A vocal group of Christian parents has forced an elementary school in the U.K. to cancel a planned production about Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution.
Several families threatened to withdraw their children from the musical Darwin Rocks unless the play was changed to be more forgiving to creationists. In particular, they pointed to a scene that reportedly "mocked" an English bishop who famously attacked Darwin's theory.
Rather than attempt a rewrite, Hartford Manor Primary School in Cheshire acquiesced to these demands, deciding it would be easier to simply choose a play that was less divisive.
But that only provoked renewed anger from secular groups, who accuse the school of caving to religious interests and turning its back on science.
Rewriting History
Many parents were dismayed to learn that religious lobbying had prevented their children from learning about evolution. "It seems ridiculous to whitewash history and replace it with something entirely vacuous," said Alan McDonald, both a parent at the school and a scientist in the civil service. "I think it is just a thinly veiled attempt to cram religious views over the top of scientific fact, which I think is shameful. It really does feel like a huge step backwards."
Another parent, who chose to remain anonymous, pointed out that a local vicar who sits on school's chair of governors presented a glaring conflict of interest in this case.
"It is simply unacceptable that religious fundamentalist views should have such influence in a community primary school and prevent
A Difficult Compromise
While head teacher Simon Kidwell admitted the decision to cancel might have been a little "hasty" in hindsight, he insisted the school would do its best to revisit the play in "future years if we can make sure those bits are edited so it is inclusive for everybody."
But not everyone is optimistic this strategy will work. "We're seeing a worrying trend of parents pressuring head teachers and threatening to withdraw children when teaching doesn't fit
The Pressure to Please
Ultimately, this incident sheds a light on the pressures faced by public schools to educate children in the "right" way. The problem is, the public is a tremendously heterodox group composed of many different cultural and religious backgrounds. If you asked ten families what constitutes an ideal education, you'd likely get ten different answers. In that sense, compromise may be an impossible ideal -- but is it one to strive for
What do you think: Should public schools structure education to accommodate religious views? Or should science and facts be the top priority, regardless of the potential for hurt feelings among faith groups?
308 comments
-
John Owens
If anyone else is reading this, I hope you enjoy reading the evidence I have offered, and thinking about it. I feel that I have cast enough pearls before swine here, though, because certain people do not care about the evidence or the preponderance of it, nor their own lack of knowledge. They just deny or ignore what they cannot answer or gainsay, and proceed to try to insult and evade their way out of a losing position. Thus far, not one has enough logic to even carry on the conversation, but keep insisting over and over that they are correct and I am not. Very tiresome and childish.
-
Don
If anyone else is reading this, I hope you noted that John Owens, even after crying to the moderators about my harsh language, continues to spew baseless insults and continues to insist he's provided evidence for intelligent design, even though his sources are all opinion pieces written by...big surprise...delusional Creationists. He even linked directly to discovery.org! And not as a joke!
He now claims he has provided "proof of creation" even though his definitions keep changing. That's nice, Johnny. Now present the EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN you claimed to have. Any more opinion pieces (or hack pieces from Creationists) will be exposed as such.
-
-
Tom B
Respectfully...i do not see the spiritual value of attacking John Owens; much less the "argument" of evolution vs. "intelligent design"...as I previously wrote, everything in the universe/creation/etc was created by God, so all of the "thinking" about this debate is moot, as both "theories" were the result of God...i urge you to consider that prolonging this argument is simply for ego gratification, and move on...Peace...Tom
-
Dan Atatakai
Tom - Is it attacking or disagreeing and demanding evidence for his claims? Both Don and I have offered citation to numerous sources from objective sources which show how Evolution, along with the Theory and Laws of Evolution are factual. John keeps making vague statements like, "It's all around!" and "The air is evidence." Yet, he never shows how it is evidence.
All we are trying to do is to have John actually show his evidence and explain his perspective. While he is at it, he can also show how Evolutionary concepts are wrong, but he has not done that as of yet.
The theory of creation is philosophical theory, where the theory of Evolution is actual scientific theory, by no means the same as your philosophical theory. One is backed by facts, provable through observation and research, the other based solely on faith-based belief.
Care to join in, Tom, to show from your perspective what you feel about Creation and Evolution? It might be nice to have some fresh thoughts on these ideas.
-
John Owens
I have told you both, over and over, it is patently stupid to ask for proof of the observable physical universe, which I call creation. We are all proof of it. I also gave you some proof of intelligent design, just because you are intentionally obtuse and argumentative.
I did not use the word creationism. You have not, cannot demonstrate that the HYPOTHESIS of evolution is backed by facts. There is no factual evidence that any creature has evolved into another type of creature. NONE. The fossil record cannot prove any hint of evolution. It exists only in the imagination of humans, to fill in the gaps between different phyla. There are no fossils connecting the different creatures, yet cartoonists make charts and drawings filling them in with imaginary creatures.
I explained to you with dictionary quotes that creation is a noun, referring to the cosmos, or physical creation.
If you believe in the Big Bang, you can call that the creation.
If you believe in Pterosaurs, from whence do you think they evolved? There is not one piece of evidence that any other creature evolved into a Pterosaur, so HOWEVER they were made, they were made all at once.NONE of the dinosaurs evolved from other dinosaurs. The same can be said of the other creatures, up to, and including Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man. Cro-Magnon did not "evolve" from Neanderthals. They just overpopulated them. The Neanderthal genes are still in most humans. Apes have always been apes, and humans have always been humans. That is what the fossil record shows. To insist that it shows otherwise is the ANTITHESIS of intellectual honesty.
-
Don
"it is patently stupid to ask for proof of the observable physical universe"
It sure is. And it's even more stupid to pretend that's what anyone was asking for. You claimed Concrete Evidence for Intelligent Design, and you know it. Now either present that evidence or admit you don't have any. This evasion is pathetic.
-
John Owens
YOU asked for proof of the universe over and OVER, Donna. It is all here, in black and white. You did it over and over, and knew you were doing that. Besides that, I have given you total proof of intelligent design. I did it at the beginning. The DNA code is proof of intelligent design. It is a wonderfully complex code, more complex than anything people and artificial intelligence together can create. EVEN if it began as something slightly less complicated, and learned to rewrite itself, it still proves intelligent design, because the original code could not write itself at all, much less in such a manner as to be capable of learning. The DNA molecule proves intelligent design.
Just because you refuse to admit you are wrong and know so little about science that you cannot read the different types of molecular geometry and know what you are reading, does not mean the CONCRETE evidence is not there. I've proven it many times over here.
-
-
Don
"I have provided you with some written references, which you will reject"
If by "reject" you mean expose the fact that your opinion pieces aren't evidence of an intelligent creator, then yes.
Still waiting for THAT evidence, but given the evasions and goal post moving, I doubt it will ever be seen (because it doesn't exist).
-
Don
"I also gave you some proof of intelligent design"
Not on this page you didn't. Are you using magical invisible ink?
No matter, since you claimed to have presented proof, and there is none to be found on this page, just post it again. That should be easy, right?
-
Dan Atatakai
John - It seems that, if you did, indeed post any actual empirical evidence for Intelligent Design, all of us have missed it. Therefore, please repost the actual empirical evidence, and not just some vague claims posted by Ken Ham and the like.
-
John Owens
Then you claim to want some proof of intelligent design, of which I offered Darwin’s statement concerning it, but I should think it would be obvious, given how much we have all been taught about molecular structure and the properties of matter. Seems silly to me, but: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/ https://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/atom_anatomy.html https://nei.nih.gov/photo/anatomy-of-eye
Just a few simple examples even a child can comprehend, but they may still be too highbrow for you two. Below are types of molecular geometry, which BY THEIR DESCRIPTIONS, show intelligent design.
Tetrahedral molecular geometry,Trigonal planar molecular geometry, Octahedral molecular geometry,Trigonal bipyramidal molecular geometry, Trigonal pyramidal molecular geometry, Square pyramidal molecular geometry, Seesaw molecular geometry, Square planar molecular geometry, Pentagonal bipyramidal molecular geometry, Square antiprismatic molecular geometry, Pentagonal planar molecular geometry, Pentagonal pyramidal molecular geometry, T-shaped molecular geometry. Bent molecular geometry I suppose you need some “scientific” citation before acknowledging all of that, but of course, if you knew anything about science, as you CLAIM, then you would know about them.
If only you could read. I don't know who Ken Ham is.
-
-
-
-
-
Tom B
Respectfully...since everything comes from God/universe, it is only we humans that create a dichotomy between evolution and creationism...there really is none...and looking for "proof" of either is vanity...Peace...Tom
-
Dan Atatakai
Tom - Yet, evolution has myriad proofs to substantiate it as fact. I would not call that vanity, but simple critical thinking. The shame is when someone introduces a claim without backing said claim with empirical evidence to prove their perspective.
Thank you, Tom, for your input!
-
Tom B
Dan...thank you for your comment...i do not disagree with what you state...my point is that proving evolution (or creationism) is temporal; that proofs of both emanate from God/universe, so the argument is pointless...even if John comes up with some "proofs", it would still not exclude the other position...Peace...Tom
-
Don
"proofs of both emanate from God/universe"
We have evidence the universe exists. We have none for any gods, so using one and inferring it exists is intellectually dishonest.
And John will never produce any evidence for his claims, for the simple fact that there isn't any.
-
John Owens
No evidence of the physical cosmos.... How can you even bring yourself to say that? You want to win a stupid argument so badly that you will argue there is no physical world, because i will not quote some stupid paper to prove there is a physical world? What is wrong with you?
-
Don
"No evidence of the physical cosmos…. How can you even bring yourself to say that?"
I can't bring myself to say that, because that would be silly and nonsensical.
But you claimed evidence of Intelligent Design, not the physical cosmos, so can you please just stop the evasion and either present your evidence or admit you don't have any?
-
John Owens
I claimed BOTH, the physical creation (which you NOW admit exists), and the INHERENT intelligent design in all things. Which I have demonstrated, and you have actually admitted, attributing it to chaos. SMH
-
-
-
-
John Owens
Any evidence for anything is found in the creation.
-
Don
And yet you still play the cowardly evasion game and haven't presented the evidence you earlier claimed to be in possession of. You are a deceitful, dishonest snake. Jesus warned us about people like you.
-
John Owens
Idiot. You don't believe in Jesus. You are an anti-Christ, and then you try to use His name to play victim. You are a sphincter. Show me where I claimed to have any evidence that I have not presented. Jerk!
-
Don
"Show me where I claimed to have any evidence that I have not presented'
Right here - "There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution." - John Owens, February 18, 2019 at 11:20 am
(I bet John wishes he could delete that comment!)
-
John Owens
I don't wish I could delete anything on this page. You just keep proving what a jerk you can be, and proving me correct about everything.
-
Don
The only thing that would prove you correct would be the Evidence you claimed to be in possession of on February 18. It's been almost a month. Still can't find it?
-
John Owens
I was proven correct before I ever spoke, Don. No one can help it that you have decided to deny obvious observable facts.
-
-
-
Tom B
John...the problem is that we often try to "prove" things, instead of simply realizing them...that is why I used the word "vanity"...and there still is no difference between creationism (or "creation", if you prefer) and evolution...we and everything else are what we are, regardless of how we think about it...accepting this is Peace...Tom
-
John Owens
If not for misinterpreting small pieces of evidence found within the creation, there would never have been a hypothesis of evolution.
