No, Paul, I took an argument from your own words. I realize that being coherent is impossibly difficult for you, but do try, please.

You said that a scientist who can't admit we might be wrong is a theologian. You then said that a scientist who can't admit we might be wrong is a fool.

Therefore, A=B. Theologian=Fool.

I understand you have problems with very simple definitions and elementary logic, but do try to keep up. If you fail, no cookie for you.

I don't agree with Paul's general point but I think Andy is wrong on this one. The theologian said that a bad scientist equals a fool and not a theologian. Thus A=C,not A=B. I think.

All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. All men are Socrates.

Andy buddy, here's clue....

When I use you as the poster child for me being up against stupid people... Your getting in the comments and being stupid only makes my point.

Let me type real slow, you said:

You then said that a scientist who can't admit we might be wrong is a fool.

Um Andy... I never said that. The Theologian did.

Stupid=Andy therefore Andy=Stupid

Jeff don't try to make him think... No use both of us having a headache.

Andy buddy, here's clue

Oh, is here?

Thank much.

You already been much had ass handed to by many smart people. You much dumb. Here clue: You wrong.

Idiot.

Done with you.

P.S. I apologize for mocking your caveman intellect.

P.P.S. Seriously, this has been fun, but you've been shown to be so ignorant of the very topic of which you claim such knowledge that it's postively sad.

I realizeI should listen to the others who tell me to ignore you, but your ignorance is like a beacon, outshining any other topic of interest. It's amazing that so much sheer willful stupidity can be housed in one head, Paul.

Tell us, how do you do it?

Here is just one small thing that we don't know about the origen of life.

Chemical stability is a question of whether the components can even react at all. By definition, all components in a hypothetical primordial soup would be stable, because if they were not, they would have already reacted. Amino acids are relatively stable in water and do not react to form proteins in water, and nucleotides do not react to form DNA. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer, they must be chemically activated to react with other chemicals. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because the activated compounds will react with water and break down. How could proteins and DNA be formed in a hypothetical primordial watery soup if the activated compounds required to form them cannot exist in water? This is the problem of Chemical Stability.

More at:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-374.htm

just out of curiosity, andy...

do you honestly think anyone of character is going to regard your side of the disagreement with any modicum of respect when, instead of cogently stating said argument and providing a substantive philosophical and/or scientific foundation for said argument, you simply spout out mindless vitriol?

insults get you nowhere on the respect meter...

just a tip from your friendly neighborhood cluemeister.

do you honestly think anyone of character is going to regard your side of the disagreement with any modicum of respect when, instead of cogently stating said argument and providing a substantive philosophical and/or scientific foundation for said argument, you simply spout out mindless vitriol?

If said person has read the HUNDREDS of comments on previous threads, then - yes - I think they would understand the frustration a thinking adult has with an intellectual child like Paul. Now, if you can't be bothered to go read and see how Paul has been trounced, fine, but don't use your own laziness or ignorance to paint me any certain way.

P.S. Dumbass, allow me to clarify something:

Theologian made a statement. You then said he did so "accurately." Therefore, your agreement with said sentiment is understood.

Good God, man, how weak is your infantile brain? My two-year old wouldn't fall for such logical weakness.

Are you intent on proving that evolution leaves people like you behind or what?

oh, i'm a daily reader...and an infrequent commenter. but that's neither here nor there.
the fact remains that you are presently resorting to infantile insults instead of perhaps referring Paul to a link containing your argument and reiterating why you believe yourself to be correct.

there are always more civil ways to handle intellectual disagreement than simply insulting someone you'll never meet in person over the Internet.

also, it's difficult to see how an individual disagreeing with your viewpoint would take you very seriously when you consistently belittle their views. disagreement is one thing. disrespect another.

andy,

but you forget that in agreeing with the theologian's position which was provided as a replacement for Paul's original position, Paul is thereby agreeing that his original position was incorrect and is being replaced by the theologian's provision.

so, logically, Paul is not stating that theologians are fools.

the fact remains that you are presently resorting to infantile insults instead of perhaps referring Paul to a link containing your argument and reiterating why you believe yourself to be correct.

Paul has been given links numerous times in numerous threads. This is not a kindergarten where one need hold his hand and pat him on the head and give him a cookie.

Further, you might want to reference this very post and then tell me how "goofballs" fits into your model of intellectual discourse.

Your bias is showing. Tsk tsk.

Bottom line: Paul's knowledge of evolutionary theory has been shown to be lacking in considerable degrees.

Paul has made up a definition of evolution to suit his own purposes.

Paul has used his ignorance and made up definitions to argue.

There is no argument: Paul is wrong.

