Who wrote this?

[phank]

I have never rejected or dismissed scientific theory or the concepts underlying that theory. Quite the opposite. ...some disciplines - especially Evolution - are shams.

And this is all taken from the same sentence!

And as I explained at some length, the reason why clownie says he doesn't dismiss theories he dismisses as shams (in the same sentence!) is because the actual theory did not survive the FUBAR required to cram-fit it into clownie's universe.

[rogue06]

You wouldn't want to end up like poor old Rogue , would you?

[pancreasman]

What? A thoughtful Christian?

[Chrawnus]

What? A thoughtful Christian?

An Old Fossil.

[wattsr1]

So quotes like these from Darwin supporters don't lend any credence to this?

Micheal Ruse
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Sir Julian Huxley

‘Darwin’s real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.’

Professor Steven Jay Gould

‘Darwin constructed the theory of natural selection in large measure as a direct refutation of the argument from design’.

This one isn't from a Darwin supporter, but from someone who was reviewing Darwin's Origin of Species.

Professor Adam Sedgwick

‘From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up…And why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, except to make us independent of a Creator.’

Not to mention his arguments against the God of the Bible calling Him a "revengeful Tyrant".
I'll try to respond to the rest later, but this one caught my eye.

Goodness. I'm sure the Psalmist was trying to explain away God when he wrote:-

"... there is no God."

Context Cerebrum. It's everything.

Take Ruse for example. Yes he did write that which you quote. But in the same article he wrote that (bolding is mine):-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/29.../1523.full.pdf

So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contem- porary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today’s professional evolu- tionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is in- deed a thriving area of more popular evolu- tionism, where evolution is used to under- pin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to reli- gion—exists. Third, we who cherish sci- ence should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are ex- trapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.

Given that Ruse engages in an argument against prominent atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens in that he thinks their attacks on religion are simplistic and unreasonable, then it's unlikely that he would necessarily see that Darwin tried to explain away God. This is more particularly so given that in the article I've linked to, he is complaining about the misuse of ToE which he sees both within some prominent quarters and in the lay public.


Huxley? Well yes. It's exactly what any scientific theory does. ToE is no different. So if you and other creationists level that charge at ToE, then why not all natural science?

Gould? Well my comment is more or less the same as my comment regarding Huxley. Every scientific theory has just that effect. It removes explanation from the realm of a supernatural intelligent designer to the realm of a natural "agent".

Sedgwick? Well your quote kind of gives it away, doesn't it (emphasis mine):-

"From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up…And why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, ..."

Sedgwick might have been sure, but how right was he?


Notwithstanding this, where do any of your quotes show that Darwin tried to explain away God as opposed to simply trying to explain something - which after all, is what science is about.

[Jorge]

Goodness. I'm sure the Psalmist was trying to explain away God when he wrote:-

" there is no God."

*************************************************************************

Congratulations, Roland ... you just snatched the prize out of Tiggy's hands.
I'm referring to the prize for 'The Vilest Out-of-Context Quote of All Times'.

Jorge

[magellan004]

And this is all taken from the same sentence!

And as I explained at some length, the reason why clownie says he doesn't dismiss theories he dismisses as shams (in the same sentence!) is because the actual theory did not survive the FUBAR required to cram-fit it into clownie's universe.

Your snipped misleading, false attribution - 'I have never rejected or dismissed scientific theory or the concepts underlying that theory. Quite the opposite. ...some disciplines - especially Evolution - are shams.'
I said : 'I have never rejected or dismissed scientific theory or the concepts underlying that theory. Quite the opposite. I have used science and mathematics to show that some disciplines - especially Evolution - are shams.'

Apparently you aspire to Rogue's level. Weak man.
You bellyached a few posts ago about 'Context'. Remember?

Magellan

[wattsr1]

Wattsr1, I gave some of it, and I will give more, but I am going to take a little time to make sure I get it right. You do understand that, right?

I'm happy with that although I've added a quick comment to your last reply to me in the post just above. I'd not seen this comment from you till now. So I'll let my comment above remain for you to see, as opposed to deleting it.

[wattsr1]

*************************************************************************

Congratulations, Roland ... you just snatched the prize out of Tiggy's hands.
I'm referring to the prize for 'The Vilest Out-of-Context Quote of All Times'.

Jorge

That's ok Jorge. Clearly you didn't read the short line just above the quote, nor the very short line just below it, which would have put the quote into context for you, if you had read them.

Maybe you had read them, but did not understand my point.


Would you like some help?


If not, then thanks for the congratulations anyway.


Because you are such a good sport and were really trying to help, even though you got it wrong, I feel as if I should offer a small gift of appreciation:-


I’ve linked you to commentary sites. But the articles are in upcoming issues of Nature.

Plant Enzyme’s Origins Traced to Non-Enzyme Ancestors
http://www.hhmi.org/news/noel20120513.html

Birds have paedomorphic dinosaur skulls.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....hic-dinosaurs/



This one is the true blue, real McCoy, science article.