-
Iconoclast
Indeed. Wouldn't be any fossils without a physical universe.
-
-
-
Don
And yet you still can't seem to find it. Here's a suggestion, Johnny - don't make claims you can't support. Also, cutting back on the sleazy lies might help.
-
John Owens
I'm not the one claiming an iffy hypothesis is a fact, like you fake-science disciples.
-
Don
"fake-science disciples" Nice. Was this before or after you cried about my denigrations?
So, the evidence - find it yet?
-
John Owens
Been there all along, Donny. You just steadfastly deny it. Ah, to be so naive! It must be wonderful.
-
Iconoclast
By Jove, Johnny, I think your logic and evidence are quite compelling. Your two detractors cannot answer anything without trying to change the argument over and over, and then they accuse you of doing that. It's too bad so many of your answers were deleted. I'd love to have read them!
-
Don
Been there all along? Which post? It must have magically disappeared. But since it was there all along, you should have no problems re-posting it for us to see, right?
-
John Owens
I will ask, just to humor your obstinate idiocy-- what evidence would you like, to convince you that there is in existence, a physical universe, of which we are small parts, to which I refer as all creation?
-
Don
And now he's evading to "evidence of a physical universe".
You see, I KNEW John Owens was going to do this immediately after his false claim of evidence, since that's what every single Creationist making that claim has done in the history of Creationists.
A shame, I would really like one of them to tackle the issue of actual evidence as opposed to using deceit and insults to "win" a debate.
-
John Owens
Not evading, Donkey. YOU are the one evading. The physical universe WAS created, however it came into being. All of the creatures came into being HOWEVER they came into being, WHOLE. They never evolved from one life form into another. That is what the fossil evidence shows. That is not what you want to believe, but you don't know very much, anyway, and you would argue with a post. Still, creation is another word for the physical universe. "All creation". It is evident. I have been saying this for weeks, and you are only now trying to change the argument AS YOU ALWAYS DO, and everyone here (all three, plus the hidden moderators) KNOW that is what you do. I am not making you look shallow and ignorant. You are doing that to yourself.
-
Don
"The physical universe WAS created, however it came into being"
And yet another claim you cannot prove or support with evidence. For all we know, the physical universe has always existed with no beginning nor end. The problem with people like you is that you cannot be honest with yourself and admit we just don't know.
-
John Owens
You are getting loonier and loonier. This is what happens when you try to argue a losing proposition.
-
Don
"You are getting loonier and loonier. This is what happens when you try to argue a losing proposition."
I hope you were looking in a mirror when you said that. Intentional irony is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
-
-
Dan Atatakai
John - It has been at least 3 weeks since I wrote to you and not to anyone else on this topic.
I see you continue with your immature rants, accusing others of what it is you are guilty of performing. Let me point out a couple of issues:
a. You claim you have evidence of Intelligent Design, yet you have NO empirical evidence for your claim. You just say "It is all around you! It is obvious!" That is not evidence. It is not even giving the simplest of examples.
b. You claim all animals (and life?) came into being whole. Yet, the Smithsonian Institute Museum of Natural History, the George Page Museum in Los Angeles, the California Museum of Natural History, the Chicago Museum of Natural History and many others have tons upon tons of actual evidence of, for only one of many examples, the evolution of the human being. It has been shown, not just with similarities in skull structure, but with DNA evidence, as well as ERVs. The ERVs, since you claim to be an expert on the subject, you should know, prove that through genetics, many life forms have evolved.
Here is a surprise for you. YOU are a transitional being. You are not the final product. If you ever have children, they are not going to be the same as you. Similar, yes, but the same? Not at all. You will have some genetic similarities and commonalities, but they will also have differences. The same with the Pakicetus to Odontoceti and Mysticeti cetacions.
While you are at it, look up Ring Speciation. You will learn how your claims that birds or salamanders, no matter what they do, will remain birds or salamanders. That is not speciation or evolution. It is the successful ability to multiply and breed which makes the difference.
I know you do not trust academic sources. You just accept your silly rumors and fabrications, claiming that "all scientists who claim Evolution is true are crazy!" Your concept is lacking simply because of peer review; another concept of which you fail to understand.
Now, do you have ANYTHING which will actually prove your claim of Intelligent Design, let alone who or what this Intelligent Designer happens to be? Are you going to claim it is the Abrahamic deity of Jews, Christians and Muslims? Is it Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism, or maybe Brahma of HInduism?
Either answer with legitimate sources to substantiate your silly claims, or, as the saying goes, "get off the pot."
-
-
-
-
William Waugh
A mere cursury connection between gnostic thought and science reveals an unknowable (in life) reality that educated folk like to call spacetime. The faster you go, the slower time gets. At light speed, time stops! And light photons choose their aspect (particle or wave) depending on whether or not it is being observed! This requires consciencness. Particles (matter) exists because there is a "conscienceness" observing it. The universe has been around way longer that humans. Either the universe itself is conscience(pantheism) or "god" exists in spacetime as the initial mover&shaker. Either way works for me.
-
Eric k
This has been one of the best conversations on the ulcm blog ever, been learning things that I will never use other than to start an argument with my evolutionist friends
-
Don
Every Creationist on this site has either lost or fled - and none have presented any evidence to back their side. There's nothing here for you to use, unless you like making yourself look foolish and losing arguments.
-
John Owens
You never published any of my responses to this insult. I'm sure not all of them were profane. You WANTED him to win the argument.
-
Don
And that right there, ladies and gentlemen, not only speaks volumes about the commenter, it also allows us to conclude which of us has been lying. Thanks, I appreciate it.
-
John Owens
You see?
-
-
-
-
-
Mathys Smit
Darwins Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory,theory is based on perception and understanding of reality at the time,and not nesseserally the truth,it is simply a possibility to consider that seem to make sense in a specific contexts. The problem is people take it as the truth disregarding that it is only a theory and expect all other people to accept it as the truth and nothing but the truth, while it still remains a theory to this day, that has never been conclusively proven by science.Fact is some of the theory may be true or plausible while a big part of it is simply theory that in the light of existing evidence does not add up.
-
Dan Atatakai
Mathys - Obviously, you have not learned the definition of Scientific Theory. This will help you to understand that Evolution is real and that the Theory of Evolution is valid. After all, are you going to dismiss Gravitational Theory or Germ Theory?
Scientific Theory is defined as:
A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation
I hope this helps you to understand that Scientific Theory is not a philosophical guess or hypothesis, but an explanation of the facts found in the real world.
Evolution and the Evolutionary Theory have been shown to be fact many, many times.
-
John Owens
Not once. Myth. Fable. Cartoon.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - Seriously. Show the evidence you have which disproves Evolution and proves your Creationism myth. Just making smart-alecky comments does not get you anywhere except discredited.
-
John Owens
ALL THE EVIDENCE GIVEN FOR EVOLUTION DISPROVES IT, DAN!!
-
Dan Atatakai
No, John. Nothing posted here has disproven evolution.
Where is your evidence for Creationism/Intelligent Design?
By the way, no need to yell. It makes you look like a troll.
-
John Owens
Capital letters have not a damned thing to do with trolls. You sucking up to Don makes YOU look like an aspiring troll.
-
-
-
-
John Owens
It does not actually reach the level of theory. It is hypothesis.
-
Don
Hiya John! We're all still waiting for your Concrete Evidence for Creation. Did you find it yet?
-
Dan Atatakai
Methinks it is going to be a leap year or two before he posts anything.
Poor John. No matter how much you show him, he ignores the facts and pretends that his "creationism" science is accurate, even though there is absolutely zero evidence for any such concept, let alone evidence of a deity.
-
John Owens
Again, I never said "creationism". I don't think I have ever used that word in my life. You do not read well, and you ignore facts and science to believe the hypothesis of evolution is a fact.
I said "creation". Not "creationism".
Allow me to give you a little grammar lesson. "Creationism," if it is an actual word, would be a belief in creation (particularly as an act of a deity) as an explanation for the origin of things. However, I did not actually ever say that. See below:
Merriam-Webster SINCE 1828
dictionary thesaurus WORD OF THE DAY creation noun cre·a·tion | \ krē-ˈā-shən Definition of creation 1 : the act of creating
especially : the act of bringing the world into ordered existence
[Webster said this without any prompting from me, most likely because of the observable fact that much of the physical universe HAS been brought into order]2 : the act of making, inventing, or producing: such as
a : the act of investing with a new rank or office
b : the first representation of a dramatic role[This next one is the one most obvious, of which you keep asking for stupid references, and Don keeps asking for concrete evidence. 3 : something that is created: such as
a : world
b : creatures singly or in aggregate
c : an original work of artd : a new usually striking article of clothing
-
Iconoclast
Exactly! Big difference between Creation and Creationism. I wonder how they keep jumping from one to the other.
-
-
-
Don
"Again, I never said “creationism”."
RIGHT - what you said was "There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution."
And you've been evading and spewing insults - all with zero evidence - ever since.
-
John Owens
I don't "spew". That would be you.
-
-
Don
So nothing, then? Not even some lame excuse or that you lost the evidence? Wow. Does your family know how dishonest and immoral you are?
-
Dan Atatakai
Don - Maybe his dog ate the evidence.
His rants continue, not showing anything for evidence, but just empty claims. I have given up responding to his nonsense as I find it a waste of energy.
-
John Owens
It is a waste of energy, since your claims are vacuous.
-
Don
As predicted - no hint of the evidence John Owens claimed to have...and now he's accusing YOU of having vacuous claims! Even though his claim is the only one that hasn't been supported.
Welcome to Creationist Logic. Not very logical, is it?
-
-
John Owens
Oh, this one is nice, "dishonest and immoral".
-
Don
As opposed to outright unfiltered vulgarity, which I will not stoop to by repeating.
But if you're not being dishonest and immoral, the solution is simple - present the evidence you've been claiming to have for 2 weeks now. Problem solved!
-
Dan Atatakai
Don - My thoughts as well.
I find it odd that, like a particular POTUS, John seems to think that he can insult, but someone reports how John is doing or not doing, it is insulting and should be reported. Hmmm. All he would have to do is show his evidence for his claims, instead of just saying "you guys are wrong and all scientists who accept evolution are wrong" and causing all of this nonsense.
I wonder what he would want taught in school, really. Does he think that Creationism/ID is really on par with Evolution?
-
John Owens
From our first interaction, Don has been childishly insulting for no reason, and then plays the victim like a Democrat. I will not indulge him further, since the moderators appear to side with him politically.
I find it odd, when I was speaking respectfully to Jim, Don jumped in, insulting. Then when I iggied him and spoke to Dan, Don jumped in, insulting and pretending to be the victim.
I find it more odd still, that both of you pretend to refuse to accept the physical universe around you without some ridiculous paper being cited that says, "yes, there is a physical universe (to which I refer as creation) all around us, of which we are a part."
Then you claim to want some proof of intelligent design, of which I offered Darwin's statement concerning it, but I should think it would be obvious, given how much we have all been taught about molecular structure and the properties of matter. Seems silly to me, but: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/ https://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/atom_anatomy.html https://nei.nih.gov/photo/anatomy-of-eye
Just a few simple examples even a child can comprehend, but they may still be too highbrow for you two. Below are types of molecular geometry, which BY THEIR DESCRIPTIONS, show intelligent design.