Whether he choose to learn from that is up to him.

>

providing the link is not so much for Paul's benefit as for the benefit of the casual reader. in my opinion, the vast majority of intellectual debate is not so much to change the viewpoint of one's opponent but rather to state one's own views as clearly as possible in order to sway as many readers as possible towards one's way of thinking.

>

*shrugs*
i don't agree with Paul's insults anymore than i agree with yours. you just appear to me to be the most determined of the two to hurl insults. i could be mistaken of course.

>

i have no problem admitting that i disagree with the concept of macroevolution.

>

i disagree.

>

i disagree.

>

i disagree.

Whether he choose to learn from that is up to him. >>

ah. well, such commentary speaks volumes doesn't it?

hmmm.
that didn't come across the way i intended it to look...
oh well. simply insert each of andy's paragraphs from the post directly preceding my reply in place of the greater-than sign in order from top to bottom.
i apologize for any confusion created by my typing error.

merc - then you too are welcome to read the copious comments provided over the last 3 days.

As your comments were not formatted properly (for whatever reason), I know not with which parts you disagree.

However, it is quite clear that Paul erected a strawman of evolution and then proceeded to dry hump it into oblivion. While impressive, because straw in the pee pee probably hurts, it certainly didn't prove anything.

Anyway, that's all I have to say - honestly. For the rest of my thoughts, and others, particularly those who know far better than either Paul or myself, what evolution is about - plenty to read in the comments.

Andy, you don't get it: Paul has just handed you a solid argument AGAINST creationism.

One of the things that makes science science, and not some other thing (like a sock), is the understanding that something can come around and disprove a theory. One of the concepts of evolution as it currently stands is that all living things ultimately derive from a single ancestor species. There is data that may not yet be found that could disprove that. Take the 'handedness' of hydrocarbons, complex hydrocarbons can have a left-handed form or a right handed form. So far as I am aware, all life on earth uses and produces hydrocarbons of just one handedness. However, IF a lifeform was found that used the opposite 'handedness' then that could possibly indicate that there may have been two or more origin species. It could also indicate that handedness could change, but the point is that either way some substantial changes would have to be made in our understanding of how things work.
That is called falsifiability.
Now, here is where Paul is really hooking you up:
Creationism has no falsifiability.
The fundamental premise of Creationism, at least as it stands in the US, is that the origins of life are 100% in accordance with what the Bible says. THEY CANNOT ADMIT THAT THIS COULD POSSIBLY EVER BE WRONG. That is what prevents creationism from being science.

So when Paul is saying that it is wrong for someone to claim that evolution is 100% proven, the truth is that this is a fact. There ARE holes in evolutionary theory. The mechanisms are not fully understood. That doesn't mean that data is all bad, it doesn't mean that evolution is necessarily wrong. There is quite a bit a evidence and data that suggests that it is fundamentally correct.

However, in this debate Paul's position is a two-edged sword, because the Creationist position is founded in a purely dogmatic basis. Any argument that could be made against evolution on the basis of not accepting falsifiability is doubly or trebly true for Creationism.

You should really be thankful.

But the problem is this, the more you dig in your heels and say, "it can't be disproved, it's a solid 100% fact, you're an idiot" you turn science into something that it is not -- or should not be at the least.

Eric - I've never said that evolution can't be disproved, and - in fact - have even said that all it takes is one observation that doesn't fit the model to cause a rethinking of the model. So, for you to put words in my mouth - while I appreciate the "support" - does not reflect the reality of my words.

Scientists do not really "believe" in evolution, they just use it as a working hypothesis until something better comes along.

However, the "something better" is something only the scientists decide on, here it means "accurately predicting which fossils will be found in the same strata", not reconciliation with the bible.

In the same sense scientists do not BELIEVE that the sun circles the earth (Aristoteles) / the eartch circles the sun (Copernicus) / earth and sun move around their common center of gravity (Newton) / earth and sun move in curved spacetime (Einstein), they just use the theory that can predict celestial movement the most accurate.

RE: bobvcs's post (March 26, 2005 02:34 AM)

Without delving too deep into this Chemical Stability, couldn't one propose that it is Laws of Thermodynics that allow this primordial soup to produce various aggregations, however simple or complex? Presumably, given enough energy, one can force any reaction to produce a substance however transiently. Once the destablized components are put into an "activated state", they become more reactive and do things they shouldn't ordinarily do. Eventually, the energy subsides and the components bind together to seek a more stable form. Sometimes that molecule is more stable than the atoms are individually. Or the polymer is more stable than the molecule. Or the protein is more stable than the polymer... and so on. The components will seek their most energetically stable conformation and will vacillate between stable/unstable conformation in an almost infinite spectrum with certain populations adopting the commonly recognized "final" form. The point is that thermodynamics allows for the unexpected given enough energy, substrate, and time. And this is how DNA/RNA, "complex" catalysts, or their precursors all come in to being. The most stable given their environment persist while the weaker "species" breakdown only to be recycled and formed again - perhaps with more stability.

