with dogma that is considered infallible)

attw.org/TCQarticles/9.2/9-2Sullivan.pdf

Wow, a professor or rhetoric and technical communications has a problem with science.

First off, YEC, peer review works, has worked and will continue to work. ALL science operates under this program, not just evolutionary biology.

Second, you are now an apologist for a man who understands and operates (or has operated) within the peer review process during his career. I don’t recall reading any complaints about his other work being subjected to peer review. I wonder why he doesn’t end the “controversy” by writing a paper about his belief that there is NO scientific evidence, specifically in genetics, that supports evolution and submitting it to a refereed journal. I’ll give you a hint - it’s not because peer review is unfair.

On the second url below you can see what the high priests of evolution do to their heretics.

rsternberg.net/

I understand that he broke with the editorial policies of his journal and that is why he was dismissed (which, by the way, I think was the wrong thing to do).

I’d like to point something else out. When I made a mistake Tim jumped on it and put little rolling and laughing icons on the bottom. What I meant to write is “fish to amphibian” instead I wrote “frog to amphibian”.

Sorry, Donna, but your original reply to my post about this indicates that is not the case.

He couldn’t wait to point out my mistake in ridiculing fashion.

Since you deem yourself qualified to make a major scientific pronouncement, you should at least understand that a frog is an amphibian. I learned that in about the third grade. Doesn’t take a college education to know something that basic.

Since he calls Professor Giertych a “quack” I asked him to give an example of his “quackery”. Now, don’t you know that if he could do that little thing he would? Complete with the rolling laughing icons.

His quackery has been pointed out, Donna. He claims there is no evidence of evolution in genetics. He is wrong and knows it (at least the remnant of the scientist in him knows it). That is why he wrote a letter to the editor rather than submitting a paper. That way he can claim that his belief was published in a scientific journal and therefore demands credibility.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

He’s a creationist who has bizarre and utterly cranky beliefs such as his grotesque belief in contemporaneous humans and dinosaurs that utterly discredit him. He has been thoroughly thrashed in the pages of Nature by the scientific community. See the thread:
‘Polish Catholic Creationist spanked in Nature’
Alec
evolutionpages.com

The most important point for me is his deceptive media tactics when he wrote:

Correspondence
Nature 444, 265 (16 November 2006) | doi:10.1038/444265d; Published online 15 November 2006, Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved
Maciej Giertych
Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 62-035 Kórnik, Poland
Sir:
In your News story “Polish scientists fight creationism” (Nature 443, 890–891; 2006 doi:10.1038/443890c), you incorrectly state that I have called for the “inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula”. As well as being a member of the European Parliament, I am a scientist — a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto — and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation. It is the media that prefer to consider my comments as religiously inspired, rather than to report my stated position accurately. (I found this on a blog)

No religious connotation! Who is he kidding? He can’t pull the wool over our eyes! Maciej Giertych knew darn well that he was on the Advisory Council for the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective! Don’t tell me he isn’t ‘reliously’ inspired. Whenever I see his name from now on only one word seems to come to my mind and the first letter starts with a gigantic L then my heart sinks thinking that he thinks of himself as a Christian. It’s only natural for me to conclude, since birds of feather flock together, that every member of the Advisory Council for the Kolbe Center is doing the same thing. (1) Am I wrong to wonder about that? I mean, Maciej Giertych is a representative for the Kolbe Center.

1.kolbecenter.org/

 

[steveandersen]

Steve:
Did you read the my message just above the last one that you posted?
Donna

I read it after I posted (which was a response to a post on the previous page)
I really don’t know if I have the time or stomach to do a line-by-line response to those papers. It is just so discouraging I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Maybe after Christmas when I have a little more time.

I’m not buying that evil conspiracy of the orthodox stuff

Some times that lone voice crying in the wilderness is fighting the good fight against the complacent powers that be…Most times it is just wrong.

 

[Verita]

The very name Tiktaalik raises an immediate smile (just say it over and over again a few times). So humorous in fact, it managed front page headlines in much of the major press. Perhaps war, social instability and political shenanigans had conveniently stopped for a while, allowing the secular media to attend to those matters that really matter, such as the incontrovertible fact that great-grandfather was a creature somewhere between a fish and a reptile.
kolbecenter.org/fishwick_fairytales.html

Hmm…they start off immediately by ridiculing the name. Very mature and scientific. From the way this article was written it seems to me that these “scientists” have the same root cause for rejecting evolution that most fundamentalists do. Simply, it isn’t comfortable to think about. It is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? They ridicule the idea because they find it ridiculous, not because of the scientific evidence.

Furthermore, I’m sorry, but I can’t respect any organization that when attempting to refute scientific data links to Wikipedia to show proof.