Tetrahedral molecular geometry,Trigonal planar molecular geometry, Octahedral molecular geometry,Trigonal bipyramidal molecular geometry, Trigonal pyramidal molecular geometry, Square pyramidal molecular geometry, Seesaw molecular geometry, Square planar molecular geometry, Pentagonal bipyramidal molecular geometry, Square antiprismatic molecular geometry, Pentagonal planar molecular geometry, Pentagonal pyramidal molecular geometry, T-shaped molecular geometry. Bent molecular geometry
I suppose you need some "scientific" citation before acknowledging all of that, but of course, if you knew anything about science, as you CLAIM, then you would know about them.
Now, I know you lean on one another for support because your positions are weak, so, be kind to one another as you pretend to be the intelligent victims here.
-
Don
Those are some cool links! Thanks John. However, none of them claim to be evidence of intelligent design, or refutations of evolutionary biology. In fact, one of your links led to here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/
You claimed to have evidence, then when pressed to show it, claim it is all around us. A similar claim could be made about blue fairies from the 8th dimension. Do you see how silly that is? So, do you have any evidence or not?
-
John Owens
Don, just denying anything that doesn't agree with you? Really? That's what you've done in every discussion. I don't think you even believe yourself. You just like to argue. Those descriptions of molecular geometry ARE absolute proof of intelligent design, as is the anatomy of a feather, or an eye, or an atom, or anything else.
Your problem isn't proof. It is vanity. You think being insufferable can make you correct? It only makes you repulsive.
-
Don
"Then you claim to want some proof of intelligent design"
Liar. YOU made the claim, we just wanted you to support it with evidence. Not respond with evasions, personal opinions, and infantile insults.
It's obvious at this point you don't have any evidence or you would have presented it by now.
-
Don
"Those descriptions of molecular geometry ARE absolute proof of intelligent design, as is the anatomy of a feather, or an eye, or an atom, or anything else."
According to who? You? Kent Hovind? The Flat Earth Society? You earlier claimed to have peer-reviewed science articles. Post one that supports this position. I dare you.
-
John Owens
Don, you try so very hard. It would be admirable if it weren't so futile. It's Quixotic. You name people you will believe, knowing they are firmly entrenched in the idiotic thinking that chaos can create design and law and life and matter. This is how you think you can win your futile argument? By denying anything and anyone who doesn't agree with you and trying to dictate where and how others can look for references? You can't see the forest for the trees.
If chaos can create anything, it is because the elements were DESIGNED and CREATED with certain properties which WILL present with designs. Chaos didn't grow those designs and laws or calculate them. The LAWS regarding chemical compounds and elements had to have been put into place at the BEGINNING of chaos, if there ever was chaos. Law that can be mathematically explained is not the result of chaos.
Do you really need an egghead to tell you that is the truth? Or do you have enough neurons in your brain to reason that out for yourself?
-
-
-
-
-
John Owens
"... But Darwin was not so dogmatic. He described his theory as an inference grounded chiefly on analogy... In an 1863 letter, he amplified by pointing out that evolution by natural selection was "grounded entirely on general considerations" such as the difference between contemporary organisms and fossil organisms. "When we descend to details," he wrote, "we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e., We cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not" (Darwin 1899, 2:210). In other words, Darwin was aware that the scientific evidence was short of compelling. Pearcey (MC) Page 77 "
-
Don
Nice evasion. Did you misplace the evidence for Creation you claimed to have? You remember, the CONCRETE EVIDENCE? We're all still waiting.
-
John Owens
Concrete is concrete evidence. Air is concrete evidence. Every physical particle is concrete evidence.
-
Dan Atatakai
Why doesn't John explain how concrete and air is all made by God when he has not even proven God (any deity) as of yet?
Don, you are quite the patient person.
-
John Owens
I never claimed "God" made anything, Dan, and YOU are trying to reroute the argument again.
-
John Owens
In fact, I think you and Don are the same person. That is why you keep sucking up to him. He is you.
-
-
-
-
Dan Atatakai
John - From what publications did your two posts originate? You gave a footnote, but not naming any of the sources.
Please also understand that Charles Darwin's findings about evolution did not stop with him. Many advancements have happened since he published. In over two hundred years, science has found out that a lot of what he postulated was true. Science has ALSO found a lot of what he considered was NOT true, but incorrect assumptions. (That is one of the nice things about science - it is always open to change, unlike most theistic religions.)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-darwin-didnt-know-45637001/
This is one of many articles which shows how Darwin was right AND WRONG about his various theories on evolution.
The following article talks about how genetics has helped to improve what Mr. Darwin had thought some 200 years previous to today's scientific abilities, including genetic development:
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/bio_essay4.jsp
I look forward to hearing from what sources your two articles were derived.
-
John Owens
I found both of those at http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html by googling "darwin questions his own theory". It is amazing how many people are thoroughly convinced that it is a proven fact, just like the fundamentalists do the Genesis account, when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
Your article does not fill the yawning gaps in the fossil record, but postulates more hopes about how some things MIGHT pan out IN THE FUTURE to do so.
"Overall, genetic studies of adaptation and species formation are flourishing, as evidenced by recent studies identifying some of the genes responsible. Interestingly, a few examples of inheritance have been described, under the broad umbrella of "epigenetics," in which the experience of an individual alters features of its offspring for one or more generations. This idea is similar to Darwin's gemmule concept. IF such inheritance proves common, THEN future theory and experimentation will integrate these ideas to test their evolutionary effects. Once again, we'll be running in a direction initially signaled by Darwin."
-
Don
"by googling “darwin questions his own theory”
Confirmation bias. You aren't looking for any answers, you're typing in baited answers and looking for sources/opinions that mirror your own.
So I take it you STILL can't find the evidence for Creation you claimed to have? Shocker!
-
John Owens
Therefore, there is MUCH more evidence of creation.
-
-
John Owens
Here's another quote from Mohamed Noor in the article: " Recent work by my group and others suggests that certain regions of the genome may allow such leaky hybrid species to form constantly, unlike the paint example previously mentioned."
Notice the word, "suggests" above.
-
Don
Still waiting on your Concrete Evidence for Creation. I think I'm going to start calling John Owens Jussie Smollet. He seems about as credible.
-
-
Don
7 more comments from John Owens today. Still no hint of the Concrete Evidence for Creation he keeps claiming to have. yawn
-
Dan Atatakai
Don - You noticed that, too?
I hope he learns soon the definitions used in science as well as perceiving the concept of understanding the difference between facts, hypotheses, and "my best guess".
-
John Owens
If either of you KNEW the definition of hypothesis, you would see that evolution is just that. It has not reached the level of theory. Sad that modern education has left you two behind with just blind indoctrination.
-
John Owens
Danny, I noticed you did not try to refute Darwin's doubts. I wonder why.
-
-
Don
“There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution." - John Owens, February 18, 2019 at 11:20 am
Something tells me John Owens doesn't actually HAVE any evidence. Far too much cowardly evasion and moving the goalposts - both of which are time-worn Creationist tactics. And they've never worked!
-
John Owens
You are the one always trying to move goalposts and reroute any discussion to make your asinine ravings seem correct.
-
-
Don
After weeks of evading his own claim, John Owens has chosen a new tactic - act stupid. "Just look around you, the evidence is everywhere! Clouds, trees, etc." This is yet ANOTHER Creationist tactic, and it NEVER works. You'll need to try something else. Hey, I know! Present the evidence you claimed to have!
-
John Owens
If that tactic doesn't work, it is because you are willfully ignorant. Creation is all around us.
-
Iconoclast
I marvel that it is thought stupid to observe the creation around us. Wow. Shaking my head.
-
-
-
-
-
John Owens
"Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. " Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of the human eye and other living structures immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How could an organ of such an intricate magnificence ever have a originated via random chance? Oller and Omdahl (CH) Page 274 "
-
Don
Ah yes, because posting snippets of someone's OPINION is the equivalent of empirical evidence. Pathetic. I wonder if John Owens will ever even TRY to post some evidence.
-
-
angel
Whether you came from an Alien, a Monkey, A dolphin, or a speck of dirt is irrelevant. Everything comes from energy, that turned into molecules, and evolved into cells and turned into a mass of something. Everything is evolved from something, it's the laws of nature. If you have a piece of wood and carve it into a statue of Jesus, this is evolution because the biology of the wood changed and evoloved from a tree to a decoration. When a child is conceived in a womb, it starts off as 2 cell, breaks off into many more cells and eventually forms a human being. Again, evolution. You can't say you don't believe in evolution but yet you believe in birth. Now, your beliefs on how evolution is done will be different and THIS is what you are more then welcome to argue and deny your child from learning in school.
-
Minister Post
Evolution is a lie to indoctrination to believe that you were an evolved creature with no insignificant to who you really are. God made each one of us in his image.everything you've been taught is a lie to control the sheep, the masses . Just like NASA is a lie. The only truth you will ever receive comes from the bible, The book of Enoch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's time to wake up!!!! You don't have much time left!!! I don't know about anyone else, but being burned over and over again in the lake of fire never finding death doesn't sound like a good time to me. Oh and the once saved, always saved will have you hearing Jesus saying, "I never knew you, depart from me oh wicked one.".
-
Don
Your "facts" are as messed up (and wrong) as your grammar. Here, this is a site that may help you: (it's for English learners, and you appear to have a LOT to learn) https://agendaweb.org/reading/easy-reading.html
One last thing - kindly take your thinly veiled superstitious threats and shove them up your backside. They have no place here.
-
Eric k
Amen
-
Lionheart
I never seem to be amazed how deeply some people have been indoctrinated into religious dogma. Thank you for your thoughts Mr Post, but you really do have my deepest sympathy for your lack of education.
As for NASA being a lie, your statement doesnt make any sense. I’ve been involved with NASA having worked in a design capacity on the Space Shuttle Program. I have great appreciation for everything NASA is involved with.
The only statement I agree with is that it’s time to wake up, and become educated with reason and logic, and realise that religion, and all that it holds, along with its fictitious threats of hell, is steeped in mythical rubbish.
As for your “the only truth is in the Bible” makes me realise you haven’t even read it.
-
-
Mary Benoit
Science should be taught in schools. Alternative facts can be presented in religion class.
-
Alicia
This obviously wasn't a religious school, so why did they cave to these parents? If you don't want your kids to learn about scientific fact, send your kids to a religious school. What's next? Making the schools teach that the earth is 6,000 years old and only took 6 days to create?
-
Tom B
Respectfully....religion and its theories/precepts/doctrines should only be taught in public schools in a course on religions...organized religions have been responsible for more deaths than any other cause...Peace...Tom
-
Lea Weisenbach
Thumbs ☝
-
-
Professor Albert Logjes
Evolution is a fact. No discussion
-
Mark Hannon
Darwin was a scientist with, I think, an interesting life. The travelling and his drawings were incredible.
What a shame people still get worked up over this.
-
ET
In America it’s ok to believe what you want, but tolerance of the beliefs of others is encouraged by thoughtful persons. If you enroll your children in public school, but choose not to accept school events based upon religious principles, perhaps a school based in your religious teachings would best serve your needs. Or accept some secular programs the school provides.
-
Don
The school in the story is in the U.K. not America. (and they don't have separation of church and state like we do)
-
-
Lea Weisenbach
Evolution is a theory...Religion someone's stories..or fairy tale..Theory is open for change when we learn more information...Religion..change the story to fit your needs. Education is for children to learn critical thinking...So with this in mind..Have both but allow children to think for themselves..But I know that will never happen..
