lula posts:

Look here!  According to Mr. Know-It-All, Leauki, Pauling, a chemist and winner of 2 Nobel prizes, was wrong when he said  "Science is a search for truth".

Did you know that in May 2000 when Alberts said "Science and lies cannot coexist" he was quoting Shimon Peres, "You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search for truth."

Bottom line...true science is a pursuit of the truth.

Quoting someone who isn't a scientist as an authority on science?

Yep, that appears to be the case.  Emphasis on understanding.

Infidel posts

It seems that Bruce Alberts is quite an authority on science....molecular cell biology to be exact.

Molecular Biology of the Cell : Bruce Alberts : ISBN 9780815332183 ...  

You claim Evolution has occurred...defend your claim...forget it, you can't......what is your evidence...forget it, there isn't any.

Which brings me to this quote from Ann Coulter's book, Godless. Chapter 8, page 199.

"Liberal's creation myth is Chrales Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record--that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We still wouldn't be talking about it but for the fact that think evolution disproves God."

On this, I agree with her 100%.

How is creationism any less tautological? How isn't it more tautological? All you have to support your claim is the propaganda put out by the church! Give me a trillion dollars and the technology to extend my life to at least 1100 years old, and I can provide proof that evolution happens. Could you say the same about creationism?

I'm a big fan of the Lovely Lady Ann and agree with her point of view on most issues, but when it comes to religion, even very intelligent people can have a blind spot here & there.

Of course, evolution theory will never be proven in any sense acceptable to people like lula.  It's not easy doing experiments on a half-million year time scale.  Or greater.  So they can be as smug as they want and live without fear.  I'm fine with that.

I think it would take considerably more than that, in both money & time, and still wouldn't meet the doubters' 'standard of proof'.  Never mind the irony in that phrase, when you consider the pro-creationism argument.

They have an inherent advantage: their argument requires no experimentation, no time, no money.

There is ample of evidence and experiments.

The fact that you choose to remain ignorant doesn't disprove evolution.

Either way, evolution will be taught in schools until disproven, just like Newton's theory of gravity was.

Creationism cannot be taught as science because it cannot be disproven. That's all.

I have seen no evidence that Ann Coulter understand evolution any better than you do. The ignorant quoting the ignorant leads ultimately nowhere.

You are making several mistakes.

Creatioism is tautological, evolution isn't. Creationism cannot be disproven, evolution can (but hasn't been).

Evolution can already be observed, we do not need 1100 years for that. There is no need to prove evolution, there is only a need to disprove it. In 1100 years you might have a chance to observe something that disproves evolution. But 20 people who grow to be 60 each have the same chance, so we won't need the 1100 year methusalem to do it.

As for proving Creationism, it's simple. I gave instructions for an experiment here:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/314483/Experimental_Creationism

Note that this would not actually "prove" Creationism either, since it's possible that G-d only created those fruit flies but not anything else. By demonstrating the mechanism, however, Creationism would be half-way towards becoming a scientific theory.

DAIWA POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS:

Leauki and Daiwa,

So you two have faith in evolution. Okay....Where has evolution occurred and can already be observed?    But make sure it's evolution and not reshuffling of genes, recombination, growth to maturity, change of an ecosystem.

Evolution according to the textbook, the dictionary and the web definition of it HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED because its' a make-believe story that started out as a theory but has now been turned into an atheistic philosophical worldview that's being indoctrinated as fact to school children. That's where the diabolical insanity comes in.

Evolution is a make-believe story erroneously being indoctrinated as fact.  

Coulter's statement was that Evolution theory is tautological.

All I ask is that Evolution theory not be indoctrinated to unwary school children as fact.

On an adult level, ET will never be proven in any sense acceptable to people like me becasue after 150 years, we expect to be given evidence for claims Evolutionists make..so far the evidence is missing...after all these years...the evidence is still missing.

Daiwa posts

leauki posts 74

This is the make-believe story that is one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor that Ann was writing about.

And anyone who believes this is sure under a blind spot as it has not been established by true science.    Believing oneself an ape is an abdication of human intelligence imo.

You all may believe you have descended from apelike creatures, but count me out.

My descendants go back to Adam and Eve who like me were specially independently created by Almighty God.

No. I don't. Never had.

I have no faith in evolution at all. I don't rely on it for anything (I don't work as a scientist) and nor do I expect much of it (I am an individual). If evolution were disproven tomorrow, I would not experience any sort of crisis. It's nothing like faith. Faith doesn't even allow the possibility of being wrong.

I understand evolution and you don't. That's the issue here.

Not one statement you have made even suggests that you understand the theory, yet you have this weird belief that you can decide whether it is nonsense or not. You still haven't understood that evolution is not about "turning into" another species or creation of life. You are simply ignorant of the subject and totally unqualified to talk about it.

That's one problem.

The other problem is that you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

You seem to believe that a scientific theory is some kind of truth that cannot be challenged. It isn't. A scientific theory is something that can be challenged easily and potentially disproven. In fact, I told you how evolution could be disproven: just find a reason why mutations would stop at some point. But you can't. You claim they would stop but your explanation for the reason (something about a border between species) is based on your ignorance of what evolution is. You have no idea how ridiculous it sounds to those who have actually paid attention in school.

You are this weird mixture of ignorance and arrogance that just cannot be excused in any way.

(I am arrogant too, but I am generally well-informed about the subjects I write about. For example, I have read all of Richard Dawkins' books about evolution and understood them.)

Ann Coulter is not exacttly famous as a biologist. I would take what she writes with a grain of salt, to say the least.

In fact, before I take anything Ann Coulter writes about evolution as anything better than random statements types by one million monkeys on type writers, I would want to know if she even understood evolution.

It's easy to find out. If she said simply that she knows that evolution does not claim that "one species turns into another", isn't about "creation", and doesn't make any statements about the existence or non-existence of gods, I would grant that she at least understands the basics.

I have yet to find a single essay written by a Creationist who understands those three simple attributes of Darwin's theory.

You know what? I want to believe that you have been specially independently created by the Almighty.

Adam and Eve are not individuals. The words mean "man" and "the female living". You are mistaking a story given by G-d to the people of Israel with a science book. We are to live as if Adam and Eve had been individuals, but we are allowed to observe and come to our own conclusions.

Children have to learn science. Full stop.

Evolution, gravity etc. will be taught to children, if only to give them an alternative to learning from ignorant parents.

Do you think I would want my children to get a worse education than possible just because you are ignorant?

If teaching evolution can teach children how scientific theories work, those children will already know more about science than you. That's the result I want.

Again, evolution, like all theories, will never be proven. Not to you, not to anyone.

There is plenty of evidence. The fruit fly experiment shows that populations develop differently. That's all the evidence you need for a scientific theory.

What we haven't found is evidence that contradicts the theory. And that's why it's being taught.

(But even a theory that has been disproven can still be taught. Newton's gravity is still taught despite having been disproven, as is Einstein's General Relativity despite the fact that we have evidence for situations in which it doesn't work, afaik.)

Can you tell me why air molecules don't just fall to the ground? There's a hole in all known theories of gravity that should be most interesting to explain. Darwin's theory doesn't have a gaping hole like that.