-Caveat Lector- Your argument basically begs the question over and over, a logical fallacy. You still have not proven your own conclusion using your own logical tools which you use to tear down the theory of evolution: that there was a creation. Use your logic to prove your point, now: there is creation by a sentient being. I challenge you.
I hear a lot of logic used against evolution, but I hear very little in support of it, and the logic I have heard in support of it comes down to this point: "How could it not be intelligent design, given all this?" And that is awe and bewilderment as a conclusion, and it is poetic, but it is not logic, nor it is a basis for a theorem. We are often stricken in awe at the vast wonder of the universe, but it does not prove that a being created it, much as we want to believe it. I am not saying that someone or thing did not create it, but I want to be shown, using these same tools of logic, exactly how and why someone or thing did create all of this. And religous texts do NOT count. Remember, you are defending the point using logic, not faith. It would be even more amazing if it could be proven empirically that it were done in seven days. But that is perhaps asking to much - not the creation, as that would be fantastic in and of itself, but the timeline. "I want to believe you." But I can't, not yet. You have only proven your ability to poke tiny holes in the ideas which disagree with yours, not in supporting your own ideas. - jt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Party of Citizens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Ivan Semeniuk wrote: > > > I don't know who put me on this listserver but please take me off. > > Of course I will stop emailing you with this information as truth in > science makes you uncomfortable. I hope the management of Discovery and > CTV will sooner or later get things straight and that they will give my > present complaint consideration. Meanwhile the public will have to learn > its epistemology and psychoepistemology online and not from the Priesthood > of Discovery TV. However, I think you should examine the following > doctrinal statement of the late, great Pope Asimov, one of the leaders of > your faith: > > "I have FAITH myself. I BELIEVE that the universe is comprehensible within > the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those > natural laws and comprehend the universe. I BELIEVE nothing beyond those > natural laws is needed. I HAVE NOT EVIDENCE FOR THIS. It is simply what I > have FAITH in and what I believe." (Counting the Eons, 1983, p.10). > > A forthright statement on your faith and religion and the place > of "discovery" in it. Note too, "I have not evidence for this". This piece > of catechism (defined by Webster's as "religious questions and answers") > admits its own limitation. IT ADMITS THAT IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC in the > sense that it can PROVE its assertion. Don't you see the problem for > scientific discovery in asserting that the know-er of the universe must > become the known? The epistemologist must become part of the epistemology, > otherwise the ultimate scientist referred to by Pope Asimov could not > "comprehend the universe". > > But in the daily practice of scientific discovery, your Discovery Religion > TV has its problems more in psychoepistemology, ie "how and why we know > what we know". You are blinded by the dogmas of Scientism and engage in > what the psychologist calls "denial" and "escapism". You escape into the > fantasy and delusion that you have scientific proof where you do not. > And you pass this false belief, which is both bad science and bad > religion, onto the public. Two cases in point: (1) darwinian dogmas; (2) > einsteinian dogmas. > > I suggest that you come right out and Beatify these men so that the public > will not be further deceived by what you are broadcasting. Darwinian > dogma's undoing is its own realization that mutation is a sine qua non for > it to "work". Take as an example the fact that some fish have stronger > fins than others and can use them to crawl across mud flats. Darwinianism > asserts that such appendages must "evolve" into limbs so that land animals > can emerge from sea animals. But you can apply mutagenic agents all you > want to fish in the lab. You will get a vast number of highly distorted > and maladaptive creatures (creatures with malformed bones in huge numbers, > malformations which strangely do not litter the fossil record as > darwinism predicts they should). But you will not get legs. Some novices > confuse selection with mutation. Yes, natural selection can be taken into > the lab with ease and with great success. Animal husbandry has worked with > artificial selection for thousands of years. It would give you bigger fish > fins or stronger fish fins. But selection can only work on what exists. It > cannot create a new form, eg a leg on a fish. That requires mutation. And > mutation has been proven in the lab to be a failure as a mechanism in > darwinism to explain what we see in nature. > > But what does come out of the lab as a plausible mechanism for what we we > in the fossil record is GENETIC ENGINEERING, ie "intelligent design". Here > we have structure and form being altered beyond what selection could give, > with PURPOSE in mind. Hypocrisy is a standard feature of false religion > and hypocritically, the scientists who would see species diversity like > that of Earth in Andromeda somewhere would theorize that a master genetic > engineer at least COULD be responsible, yet they will not admit that > possibility here. Rank hypocrisy! > > Narrow minded bigots in Scientism lack in self-awareness (see > psychoepistemology, above). They lack a dedication to TRUTH, and true > science requires that dedication as much as true religion. Having St. > Darwin exposed as so flawed is one reality you will have to face up to, > sooner or later. Having St. Einstein similarly exposed is another. Light > speed is NOT constant. And which light speed would you use in E=mc2? And > where is the EMPIRICAL (ie scientific) proof that this equation is valid? > Obviously big explosions yield big values. It doesn't take St. Einstein to > tell us that. But when you decide to get honest with the Discovery and CTV > public I suggest you give us data from the nuclear reactors. They must > keep exact records of beginning mass and end mass and power generated in > between. Present the FACTS, the TRUTH, the VALID SCIENCE on the matter and > I will gladly accept the correction. That is what TRUE science and TRUE > religion are about. > > POC > > Reference: "Einstein's Theory of Relativity Must Be Rewritten" by Jonathan > Leake. The Sunday Times, London, 9-9-1. > > > __________________________________________ > > Ivan Semeniuk > > Producer/Columnist, Discovery Channel Canada > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > phone: 416-332-4404 fax: 416-332-4409 > > > > 9 Channel Nine Crt. > > Toronto, Ontario > > CANADA M1S 4B5 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Party of Citizens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:39 PM > > To: saba > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Double Whammy Against Darwinian Dogmas > > > > > > This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet > > Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. > > If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then > > open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. > > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