Of course you realize we've deviated from the insult-throwing contest... just so you know. Is that allowed in this thread? Deviating, not insult-throwing, I mean.

The theologian who suggested that "Scientists who do not admit they might potentially be wrong are simply: fools" is absolutely accurate, BUT he is also in big trouble with G_d.

In the Sermon on the Mount, in the section where Jesus was explaining that God's standards of righteousness are even toughter than the Ten Commandments, Jesus said:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment...But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:21-23

Despite his truthfulness, the theologian who wrote to you needs to be in repentence and prayer.

"The fundamental premise of Creationism, at least as it stands in the US, is that the origins of life are 100% in accordance with what the Bible says."

Dependson your view of creationism. This correct only for young earth creationists. But even young eart creationists do not debate some premises of evolution, in regards to specific animal groups. They would argue that all dog like animals had a common ancestor, all cat like animals had a common ancestor, but cats and dogs are not common ancestors.

But there are also people who believe the earth is old, and that evolution to some degree occured, but that God is the mechanism by which it happened. So they don't take the creation story literally, just the general premise that God did it.

""But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment...But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:21-23 "

Be careful with context. These verses are all about matters of the heart, and how you treat others.

Go read some proverbs in regards to the wise and foolish man, and you will understand the context by which the Theologan was talking.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" Proverbs 1:7

Well said, Just Me.

I accept the evidence that species evolve. Just studying dog breeds in the past 250 years can clearly show itnetional selection; natural selection can ob observed as well, albeit at a slower pace.

HOWEVER, this phenomenon does not disprove the belief that God created the universe. I have always found it fascinating that evolution theory follows the timeline of the Genesis story: space, earth, water, creatures of the seas, air, land, and man (I don't get hung up on the "7 days" aspect; I figure God's day can be as long as He wants it to be). Additionally, this timeline is unique among creation myths of diverse cultures (to the best of my knowledge--there well may be a similar one with which I am unfamiliar).

Pretty good for a 5000 year old myth, don't you think?

I am, I suppose, a young-earth, seven-day creationist. I don't apologize to anyone for that stance, nor do I fault anyone for their findings in their own quest for truth.

In one sense, I could defend my position by stating that since many stories found in the Bible have been proven to be accurate in fact, then the Creation account must be true. That would be an extrapolation from the known into the unknown, but it is a seriously flawed theory. I could defend my beliefs using language analysis, demonstrating that the language used in metaphorical references differs notably from the language used in historical narritave. This is the typical approach taken by theologians, but it, too leaves room for doubt.

Fact is, there are limits to "hard" proofs for Creationism, because of the very nature of the event--who recorded what was happening before anyone existed?

So I am left to say that my position is faith-based. This doesn't mean that I blindly believe something, but rather that enough has been proven to me about the Bible that I'm willing to accept the rest as true.

Do I accept that my beliefs in a seven-day creation and a young earth may one day be proven to be wrong? Of course. That's the nature of speculation. But true science must take the same view of evolution--the nature of this sort of speculation is always open to being proven to be inaccurate or outright false.

It's no more intelligent to say "because science says so" than to say "because God says so."

Goddess: regarding the 7-day aspect, on a theological note--God is in infinite being, time therefore has no relevance to Him. It's true that His "day" could be as short or as long as he deems good. The statement that "the evening and the morning were the first day" lends to the idea that the "days" of creation weren't abstract concepts of time, but rather were actual days, as we know them now. If you believe in the Biblical account of the Creation, there's really no need to make concessions to an unfinished scientific theory. Believe what you wish, and analyze any facts in light of those beliefs. That's what evolution scientists do.

I've always wondered about that. People are always confidently asserting that the biblical order of creation is exactly like the order we've observed in the real world, and then they blithely rattle off the order "space, earth, water, creatures of the seas, air, land, and man".

But, you know, that's completely wrong.

It wasn't a sequential process at all, for one thing, and biological evolution is branching and parallel. No matter how you try and distort it, there's no way you can pretend birds appeared before lizards. And since no species are evolving all the time, it's kinda silly to present humans as the culmination of the process.

The only way someone can pretend this superficial, misleading, wrong 5000 year old myth corresponds in any way to the actual record of life on earth is if their knowledge of biology is also superficial, misleading, and wrong.