-
Chris
It always amuses me how creationists demand religion be taught in school but balk at any religion but their own. There are many different theories of creation from a variety of religions. If we're going to be forced to teach a "Christian" theory of creation we should also include other religions as well.
It also amuses me these "Christians" get so insulted and whiny when anything but their theory gets taught. It's like they don't really believe what they want everyone else to be forced to follow but if they force everyone else to follow it nobody will notice.
-
Don
There aren't any Creation Myths that classify as a Theory. Theories, by definition, must be supported by verified factual information.
Superstitious beliefs, by definition, have no factual information to support them.
-
John Owens
It doesn't actually reach the level of theory. It is a hypothesis.
-
-
-
Lionheart
Of course creation exists. Mankind for millennia have created all the gods. In the meantime, mankind will continue to evolve, and religion will, hopefully, die and become extinct.
-
Eric k
Darwin's theory is just that a theory and if taught should be taught as such. It is not factual.
I know humans were created, but my children should be shown all sides of thought and not be forced to believe anything adults cram. Down their minds
-
Dan Atatakai
Eric - Given you are ignorant on the definition of "scientific theory", I would like to suggest you look in a dictionary to see what it actually means. What it appears you are doing is claiming "theory" as the philosophical "guess" or hypothesis. That is NOT how it is defined. The scientific theory is an explanation of the process which is the highest form of evidence, up there with gravitational theory, germ theory, and many others.
Evolution is FACT. It is scientifically proven.
Here is one of many sources which explains how Evolution is scientific theory AND fact:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
-
John Owens
I took this from the source you cited. "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred." The author just claims they don't know how something which cannot be proven occurred, but THEY KNOW IT OCCURRED, even though it can't be proven. They also try to manipulate the meaning of the word, "fact". Please, use critical thinking here as much as with everyone else, and this becomes obvious.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - You seem quite determined to read only what you want to see.
Yes, they may not understand the mechanisms involved with Evolution, however it has been observed. It HAS been proven, as the article has stated, as well as the other sources I have listed for you.
Sjnce it is obvious you have not looked up the definition of scientific theory, let me post it here for you:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.
There is no "manipulation of the definition of the term "fact."
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
-
Lionheart
Excellent Dan! ?
-
John Owens
And the author of that article was blatantly trying to manipulate the definition of the word, "fact."
-
John Owens
'Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty" ' (Laurence Moran, in the article you cited) He WAS trying to manipulate the definition of fact, without doubt, just in order to insist that something unproven and unprovable is fact.
Now the FACT that he said, "...we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred..." is proof that the THEORY is unproven, meaning the imagined FACT is in question. If it is in question, THEN it is not a fact. Actually, supposedly, evolution IS the imagined mechanism, but with no evidence of it.
The FACT is, there are no fossil remains of any transitional plants OR creatures.
Therefore, the only EVIDENCE that exists to justify the THEORY of evolution are cartoon-like drawings imagined by disciples of that theory. It is demonstrably UNscientific to value the cartoon illustrations of artists over the observable forensic evidence, and come to the conclusion that the cartoons OUTWEIGH the evidence.
I don't see how my position can be considered the least bit controversial here. All you have is speculation and cartoons. Yet you claim it as fact. That is unscientific, irrational, and based on indoctrination over reasoning. Completely primitive. Like the stories of the Aborigines or something.
-
John Owens
I didn't make the article say things it didn't say. You just don't read with discernment or skepticism. You read like a religious fanatic reading the literature of his or her cult.
-
-
Don
John Owens, you continue to post comments, yet are still playing the evasion game. The concrete evidence for Creation - the evidence YOU claimed to have - where is it?? It's starting to look like you don't actually have any and are being willfully ignorant.
-
John Owens
The creation around us IS the concrete evidence, Donna. Do you need to google it?
-
Don
"I have concrete evidence for intelligent design" Well then, present it. "It's all around you, the trees, the clouds..."
Really, John? After all of your sophistry, THAT'S your evidence? Told you people he didn't have any!
-
-
Don
John, we’re under the assumption that evolution is false, based on your premise. Stop arguing about evolution – it’s an evasion. Instead, present the concrete evidence for intelligent design you claimed to be in possession of. We’re all still waiting.
-
John Owens
I have presented plenty of evidence of intelligent design. Darwin saw intelligent design, and I showed that to you. If you knew anything at all about science, you would know about intelligent design. Concrete is evidence of intelligent design. When certain compounds and elements are mixed, they combine to make new compounds. This all happens at the molecular level. The molecule is intelligently designed. Just stop being obtuse and go to something you understand.
-
Don
"I have presented plenty of evidence of intelligent design."
No, you have presented plenty of CLAIMS of evidence of intelligent design. For over 2 weeks now, we've been waiting for the evidence.
And all we get are insults and evasion.
-
Don
"I have presented plenty of evidence of intelligent design"
If that were true, there wouldn't be any more posts on this page.
In fact, the only post missing is the one with your evidence. Care to point it out?
-
John Owens
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
Isaacson, W. 2007. "Einstein and Faith." Time, 16 April. "Albert Einstein, did not share this outlook. His years of studying the universe not only led him to come up with the Theory of Relativity, but also led him to believe, in his own words, in a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe," in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" (Isaacson 2007: 44). He once wrote:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence (ibid. 46).
In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47). He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]). These statements are highly significant, considering that no scientist of any worth would dismiss Einstein as superstitious or unscientific. Moreover, the above quotes can't be dismissed as the product of a religious bias on Einstein's part, because, except for a brief period of "deep religiousness" when he was twelve, Einstein rejected organized religion (ibid.). Borrowed from http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/01/16/Einstein-and-Intelligent-Design.aspx#Articlehttps://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/us/expert-witness-sees-evidence-in-nature-for-intelligent-design.html
http://magazine.biola.edu/article/10-summer/can-dna-prove-the-existence-of-an-intelligent-desi/
"“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Bill Gates
My note: code doesn't write itself. You have inconveniently ignored the existence of DNA, RNA, molecules, crystals, and every other substance known to man to keep asking for evidence. Since you are not aware of these things, I have provided you with some written references, which you will reject, because you think you are being smart by doing so. You are horribly mistaken. Stubbornness is not a hallmark of intelligence.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - DNA is NOT CODE. It is chemistry. That is all it is. If you had done ANY reading of the numerous sources I have given you in the past, you would know that. You would also see that your claims of bible-believing sources claiming that Intelligent Design is science have been disproven and shown faulty, time and time again.
You claim even a molecule was intelligently designed. By whom? If you claim God, then prove God. Simple. You say you have the evidence. Show us.
-
Don
"You have inconveniently ignored the existence of DNA, RNA, molecules, crystals, and every other substance known to man"
Ah, the design tactic used by Creationists. Snowflakes are, by your words, intricately designed. Do you believe snowflake fairies wait in the clouds to design them, or can your mind accept that the "design" we see in snowflakes is created by natural forces?
-
John Owens
"Ah, the design tactic used by Creationists. Snowflakes are, by your words, intricately designed. Do you believe snowflake fairies wait in the clouds to design them, or can your mind accept that the “design” we see in snowflakes is created by natural forces?"
I don't even remember mentioning snowflakes. You can't see how completely ignorant your petty arguments are? Why do you call pointing out the obvious to the blind a "tactic used by Creationists?"
You just called it a "design" in the snowflake. Chaos cannot create a design. Those "natural forces" you mention could not create themselves. There is design in those natural forces.
Still, you deflect, and ignore the questions, (DNA and such) and the obvious. You don't address the points I made, because you know if you do, you will have to concede a point or two, and you are too obstinate in your vanity to admit that in this case, you are painted into a corner. I win, but not because I'm smarter. I'm not. I'm winning, because I choose truth over lies. I don't have to be smarter to be correct. I just have to choose what is correct. It is the smart choice.
Stop being a silly troll, Don. Everybody except you knows you have been soundly trounced here. You should realize it, too.
-
Don
"Chaos cannot create a design."
YAWN...another claim John Owens cannot support. Sounds like a sound bite from Creationists who use the phrase "2nd law of thermodynamics" without even knowing what it means.
Chaos can and does create designs all the time. Snowflakes are just one example. Open a science book for a change. Science, unlike gods, doesn't vanish just because people ignore it.
-
John Owens
It is amazing that you call chaos a creator of design. Yet you deny creation. Then you deny design. Feeling like a cowardly evading weasel (your words) yet?
-
Don
It's amazing that you can spew the same insults that made you cry like a baby to the moderators, but think you should somehow get special treatment.
So be it. John Owens has declared himself "Special" - and his lies and false claims tend to support this.
-
-
-
-
-
Alan J Meunier
Their kids will be working FOR my kids...
-
John Owens
It is very sad that people accept evolution as and origin for different life forms as fact.
-
Don
It is indeed very sad (and pathetic) that people in this century cling to disproven superstitious beliefs that have absolutely ZERO evidence to support them.
VERY sad.
-
John Owens
But I am right, and every mature biologist knows it. Evolution can account for small variations within a species, but not for the diversity of life forms that exist.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - State your sources which shows that evolution is not proven. I will bet you dimes to doughnuts that you are talking about sources like Answers In Genesis or Kent Hovind. Just a feeling.
-
Don
Dan, John used Josephus and Tacitus as "evidence" for Jesus. I'm not even kidding. Don't expect too much in the way of scientific evidence.
-
John Owens
And you have yet to show those two sources false.
-
John Owens
Dan, there is not one piece of evidence anywhere that illustrates one kind of creature becoming a more sophisticated, more intelligent kind of creature. No half bird, half reptiles, not even a half-turtle, half-snake.
The chicken and the egg prove evolution is false. Chickens come from eggs, and eggs only come from chickens. If anything else laid an egg, a chicken could not hatch from it. That is so simple and observable. If a turtle lays an egg, a turtle hatches-- not a bird. It takes a LOT of firm indoctrination not to comprehend that.
-
John Owens
correction: chicken eggs ONLY come from chickens.
-
John Owens
{TAKEN FROM: http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html} Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. " Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of the human eye and other living structures immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How could an organ of such an intricate magnificence ever have a originated via random chance? Oller and Omdahl (CH) Page 274
Still no hint how evolution could do that.
"In fact, discussions of the day posed a challenge to Darwin. Opposition to the theory on evolution begged the question of steps taken to explain exactly how gradual changes were accomplished over time. An array or organisms in the fossil record as well as examples from living species gave reason to think a progression of forms appeared over time. Yet, what seemed reasonable was not easily proven. Even today, new fossil discoveries that appear to fit evolutionary gaps—representing the expected intermediate forms—turn out to be sufficiently distinct species. Darwin needed evidence to support his theory's gradualism, which should give us transitions occurring everywhere along time."
-
Dan Atatakai
John - Josephus and Tacitus were not extra-biblical contemporaries of Jesus.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read the writings of Josephus? Do you think a writing which also includes the issue of Hercules makes him real, too?
-
John Owens
Dan, who were Tacitus and Jesus then, and what is your source for identifying them? Also, I did not claim they were contemporaries. I claimed them to be extra-biblical references to His existence. Not the same thing.