A rip roarer on the fin to limb transition.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2.01491.x/full

[Jorge]

That's ok Jorge. Clearly you didn't read the short line just above the quote, nor the very short line just below it, which would have put the quote into context for you, if you had read them.

Maybe you had read them, but did not understand my point.


Would you like some help?


If not, then thanks for the congratulations anyway.


Because you are such a good sport and were really trying to help, even though you got it wrong, I feel as if I should offer a small gift of appreciation:-


I’ve linked you to commentary sites. But the articles are in upcoming issues of Nature.

Plant Enzyme’s Origins Traced to Non-Enzyme Ancestors
http://www.hhmi.org/news/noel20120513.html

Birds have paedomorphic dinosaur skulls.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....hic-dinosaurs/



This one is the true blue, real McCoy, science article.

A rip roarer on the fin to limb transition.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2.01491.x/full

*********************************************************************

I have NO idea of what you're saying here, Roland.
I guess it's some sort of Atheist-logic or something (?).

BTW, are you aware that Materialists / Atheists are either inconsistent or contradictory?
For the longest time I had been puzzled by how you people got through a day until I
found the answer - where else? - in God's Word.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

*********************************************************************

I have NO idea of what you're saying here, Roland.
I guess it's some sort of Atheist-logic or something (?).

Ah. Well you were trying to politely inform me that my Bible quote was waaaaaay out of line. And I appreciated that you attempted to do so. I thought it noble of you.

However, as I tried to explain - it was waaaaay in line. By making that (mis)quote, I was simply trying to point out to Cerebrum that context is everything when it comes to quoting folk like Ruse in support of a claim that Darwin was trying to explain away God.

You appeared not to understand that point.

However, because I liked they way in which you tried to help me, I thought I would return the favour and offer you two upcoming papers in Nature re the theory of evolution, plus an additional on-line paper dealing with the fin to limb transition. I thought you might enjoy the science in them. They've all got tons of good science it them.

BTW, are you aware that Materialists / Atheists are either inconsistent or contradictory?

Not at all. For 15 years I've realised how reasoned we are, just by arguing against you folk. For example, I still continue to be amazed at how often I meet the "You were not there to observe argument" - made by the same folk who were not there to observe any text of the Bible being written to see whether or not their assumptions about eyewitnesses etc are correct or not. These same folk, for some reason or other, accept the claims of fallible scientists that things in rocks that look like bones, are the remains of long extinct animals, even though no one was there to see said animals die, get buried and turn into rock. Besides, there are other alternative explanations that are supernatural in nature. You know, same data, different interpretation. Yet the YECs prefer the fallible words of materialistic scientists on that matter. Then there are all those verses in the Bible which clearly speak against the interpretations of modern meteorological science and embryology. Yet YECs accommodate themselves to the naturalistic theories of fallible men regarding meteorology and embryology, in opposition to the clear word of the Bible concerning rain, frost, snow, drought, cloud and baby formation.

So you see what I mean?

For the longest time I had been puzzled by how you people got through a day until I
found the answer - where else? - in God's Word.

Jorge

Suuuure Jorge. I find a lot of verses in the Bible that talk directly to forum YEC behaviour and it's not at all flattering.


Would you like to do an exchange of Bible verses?

[wattsr1]

Any way Jorge, I'm off to bed. Nighty nite.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

photo.JPG

[lilpixieofterror]

There is NO CONTRADICTION in the Bible, only one with Catholic tradition. The only thing you have left is assertions, not that you had much else to begin with.

Technically there is for example we find two Proverbs right next to each other that say this:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Proverbs 26:4, NIV

and

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:5, NIV

While this would technically be a contradiction, one misses the entire point if they just yell out 'contradiction!' without actually trying to understand the point. It is trying to make in which there is often no real way to answer a fool since they will always find a way to see themselves as smarter and knowing more. Of course, I tend to find most contradictions are just a person's ignorance or them not wanting to look beyond the mere 'plain reading of the text'. Like the one you are debating is a rather ignorant since it is commonly known that ancient genealogies have this tendency to skip generations and were more about linking the person described to somebody important in the past or making an overall point about their ancestry or origins. How many different ones can I make of my own just following one male descendent and skipping over generations to link myself with somebody famous or to make an overall point about my origins to highlight a part of my heritage (like my Italian, British, or American Native line, just to name a few examples) if I decided to do this? Matthew is linking Jesus to the house of David and the promised Messiah while Luke is linking Jesus to all of humanity. Two different goals in mind and thus the reason for two different genealogies as though the ancients were too dumb to notice that Luke and Matthew described two different genealogies and therefore are 'contradictory'. They are if one is ignorant of how things were done in that era.

[rogue06]

*************************************************************************

Congratulations, Roland ... you just snatched the prize out of Tiggy's hands.
I'm referring to the prize for 'The Vilest Out-of-Context Quote of All Times'.

Jorge

He was citing it as an example of a quote-mine which should have been obvious given the very next sentence:

Context Cerebrum. It's everything.