In all my days living and working at The Kennedy Space Center, working in the EvC debate, and as a TA at two colleges in the science and math fields, I've yet to meet a legit scientist who says he cannot make a mistake in his or her field.

On the other hand, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, members of the Institute for Creation Research, and Carl Baugh, all preach to hordes of fundamentalists that their specific version of 'science' is the inerrant word of God. Inerrent, that means infallible yes?

William Demsbki's Explanatory Filter which allegedly tests for the 'scientific theory' of Design Intelligent Design is often advertised to the critics as 'incapable of making a false positive'. They've been unwilling to test it on double blind samples or explain their standard method for calculating Complex Specified Information, but the term 'incapable' or any synonym, that suggests it can't make a mistake, right Paul?

Stipulating that that is true and accurate, that would make all those creation 'scientists' theologians using your own definition, right? And thus if they claimed that they were acting as scientists, and had a scientific theory of any value, they would be, according to your stated words, lying, or at the very least, wrong, yes?

More importantly Paul, can you be wrong about evolution or abiogenesis, or are you acting as a theologian, and not a scientist?

"Pretty good for a 5000 year old myth, don't you think?"

Except I don't regard it as myth. I am not super into some search for proof of young earth creationism, I am a "God did it" believer first and foremost, and I have enough critical thinking skills to realize that there are too many holes in the particals to people (or as Paul says the "Oooze theory) evolution that to believe this requirs about as much faith as my belief that a God did it.

OK I'm Going To Type Slowly AGAIN and Hope You NUMBSKULLS Get It!

Where my critics really screw up is that they ASSUme that I believe in, and am, defending creationism. I'm not sure where they get this from because I never said it... In fact if these asshats shut their mouths long enough to read, I specifically said I did not believe in it.

But the oozers are notoriously short on reading ability and long on invective. (andy use a dictionary to look that last word up)

But the oozers have a certain mindset that goes like this:

"We are the enlighten and anyone who strays from our gospel must be a bible-thumper and should be attacked at all costs"

Again, they are more "religious" then the creationism side.

And Andy-- man I should feel pity on anyone that stupid but I don't-- I love his argument.

Paul Man can not prove where life came from.

Andy Paul is wrong.

How can I be wrong? I stated a truism?

But let me get back to the oozer mindset:

IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE TO NOT BELIEVE THE "WE CAME FROM OOZE" THEORY TO BE PROVEN AND NOT BE RELIGIOUS IN ANY WAY.

Rather than the oozers simply admit that we have much to learn (which should be patently obvious to a third grader) they attack. sigh.

P

DS you get your own reply.

DS asked a FANTASTIC question:

"More importantly Paul, can you be wrong about evolution or abiogenesis, or are you acting as a theologian, and not a scientist?"

OK DS, I can't wait to answer... But tell me... What did I say about evolution and what did I say about abiogenesis?

(hint, it's a trap. If you are forced to actually read what I wrote you will actually agree with it)

Now go ahead DS write down what I said about each.....

(hint 2- to save time, look at the bottom of the "gullible" post, not the thread but the post)

"Where my critics really screw up is that they ASSUme that I believe in, and am, defending creationism. I'm not sure where they get this from because I never said it"

Because the evolution zealots have painted any criticism of evolution into the corner of it being religion based, therefore anyone who criticizes evolution must be religious.

It is the same thing that happens in pro life discussions. I have several internet friends that are atheists/agnostics who are very pro life, anytime an abortion debate develops everyone starts assuming they are religious.

This is because the pro choice people have tried to make the argument about religion, rather than a protection of human life, so anyone who is pro choice assumes the pro life person is religoius.

You can name and discuss the "holes" in evolution theory and never once mention the Bible or God.

My question isn't a trick Paul (although dodging it could be so construed). I'm asking you simply and plainly if you could be wrong about evoluitonary biology, or if your view is unscientific, based on your prior claims that anyone who can't admit they might be wrong qualify as a theologian rather than a scientist ?
I'm assuming here you are highly skeptical of common descent and The Modern Synthesis, if I made a false assumption there, I apologize, and you are welcome to set the record straight by stating here and now you accept evolutionary biology.

Speaking of avoiding questions... DS not only am I not avoiding your question... I'm making a 14 page post about it. (I really love it)

Now come on... You asked "What if you are wrong?" and I'm asking for a clarification... "Wrong about WHAT exactly?"

It is quite reasonable for me to ask you to define the question before I answer. NO?

(Hint 3 Yes, it is a trap. If you are forced to actually read what I wrote you will actually agree with it.)