-
John Owens
Lucilius Senecus (the Stoic philosopher known as Seneca), who was one of the Roman administrators under Claudius Caesar and later Nero, also referred to the Apostle Paul who appeared before Seneca's brother, in reference to his evangelism. To deny the existence of the man known as Jesus, or Moses, for that matter is willful ignorance.
-
-
Don
"Chickens come from eggs, and eggs only come from chickens"
I guess that since the answer to John's 'question' involves Earth's history from a time before John even believes our planet existed (10,000 years ago), he won't even read it...but here it is. https://www.science.org.au/curious/everything-else/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg
-
John Owens
You should stop presuming you know what I believe, because you don't read well enough to know what I have even told you, much less what I have not.
-
John Owens
Oh, and the chicken came first. Anybody who needs that explained to them, well...
-
-
Don
Nothing. Nada. Not a hint of the Concrete Evidence repeatedly claimed by John Owens. No more evasion, you are officially a deceitful, dishonest person. Shame on you.
-
John Owens
No. I have not deceived. I am not dishonest. That would be YOUR wheelhouse.
-
Don
You have not deceived?? You claimed Concreted Evidence for Intelligent Design on February 18!!! And STILL haven't produced any!
Your excuses have run out. Replies from John Owens containing only insults and evasions - but no evidence - will be ignored from here on.
-
-
Don
"To deny the existence of the man known as Jesus, or Moses, for that matter is willful ignorance."
Only if the denial comes AFTER evidence has been presented that proves they existed. You haven't presented any evidence yet...and before you try again, how about the Concrete Evidence for Creation you claimed to have? Lose it again?
-
Dan Atatakai
No, Don, he did not lose it again. He has lost it and has not found it yet.
He continues to make nonsense claims without backing anything up. I asked, in this last series of rants he proclaimed, for ANY contemporary extra-biblical authors who wrote about Jesus. He came up with nothing, mentioning only Tacitus and Josephus, both born after the apparent death of John's hero, Jesus.
Maybe he really does not understand the concept of evidence? I don't know. He continues to rant without anything to back his claims. It seems to be nothing but wasted energy.
What the existence of Jesus, Moses or even Abraham have to do with Evolution, I have no idea. Maybe just a sidestep so he does not have to face the condemnation due to a complete lack of any evidence for his malfeasant claims.
-
John Owens
Wrong. I also mentioned Seneca, which you ignored, because you do not know who he was, but that is how you came to your current state of intellectual stagnation-- by ignoring and not knowing.
-
John Owens
Oh, and you ignored the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, along with those of Paul, who IS on Roman record as having existed, and appearing before Roman-appointees because of his work as an evangelist. But, ignore away. You seem to do it very well.
-
Dan Atatakai
Don - Sadly, John has slipped the proverbial cog of understanding. Apparently, due to lack of knowledge, he does not know that the Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark were not written by any people named Matthew, Luke, John or Mark.
Secondly, the Bible is not a historical document and not what anyone could call evidence of science or the Abrahamic deity.
John mentions Paul, yet he NEVER saw Jesus "on the road to Damascus", as the story claims. It was a vision and NOT a face-to-face issue. If that were the case, the whole biblical timeline would be off.
Numerous times, we have asked for ANY empirical evidence for his claims and yet, like you said, all he claims is "it's all around!" which is by no means any evidence or even any slight reference, but only a vague claim.
-
John Owens
You skip answers and dissemble. Yes, I am sure that Dan and Don are, in fact, one and the same. I did not say Paul SAW Jesus. I said he appeared in court in regard to Jesus. I did not say Tacitus or Josephus knew Jesus. I said they wrote about Him. You are beginning to be boring, Donny.
-
Don
"I am sure that Dan and Don are, in fact, one and the same."
I'm sure you are. You seem to have a habit of being "sure" of things that are either blatantly false, or have no supporting evidence. It's a bad habit.
-
-
-
John Owens
...like evolution.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - I have posted a few of many dozens of sources which are scientific in nature, proving that Evolution is fact. I am waiting to hear your reasoning as to why you believe we do not live in an evolution-based world with evidence abounding.
-
John Owens
Dan, no self-respecting scientist would say that evolution is a fact. If he or she did, they would be wrong. FACTS can be proven and observed, and repeated in experiments and demonstrated. Evolution does not hold up to that criteria. It is responsible for small changes within a species (speciation, like Darwin's finches, or different types of bears or camels), but not for one life form morphing into another. That has not ever been demonstrated.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - Still waiting for you to give actual sources with citation which proves evolution is false.
Any input yet?
-
Lionheart
It’s interesting how religionists need evidence of evolution, yet only rely on faith to believe their position.
So, I guess I can say I have “faith” that evolution is a correct position on the origins of mankind. And to add strength to my position, I have a special feeling in my body that tells me I’m right. ?
-
John Owens
Dan, the EVIDENCE says it is false. OPINION and speculation say it is true. There is no one paper of evidence, only a preponderance of lack thereof.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - Again, WHAT evidence says that Evolution is false? You have not yet offered ANY empirical evidence to back up your claim.
I have offered you numerous sources with citation which explains how Evolution is fact and that the Theory of Evolution is valid. It is now YOUR TURN to offer anything to justify your perspective, claiming that Evolution is invalid.
-
John Owens
The fossil record shows evolution is false, Dan. Why do you keep pretending not to understand that? You cannot find one transitional fossil. That means it didn't happen.
-
Dan Atatakai
...and John continues to make statements but does not back up any of his claims.
Maybe he does not know what evidence happens to be.
-
John Owens
Dan, do you mean my claim that intelligent design is present and obvious in all matter? Do you really need to have that explained to you?
-
John Owens
Just for those too dense to comprehend: There is no physical evidence that any life form ever came from anything other than a life form like it. There never has been. There never can be. The proof is in the absence of that evidence.
-
-
Don
"speciation, like Darwin’s finches, or different types of bears or camels"
But wait, you just said humans aren't apes because we cannot breed with apes...so certain finches aren't birds because they cannot breed with other finches??
And since polar bears cannot breed with brown bears, they must not be bears - again, using YOUR argument.
Do you realize how silly that is? Have you ever bothered to learn about biological evolution?
-
John Owens
finches CAN breed with other finches, you dupe! They just choose not to.
-
John Owens
And polar bears CAN breed with Brown bears. The offspring are usually sterile, but not always.
-
John Owens
Finches are the same KIND, hence the name, "finches". Bears are the same KIND, hence the name, "bears". You can google mixed polar/brown bears. It has happened. But, say, a Panda cannot breed with a black bear. Their kinds are not similar enough. Now, finches can't breed with chickens, because THEY AREN'T CHICKENS.
-
-
Don
"no self-respecting scientist would say that evolution is a fact"
Another lie from Johnny. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
-
John Owens
Key word, PrimaDonny-- self-respecting. You are the liar.
-
John Owens
It's not a lie. I said, "self-respecting". Obviously you are citing someone who is not.
-
-
Don
"finches CAN breed with other finches, you dupe!" Ugh. Yes, most can, save for those that have crossed the genetic threshold.
Don't use the word Speciation again until you learn what it means. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
-
Dan Atatakai
Don - Methinks poor John knows nothing about evolution, especially Ring Speciation, which proves beyond any doubt that evolution does take place.
It is also obvious he is not scientifically literate in the field because he uses the term "kind" which is not at all scientific.
Poor kid.
-
John Owens
I myself KNOW what it means. YOU are the one attributing false significance to minor variations within a KIND.
-
Don
"YOU are the one attributing false significance to minor variations within a KIND."
No, you two-faced lying weasel, I NEVER mentioned the nonsense word "kind" as you apply it to biological evolution, because to use it that way is NONSENSE and shows complete ignorance of the subject.
Now, about the evidence you keep claiming to have...
-
John Owens
Understanding of science does not mean you must use the jargon of those who consider themselves experts just because they have believed those who dabble in it. If I use archaic or simple terms, that is because they are terms everyone can understand. Any decent speaker speaks to the least sophisticated of his audience (like Don) and those educated above that level automatically understand. I say, "kind" because you keep wanting to say "species", which is not the same thing. "Kind" is much easier and pleasant, and less pretentious than "Phylum".
Speaking pretentiously does not mean one knows of what they speak.
-
John Owens
It is not a lie or two-faced to point out that you are wrong and fully possessed by the extreme belligerence that comes from total ignorance and self-absorption.
-
-
Dan Atatakai
One of many examples of transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
John, try actually reading what it says. Notice how it has citations/references for sources for its claims.
Where are yours?
-
John Owens
I can't believe you post that outdated junk. Not ONE thing on that reference speaks of one creature actually becoming another creature. Not ONE. Please, find something real. Like, THE COSMOS.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - Still waiting for your evidence. Just saying something does not equate to something is not evidence.
Last time I am going to respond to your nonsense until you actually show any objective, empirical evidence for YOUR claim that Creationism is true and Evolution is false.
Knowing your begging for attention and styles you use to do so, I can only think this will be the last time we converse.
Good luck, kid.
-
John Owens
i never said, "Creationism". That is your term.
-
-
Don
John, we're under the assumption that evolution is false, based on your premise. Stop arguing about evolution - it's an evasion. Instead, present the concrete evidence for intelligent design you claimed to be in possession of. We're all still waiting.
-
John Owens
You say "we" as if you are the leader of a multitude... HAH! Keep dreaming.
-
-
-
-
-
JOLENE MARCELLA TRAVIS
As an Ordained Minister, Science and Religion go hand in hand, like it or not. Like it or not, the Bible FULLY supports Ancient Alien visitation as well. Moses declared the Earth to be round as he viewed it from above when he "disappeared" from the Mountain. Study Theology and earn a Ph.D, then get back to me. If a parent wants their children in a Secular School, despite being very religious, then those parents have NO right to push their views on others. Reverse is also true, a parent who has no religious affiliation probably won't put their children in a Catholic or Christian school.
-
Don
"the Bible FULLY supports Ancient Alien visitation"
Perhaps it does, but it also FULLY supports a flat, 6,000 year old earth, not to mention unicorns, satyrs and cockatrices - and we know that's all false.
"Study Theology and earn a Ph.D, then get back to me." Done! It's spelled Ph.D. Now YOU go get that degree, since from your comment, it is obvious you lack sufficient education to continue this debate.
Ancient aliens...really??
-
-
Reed Mathis
Evolution is not proved by science. It is the religion of the atheist.
-
Jim D.
At least evolution has physical evidence upon which the theory is based. What does creationism have? Bupkis! (For those unfamiliar, bupkis is Yiddish for nothing at all.)
-
JOLENE MARCELLA TRAVIS
Where is the EXACT fossil evidence we all came from primates??? What is the EXACT classification in Hominids for the leap from primates??? The "missing link" is Humans. I support the Ancient Alien/Gods theories that ARE in the Bible. Science and Religion support the Bible, and only a fool keeps Science and Religion in separate compartments.
-
Don
"the leap from primates??? The “missing link"
There is NO "leap from primates" nor any "missing link" - just lies made up by cowardly, dishonest Creationists because they don't HAVE any evidence for their side. Very dishonest and sleazy.
-
William Waugh
Actually it may well be an effective managment tool to compartmentalize these schools of thought depending on who you are addressing and why and the perceived tangible benefits of the extended conversation.
-
-
John Owens
I respectfully disagree. There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution. The fossil record itself discredits evolution. Even a nudnik knows that.
-
Don
"There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution. The fossil record itself discredits evolution."
What a completely ignorant load of garbage. BACK YOUR CLAIMS.
-
Jim D.
Don, you can disagree with John without being so aggressive and insulting. You wouldn't appreciate it if he said your thoughts were ignorant and garbage. And it's fine to ask for proof, but doing WITHOUT YELLING, okay?
This is a good forum, and I like reading what others have to say. Let's all just try to keep it civil, shall we?
-
Iconoclast
He IS, isn't he? He cannot abide being ignored, either, does he? Very neeeeeedy, it seems.
Well, if the censors keep deleting your answers, I'll try.
Creation is not just a theory or myth. It is another word for the physical reality we call the universe or the cosmos. It IS all around us, so yes, it is there. Any evidence found that is interpreted as somehow reinforcing the supposed theory of evolution is borrowed from, or found IN, the physical world, and therefore IS a part of the creation.
Intelligent design is obvious in every facet of the the cosmos (the creation), because of the laws regulating everything and the properties of all gases and matter. The fact that these laws and properties can be explained by mathematical formulae attest to intelligent design.
On a molecular level, intelligent design is always evident. Pick any item, analyze it, and the evidence is there.
-
John Owens
Nothing ignorant about what I said. The creation is all around, intelligent design is obvious in everything that can be analyzed, and the fossil record disproves the hypothesis of evolution. It is an "ignorant load of garbage" to state otherwise. BACK YOUR CLAIMS, but beware, Dan says typing in all caps makes one "look like a troll."
-
-
Jim D.
Well, John, I guess you can call me a nudnik because to the best of my knowledge there is no "concrete evidence" for creationism. And please, don't point to the Bible and say it's evidence, because it's not. It was interpreted and heavily edited from a collection of scrolls by a group of men 1,500 years after Christ, 3,000 years after Moses. So to call it second-hand information is being extremely generous. It simply does not hold up as scientific proof.
-
Don
"You wouldn’t appreciate it if he said your thoughts were ignorant and garbage."
Jim, you might want to peruse John's comment history. He does FAR WORSE than that.
I don't turn the other cheek...sorry.
-
Don
Hey there Jim. Regarding your comment - "Let’s all just try to keep it civil, shall we?" Please peruse the comments, insults, and cowardly evasions posted here by John Owens. I believe you owe me an apology.
-
Jim D.
Hiya, Don. Well, I won't apologize for asking you to keep things civil, but please don't feel that I was singling you out. John Owens needs to make an effort to keep a civil tongue, as do all that comment on this forum.
If I'm being totally honest, I made the suggestion to you because I felt you could do it without much effort. You strike me as being fairly well tuned in, and you understand the need for respect and civility. There are others that I could make the same suggestion until I'm blue in the face, and it would fall on deaf ears.
I will apologize for not being clearer that it is not just you. We all need to do better, and if some are incapable or choose not to do better, well then the rest of us simply have to take the high road.
-
-
Don
I promise to retract all insults the moment John Owens presents his verifiable evidence that supports Creationism.(not to mention his other specious claims) I also promise to never post on these forums again - if the scientific evidence that supports Creationism is posted.
The ball is now in John Owens' court. Will he score any points, or just double dribble?
-
Dan Atatakai
John - Please show your actual empirical evidence which proves creation and intelligent design.
Evolution has myriad evidence for showing that evolution is fact.
I would like to see how you explain that the fossil record discredits evolution. Please explain in detail with citation.
-
Don
Dan, this isn't the first time John has made supernatural claims for which there is no evidence. Expect either complete silence or scathing insults - it's what he uses in place of actual evidence.
-
John Owens
There is zero evidence that one kind of creature ever evolved into any higher life-form, Dan. Intelligent design is evident in all life forms. The symbiotic relationships between different life forms also show intelligent design. The relationship between proteins and nucleic acid pretty much prove intelligent design, and disprove evolution. You can't make nucleic acids without proteins, but nature can't produce protein without DNA. DNA itself is more evidence of intelligent design than all the evidence put forth for evolution put together. It's miraculously intelligent.
The fact that the fossil record does not follow evolutionary theory disproves evolution, from an evidence standpoint. If it did, lies like archaeopteryx and Haeckel's emybros (still being taught to children) would not be around. People wouldn't be constructing whole busts and bodies based on a piece of a femur or a fraction of a jawbone, and making them look like missing links. The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution, for Pete's sake! Citation? What educated person doesn't know about these things? Would I need citation for you to convince you that you should wash your hands or not eat raw meat?
-
Don
See, Dan? Just like I predicted. Owens won't produce any evidence because he doesn't have any.
-
John Owens
Once again, the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution utterly and decisively.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - I was asking for evidence you claim to have which would substantiate your belief in Creationism and Intelligent Design.
As for evidence about evolution being fact, here are just a few of many which shows, beyond any reasonable doubt:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
This is a long list of many, many evidences, nearly all with citation.
www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
www2.palomar.edu/anthro/evolve/evolve_3.htm
There are many more.
So, once again, what is your actual empirical evidence which proves Creationism and Intelligent Design?
This time, please answer the actual question. (Please answer AFTER you have reviewed the list of sources I have given you to substantiate your claims.)
-
John Owens
Don, once again, there is no "empirical" evidence that evolution can explain the different life forms on Earth.
-
Don
"the Cambrian explosion"
The Cambrian biological radiation event occurred 541 million years ago over a 20-25 million year span. Longer than John even thinks the Earth has been here, so why does he even mention it? It deflates his entire position.
-
John Owens
Not ONE transitioning fossil has ever EVER been authenticated.
Notice how Don tries to redirect the argument when his logic fails. Poor sod.
-
John Owens
The fossil record thus far totally denies evolution. There are no transitioning fossils of plants or animals. I posted quotes below here somewhere.
The only evidence necessary for creation is the physical universe. You don't need a book or reference to believe what you can see and touch. I don't think I attributed that to any particular being or cause. It is just here, for all to see. Intelligent design takes a very tiny amount of thought, and needs no specific "citation" because it is described to you in every kind of science, so pick any one, and see the design in the subject of it. "citation" indeed. Have you heard of DNA? RNA? Boyle's Law? Sir Isaac Newton? Any of that? Gravity? Logarithms and squares?
"In a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881, Darwin wrote:
'Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance...' "
-
Don
Golly! The posts from John Owens today have soared into the double digits, and still not one shred of the evidence for Creation he claimed to have.
Is anyone actually surprised?
-
John Owens
The creation (the physical universe) is all around us. What evidence do you need? You can't be blind, because you try to read my comments. If your head weren't up your arse, you'd recognize that creation can be used as a noun, as in "the creation," meaning, "the cosmos"). You never get tired of being wrong, do you?
-
John Owens
Dan, I took this from your second reference above: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
"Some homologous structures can be seen only in embryos. For instance, all vertebrate embryos (including humans) have gill slits and a tail during early development. " The gill slits is a flat lie, based on Haeckel's Embryos, which were known to be falsified in the 1850s, but are still taught today. There are wrinkles in the neck of a human embryo. There are no gill slits.
Furthermore, the author attempts to use Eohippus and such to illustrate the evolutionary process, but those have been found to be nothing other than distinct species of the same phylum as horses, which have since become extinct.
The assumption that because of many similarities between phyla that they all "evolved" from a common ancestor is not scientific and and is a matter of faith, based on your indoctrination. One might just as easily assume they had a common designer, and has at least equal evidence to lead to that assumption as to evolution from a common ancestor. The author speaks of DNA, which itself is conclusive evidence of intelligent design, as it could never have come from any accident.
There are no transtionary fossils. The fossils of modern phyla are mixed in the same strata as dinosaur fossils.
You might also want to do just a tiny amount of research (googling, for don's understanding) on the accuracy/inaccuracy/reliability of potassium/argon dating of stone. It is astounding.
-
-
Don
Hey there John Owens. Did you get lost or in an accident? It's been over two days since you claimed "concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design" and you have yet to produce ANY of it. Are you ready to man up and admit there isn't any...or continue the cowardly evasion?
-
John Owens
Here he goes, moderators: "cowardly" . I admit it is mild, but here he goes.
-
Don
Aww, need a tissue? Wipe those tears, then go find the evidence for intelligent design you keep claiming to have. That will cause me, as promised, to never again post on this forum.
-
-
Don
“There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution"
John Owens, Feb 18 at 11:00AM
It's been 17 days since the claim. Still no evidence. This is getting old.
-
-
-
Eric k
Amen . those creationist individuals are all gonna end up in hell if you believe what the bible says. At least the bilbe has a time line that makes sense. I know my ancestors were not apes and there is no proof that they were.
There is too much missing in the fossil record for it to be so
-
Don
"I know my ancestors were not apes and there is no proof that they were."
Ugh. The idiocy. ALL HUMANS ARE PRIMATES. We ARE apes. Our DNA proves it. Take a 7th grade biology class! And stop spewing lies and nonsense on this forum.
-
John Owens
If we were apes, we could crossbreed, (not that I think we should, but I am sure it has been tried) but we can't. We are not apes, and apes are not humans. We are physically primates, and similar in form, but apes give birth to apes, and humans give birth to humans. They are not evolving into more humanoid creatures, and we are not evolving into any higher life form. Humans can only breed with humans. I don't think orangutans can even breed with chimps or other apes.
-
Don
"If we were apes, we could crossbreed"
Ah, so the issue is your ignorance of basic biology. You probably don't even believe in species, you call them "kinds."
Hey John, guess what? Horses cannot breed with zebras. Using your logic, that means zebras aren't equine animals...EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE.
-
Don
"If we were apes, we could crossbreed" BUT THEN... "I don’t think orangutans can even breed with chimps or other apes."
Ha! You JUST ADMITTED your mistake. I love it when these blowhards diffuse their own position.
So, about your scientific evidence for Creationism...we're still waiting...
-
Jim D.
John, apes are not evolving into humans, or vice versa. Humans and apes have a common ancestor from five to seven million years ago. At some point in that time period the two species took different evolutionary paths. Our path resulted in modern day humans, and the other in modern day chimpanzees (our closest genetic relatives). There are branches of both paths that did not survive, such as neanderthals. Once these ancestors branch into different species, it is very difficult (but not impossible) for crossbreeding. For example, take a look at the liger (lion-tiger) and the wholphin (whale-dolphin).
I get it, John. I'm probably wasting my time explaining all of this. I'm sure it has been presented to you many times in the past. The truth is you have your faith, and that's it for you. Nothing else, no matter how much evidence there is, no matter how logical it seems, will ever alter your opinion.
Having faith is fine. For many it's what gives us strength and comfort. It is also what people have used to explain that which we do not understand. For centuries early humans thought there were sun gods, rain gods, gods for bountiful crops, and so on. Somewhere along the way the multi-god beliefs gave way to the belief in one all-powerful god. Neither are right or wrong. They are just beliefs in something greater than ourselves without a shred of empirical evidence. That is, after all, the very definition of faith.
"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance." Neil deGrasse Tyson
-
John Owens
Jim, I never said they WERE evolving. NOTHING is evolving, at least not into other life forms. That is observable, provable.
-
John Owens
You keep acting like I am behaving like a bible-thumper. I am not. I just reject evolution based on what I can see with my eyes and can study from the works of others. There is no evidence that it is the progenitor of so many varied and interdependent life forms.
-
John Owens
Jim D, You must accept that atheistic ideas can ALSO be every bit as misinformed and ignorant and prejudiced. It is scientifically ignorant and prejudiced to reject the evidence of intelligent design just because it might somehow reinforce the idea of a Creator, which you find repugnant.
You cannot reject observable phenomena just because they do not agree with your perception, and still call yourself "scientific". Intelligent design is displayed in ALL matter all the way down to the molecular, atomic and sub-atomic levels. The physical, magnetic, chemical and electrical properties of all matter adhere to certain laws and rules of behavior. To deny this is to deny existing knowledge. You can call that intelligence that guided all of this anything you want. If you call it Evolution, then you have to acknowledge that Evolution possesses INTELLIGENCE. It could not possibly have given ITSELF intelligence, and intelligence can not occur randomly by accident in nature, much less any intelligence that can design a system of encoding anywhere near as complex as DNA. Life only comes from life. Period. -
Don
"You keep acting like I am behaving like a bible-thumper. I am not."
In addition to denying evolution, you earlier claimed to have evidence for a young Earth and Noah's Ark. If those beliefs didn't come from the Bible, where did they come from?
Also, you keep forgetting to include your evidence in your replies. Either provide it or stop posting. Cowardly evasion isn't a positive trait.
-
Don
"It is scientifically ignorant and prejudiced to reject the evidence of intelligent design"
John, you would need to provide the evidence FIRST before claiming anyone is rejecting it. No more evasion, present your evidence or go away.
-
Don
"Life only comes from life. Period."
Prove this claim and I will never post on these forums again. Good luck!
-
Jim D.
John, please do not put words in my mouth. I never said belief in a Creator is repugnant. Never said it, so do not misquote me.
Evolution is not a sudden and significant transformation of one species into another. It is a very slow, very subtle process that can take tens of thousands of years. You said, "NOTHING is evolving...". I beg to differ. Evolution is taking place all the time. Again, it is such a slow and subtle process that is escapes our notice.
As for Intelligent Design, well, believing it exists does not make it so. If it works for you, that's great. Enjoy. As for me, and, from what I'm reading, quite a few others on this forum, we choose to believe otherwise. And that's fine for us. We'll enjoy too.
-
John Owens
Jim D, there is NOT ONE shred of verified fossil evidence of one kind of creature transitioning into another. Fossils of modern flora and fauna are found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. Species have become extinct but not one left a fossil of itself transitioning into any other creature. Even Charles Darwin noted that, yet you people who claim to be his disciples ignore that obvious observable fact.
-
John Owens
oh, DON! https://asktheatheist.com/?tag=law-of-biogenesis (life only comes from life)
Notice: "law", not "theory"
"Pasteur is not the only one to come to this conclusion. Many EMINENT scientists since have tried but failed to disprove it, but have had to admit that spontaneous generation is virtually impossible. The complexity of a cell, the smallest self-replicating unit of life, is so overwhelming that regardless of the amount of time it is IMPOSSIBLE. Truk’s answer that we know it happened because life exists, does not speak of science. It speaks of faith! The very thing Creationists are always ridiculed for. The whole of Evolutionary Biology rises or falls on abiogenesis. If you can’t show that to be true, it all collapses like a ‘house of cards’."
And indeed, all evidence contradicts abiogenesis.
-
Don
LOL!!! Nice source material, Johnny! So you STILL can't find the evidence for Creation you claimed to have? You quoted an OPINION piece - and this after you accused Dan's source of misusing the word "fact". You are being a hypocrite, not to mention dishonest. So, where's the evidence??
-
John Owens
Logan, get a life!
-
John Owens
Let's see, Moderators, Here in this thread, "cowardly evasion", "hypocrite". Still mild, as here he is trying to inject himself into the thread, and also mis-characterizing what I have said regarding creation and intelligent design.
-
Don
"You can’t be blind, because you try to read my comments" "If your head weren’t up your arse"
But he'll cry like a baby when I point out his evasion is cowardly and his insults are those of a hypocrite.
-
-
-
Dan Atatakai
Eric - what makes sense in the Bible that you think is valid?
With the advent of discovery of ERV's, how can you claim that we are not developed from the same common ancestor shared by Bonobos and Chimpanzees?
What is missing in the fossil record which shows anything missing?
-
Eric k
God made the apes as well. They are not human. God designed man to his liking. I believe by faith. I know god exists. I do believe science has its place, but everything happens with gods OK or it does not happen at all. And every creature and everything else was formed with some type of intelligent design or it would not exist
-
Lionheart
You are quite right eric? Apes are not Homo sapiens. Well done for spotting that.
I’m just wondering if you have a particular god in mind eric? The sun god was always a very interesting god. It was very reliable and also very observable, when it wasn’t raining that is.
-
Dan Atatakai
Eric - you claim "I know god exists." No, you BELIEVE god exists. You have absolutely zero evidence that any god exists. Therefore, every claim you make about intelligent design does not qualify as fact, but faith-based belief.
I am still awaiting your evidence for your creationism/intelligent design.
-
Don
The statement "I believe by faith" directly contradicts the claim "I know god exists".
To know requires knowledge, and knowledge requires evidence. So, which is it?
-
flugo
Excellent!
-
Dan Atatakai
Eric - Humans are still part of the greater ape family. 'Sorry if this bursts your bubble, but we humans qualify on all aspects of such a thing.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution
-
-
-
William Waugh
Can you really go in a bowling ally, and see a 30 something round bald guy with chest and body hair all over and not be convinced of some forward advancing process in nature.? By the way, all "god" had to do was roll the ball. The rest is history. Such as it is.
-
-
Carl Elfstrom
I believe God started evolution, with a big bang, that he created, along with everything it contained.
-
Tom
What if God was a woman Carl?
-
Lionheart
Actually, that's a very interesting statement. Everyone of us started out being female in the womb until about the 6th week of gestation when the fetus starts too change, or remains growing as female depending on the X-Y chromosomes. Hence the reason men have nipples. So, even God (if he exists) started out being female depending on the X-Y chromosomes from his dad. ?
-
-
Dan Atatakai
Carl - The "Big Bang" has nothing to do with evolution. That would be the field of cosmology, not biology.
-
John Owens
But matter had to come into existence before life could begin.
-
Don
Yes, Johnny - and A comes before B. But that's as irrelevant as your comment. Do you even know the difference between biology and cosmology? And more importantly, why conflating the two makes the commenter appear woefully ignorant of both sciences?
ANYWAY - back to the Concrete Evidence for Creation you claimed to have...we're all still waiting.
-
Iconoclast
Just a side note: there was more than one bang. One, in which matter and space were both created simultaneously, and the other, when plant life exploded. Then a third, when animal life exploded.
I suppose that has something to do with the expression "Cambrian explosion,' but occurred much earlier.
-
Don
Still no hint of any evidence from John Owens. But to be honest, is anyone actually surprised?
-
-
-
-
Dan Atatakai
Reed - Sorry, but it has been proven daily for many years. Here are just a few sources which show that it IS proven:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
Given that Evolution is based on observation and testability, how is it a religion? Religion has two major definitions:
a. A belief in a creator/omnipotent being/God (theistic, like the three Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism, etc.)
b. A moral or ethical practice (non-theistic, like Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Confucianism)
Please explain how you believe it has not been proven. I am quite interested in hearing what you have to say about your claim. Empirical evidence when possible, please.
-
John Owens
I have never heard of any test of evolution which could produce ONE new life form.
-
Dan Atatakai
John - Then you never read any of the sources I gave you. You are also unaware of Ring Speciation, which has also been proven.
So, where is your evidence that Creationism/Intelligent Design is fact and that Evolution is false? Just because you have not seen any evidence (even though a lot of it has been given you), does not mean it does not exist.
-
John Owens
Dan, you are confusing speciation with evolution as a creator of new life forms. Speciation occurs. We can do it with plants and animals in a few generations. We cannot turn one life form into another, though. Not ONE of your references proves evolution is a fact, because there is no evidence of it. When dinosaurs appear in the fossil record, they appear as dinosaurs, and not creatures transitioning into dinosaurs. The same is true of every single form of life Many have become extinct, but not one has become a more highly-developed life form. Not ONE.
Intelligent design is inherent in all life forms and all matter. If you can't admit that, what possible evidence could you ever be presented which you would believe? The fact that you and I are having this discussion, transmitted to one another electronically, and all the myriad natural and chemical laws necessary to make that happen within our bodies and minds, and over the internet, incontrivertably illustrate some form of intelligent design. Why would you deny that, just for the sake of your argument?
-
Dan Atatakai
John - I am still waiting for your evidence of Intelligent Design/Creationism. I am also waiting for you to respond with empirical evidence which disproves Evolution.
Again, regarding even something like human evolution, proving it exists::
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Between Australopithecus sediba and Homo Sapien Sapien, there are many examples which show how humanity has evolved.
Maybe you need to look at the actual definition of Evolution. After you do, THEN please explain how it is false.
-
John Owens
There are NOT examples of how humans have evolved. Those supposed ancestors of man do not even have enough bone to tell what they are, much less a full skeleton. Those links only appear in the comics drawn by believers. Zinjanthropus and Peking man and Java man and Austrolopithecus and Ardipithecus Kadabba are all figments of imaginations, like "LUCY". Small pieces of skeletons or skulls, very unscientifically imagined to be missing links and models and drawings are made, accordingly. I will reiterate: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS OR SKELETONS. There are only distinct species. This is what science says. Again, there is no evidence except speculation.
-
-
Don
Enough is enough. Post the concrete evidence for intelligent design you claimed to have on February 18th, or just GO AWAY.
I'm sorry you feel calling out sleazy evasion as cowardly is insulting...but there's a solution: STOP DOING IT.
-
-
-
John A Anderson, CD, CIF Mons ON
Boys, both of you are wrong, if taken literally. Evolution is, in reality, a THEORY. However, it is a theory which is SUPPORTED by evidence. Science follows a theory until one of two things happens: a) a better theory comes along which explains things which the original couldn't, or b) a SIGNIFICANT amount of evidence shows the theory wrong. (Caps added for emphasis, not as yelling). Evolution cannot be proven by science, as theory cannot become fact, just generally accepted. As an example, consider Einstein's theory of relativity indicating the possibility of gravitational lensing. The fact that the lensing was shown to occur recently, doesn't PROVE Einstein's theory, but instead becomes a fact (evidence) backing up the theory. Creationism interprets the same evidence in a different way. Until we actually find that which people call God as a physical being, the religious will ALWAYS argue that Creationism is valid, because religion doesn't modify its interpretation without extremely overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-
Don
Your definition of what constitutes a scientific theory is horribly misinformed.
ALL theories are supported by evidence - otherwise it's not a theory but a hypothesis (or just a wild guess). Evolution HAS been proven. So has gravity. The mechanisms by which they work are why they are called Theories. Ask any scientist, we understand biological evolution better than we do gravity!
Electromagnetism is also a theory - bet you won't go sticking forks in electrical sockets to "disprove" it.
-
Jim D.
Don, you are correct, but perhaps a bit hyperbolic. "Horribly misinformed"? I don't think John was off by that much. Perhaps you could tone it down a bit. After all, it seems the both of you are on the same side.
-
-
Jim D.
Well said, John. Thank you. By the way, I'm not familiar with the alphabet soup after your name. I've seen CD as Certified Dietician, but the rest is beyond me. Can you enlighten, please? Thanks.
-
pcfield
Finally, someone who knows that evolution has been a theory, not proven by science since Darwin thought of it, but has been pushed, not unlike an un-wanted religion, upon the masses. Yet, they teach about magic, paganism, humanism, socialism, other theories of science and lately I heard they want to teach Islam in our schools too, but, sorry for the pun, Lord forbid, they teach about Christianity the good, bad and the ugly of it too. Atleast then, one can choose for themselves what to believe, not having any one belief pushed on them and all the hatred that comes with it, like it is now. I have found that those who fear or resent another's view is insecure in what they believe, otherwise they would not react so strongly against another. Just live and let live without the hate, we are supposed to be the smarter ones compared to all the other animals, we have evolved...or maybe not.
-
Don
"Finally, someone who knows that evolution has been a theory, not proven by science" "magic, paganism, humanism, socialism, other theories of science"
Ah, another commenter who doesn't know what a Theory is. So said. Here, educate yourself - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
-
Dan Atatakai
pcfield - Sorry, but Evolution has been a proven science for many decades, all the way to the genome evidences with ERV's and other areas.
Humanism, by the way, is not a relative of magic or paganism".
Personally, I think ALL MAJOR religions should be a required subject taught in at least the high school levels so as to eradicate the ignorance which exists in our current societies, which happens to create such hostile bigotry. Islam is one example of massive misunderstanding, with many people believing that Islam is about terrorism. Another example of ignorance would be that Buddhists worship statues of bald, fat guys. Both, total nonsense.
-
John Owens
NEVER proven. No grounds to even say that. NONE.
-
-
-
John Owens
If only evolutionists could be convinced by evidence, or the lack thereof...
-
Don
“There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution." - John Owens, February 18, 2019 at 11:20 am
Next he'll claim evidence of fairies.
-
Dan Atatakai
To claim and to produce are, obviously, something different, and that poor John does not get. It seems he thinks, "If I say it, it must be true and that is enough evidence!"
I ALMOST feel sorry for the poor nimnul.
-
Lionheart
Oh no! Please don’t tell me that. I have the same concrete evidence that fairies exist that Christians use and that is I feel it. The Holy Fairy Spirit has bore witness to me that it’s true.
The same thing about Santa Clause. I get this wonderful burning in my soul that he’s real. I can’t explain these special feelings but I know they are truly divine feelings direct from source.
I’d tell you a lot more about these divine feelings I get but I have to go and take my medication.
Omgggggg. I think I can see a flying saucer hovering in the sky. Can anyone else see it? It’s huge. Hopefully I’ll be back soon as long as they don’t take me away.
-
-
Don
Convinced by evidence...of course, the evidence would have to be presented FIRST before you could claim someone wasn't convinced by it.
And since you have yet to present any evidence...
-
John Owens
Asked and answered, from the start.
-
-
-
-
-
Katelynne Victoria Shouse
"Just the facts ma'am"......& Science!
-
Rev. Dr. Gordon Francis Blaney Jr.
Separation of church and state is paramount. Spiritual ideology has no place in a public school system anywhere in the world. Spiritual ideology should be taught in a place of worship.
-
Don
No separation of church and state in the U.K.
-
John A Anderson, CD, CIF Mons ON
The Church IS the State. The head of the Anglican Church is Her Majesty. The Anglican Church was started because the Pope wouldn't grant Henry VII another annulment, so he became, nominally, Protestant, and started his own denomination.
-
“There is more concrete evidence for creation and intelligent design than for evolution." - John Owens February 18, 2019 at 11:20 am
And this is what he changed it to, three weeks later: "what evidence would you like, to convince you that there is in existence, a physical universe".
His own words expose the writer as immoral and dishonest. I rest my case.
You are nothing but a pest and a dishonest troll. You think you must have the last word. I have stomped a mud-hole in you with this, and you still deflect and lie and keep trying to change the argument. This is going nowhere, but everyone knows you are repulsive and ignorant.
"We have evidence the universe exists. We have none for any gods, so using one and inferring it exists is intellectually dishonest." - Don February 28, 2019 at 8:29 am
Reply from John - "No evidence of the physical cosmos…. How can you even bring yourself to say that?" March 8, 2019 at 3:45 pm
It's all right here on this page, just scroll up.
It was always the same thing. It wasn't three weeks later. You just caught on three weeks later. Took you that long to realize you needed to change your tactics. That would be because you are the liar and the hypocrite, immoral and dishonest. Since you have rested your case, how about shutting up?
How about crawling back into your cave, since at this point it's obvious you have NO intention of presenting any of the evidence you claimed to have on February 18. It's been a month and nothing but insults and evasion.
I've been posting all along, but as you know, the moderators were holding many posts, and you just ignore the ones you can't gainsay, anyway.
"Feeling like a cowardly evading weasel (your words) yet?"
Nope! I haven't made any claims that I then refused to back up with evidence or support in any way. Neither did I change the words of my original claim to hide the fact I have no evidence to support it.
That's YOU, John Boy. You did ALL of that, right here on this page.
"Then you claim to want some proof of intelligent design"
Liar. I never made any claims - YOU claimed to be in possession of "concrete evidence for intelligent design" - opinions, insults, and silly put-downs are NOT evidence.
So, do you have any or not??
"I’m not the one defending the rape and murder of children in the Bible – that would be YOU." (Don, to me, on the previous blog regarding Mrs. Pence)
Don said this, a pure, undiluted lie, as I have NEVER, EVER defended rape of anyone, or murder of anyone, nor said anything that could be CONSTRUED as having done that. He is totally without honor, scruple or honesty, knows nothing of nucleotides, chemistry, or molecular geometry and has severereading deficiencies.
So now we see who is the immoral and dishonest one here, and his name is Don.
You denied the rape and murder of children in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 31. That's defending it. Sorry, but I refuse to believe you're too stupid to understand what it means.
I denied the rape. I did not mention slaughter. That was YOU, not being able to read, and then lying about what you could not read.
You denied the sexual molestation of young virgin girls despite the fact that they were taken as sex slaves/trophies of war. Even religious leaders aren't so filthy and immoral that they deny those events.
Don - Obviously, poor John has no evidence for his Intelligent Design argument, let alone his lack of knowledge of his own particular religion. It is well known that, when one who is malfeasant in his or her approach has nothing to use for evidence, one will resort to petty insults, claiming "everyone knows" instead of owning up to facts that he is the one making this claim when nobody else did.
John's claim of " I have NEVER, EVER defended rape of anyone, or murder of anyone, nor said anything that could be CONSTRUED as having done that." Is it me, or does John lack memory? One of the many times he brought it up was about abortion, was it not? At that point it showed how he did not understand the difference between baby and fetus or zygote.
"He is totally without honor, scruple or honesty, knows nothing of nucleotides, chemistry, or molecular geometry and has severereading deficiencies" is his next claim. All he talks about has nothing to do with the issue of Evolution or Intelligent Design. He says these topics are evidence, but a name is not evidence and he seems to not understand the concept.
I doubt most seriously that John never read anything given to him as sources to prove Evolution. The sources he did give for Intelligent Design were quite biased and none were published, open for peer review.
Maybe he will stop as it is obvious it is HE who wants to have "the last word."
Don/Dan, whichever of your little alter-egos you are at the moment, I read your references, and showed you what was wrong with them. You didn't read mine, because you are afraid. You are wrong and you know it.
No, John. I do not know about Don, but I read them and found what few you did offer to be not objective at all. You might as well use Ken Ham's sources, Ray Comfort's or Kent Hovind's weak sources. None of them have any validity and have been shot down constantly by REAL scientists, not your "born again" self-claimed educated people.
Afraid? If that was the case, then why do you not make ANY comment about any of the myriad sources you were given? Show how they do not hold scientific validity. While you are at it, list just twelve scientists who think that Evolution is false and that Intelligent Design is fact.
I have given references to all of my claims, most with footnotes and citation including University Graduate sources, yet you seem to dismiss those because you do not believe in education, apparently.
You claim to be knowledgeable regarding science. From what accredited (WASC prefered) academic sources did you get your "knowledge and wisdom" about biology?
What specific arguments do you have with sources, to tell us how you find ring speciation, for example invalid.
What do you even qualify as legitimate sources? Something published by a church, like you have done in the recent past?
Happy Anniversary! It's been exactly one month since you claimed to be in possession of "concrete evidence for intelligent design". A month full of evasion and insults, but no evidence. Did you find any yet?
Then you claim to want some proof of intelligent design, of which I offered Darwin’s statement concerning it, but I should think it would be obvious, given how much we have all been taught about molecular structure and the properties of matter. Seems silly to me, but: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/ https://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/atom_anatomy.html https://nei.nih.gov/photo/anatomy-of-eye
Just a few simple examples even a child can comprehend, but they may still be too highbrow for you two. Below are types of molecular geometry, which BY THEIR DESCRIPTIONS, show intelligent design.
Tetrahedral molecular geometry,Trigonal planar molecular geometry, Octahedral molecular geometry,Trigonal bipyramidal molecular geometry, Trigonal pyramidal molecular geometry, Square pyramidal molecular geometry, Seesaw molecular geometry, Square planar molecular geometry, Pentagonal bipyramidal molecular geometry, Square antiprismatic molecular geometry, Pentagonal planar molecular geometry, Pentagonal pyramidal molecular geometry, T-shaped molecular geometry. Bent molecular geometry I suppose you need some “scientific” citation before acknowledging all of that, but of course, if you knew anything about science, as you CLAIM, then you would know about them.
Read more at https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2019/02/christian-parents-pressure-school-to-cancel-play-about-evolution/#S2Md4pkbtzOUhav3.99
Neat links! None of them contain evidence for intelligent design. However, I did notice that every comment from you today is loaded with insults. But don't worry, I'm not some spineless pansy who cries to the moderators over such things.
John - As Don mentioned to you, NONE of your sources give any specific empirical evidence for your claims. At BEST, you are assuming.
The first site: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/
This is a general page of general information about biology. It gives nothing about how evolution is false and ANYTHING about intelligent design.
Your second source: https://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/atom_anatomy.html
Again, nothing about Intelligent Design, but Chemistry 101.
Your third source: https://nei.nih.gov/photo/anatomy-of-eye
This, too, shows nothing about Intelligent Design. In fact, it rather insults your belief in any divine intervention, given how poorly designed the human eye happens to be. If it were created in an ID concept, would the human animal have some of the best eyesight of all living ocular beings? Compared to many other animals, our eyesight is not only weak, but not all that great, quality-wise.
Try this for size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhSn4S6GXk8
This explains at your level of thinking, John. It explains how evolution has come about with the development of the eye.
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/is-the-human-eye-really-evidence-against-intelligent-design/
This is a source which explains how the eye could NOT have been developed by ID. If you still doubt it, please explain why we ALL have a blind spot in each eye.
Still waiting for your empirical evidence. You have shown only supposition and guesswork.
I just love how one of John Owens' links of "evidence" is just a link back to this page. Too funny! And it speaks volumes.
Okay Don, they ALL contain evidence of intelligent design, but you lack the intelligence to admit it. That makes you the evader, the denier. I hate wasting my time. Nobody commenting here now but you, me, and your alter-ego Dan, anyway. Everyone else is burned out on the conversation, and since you are adamantly denying what science so eloquently demonstrates, there is nothing else to say except that you refuse to learn. Not my loss, not my problem.