The First Church of Evolution

The church body has been on sabbatical searching for monkey parts to construct the next transition.  But during this time the church member ABO has been in contact with many of  the faithful followers of the Prophet Charles Darwin. There can be not doubt the these mutants have reached the hight of imagination.    

ABOJoined: 12 Aug 2007Posts: 246Location: Sebring, Florida

Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:02 pm    Post subject: wffarrell wrote: Negative, ABO. You are once again totally incorrect in your statement. You have no idea how science works and you demonstrate it with every post you make. Yes, all scientists view the same data. When I did experiments for my PhD, for example, my data was available for all to see. I put forth an explanation for my data and it was accepted. Why? Because I proposed an hypothesis to explain a certain phenomenon, invented experiments to collect data about my hypothesis, analyzed said data and it fell in line with my conjecture. Yes, another scientist could disagree with my hypothesis, data collection, analysis and conclusion, BUT that scientist’s OPINION is no substitute for experimentation and data. In order to challenge my thesis the “opposing” scientist would have to demonstrate, not speculate or claim, that my methods were flawed, my analysis flawed and my conclusions flawed. Here’s my set-up, I’d say, show me where I’m wrong. That’s precisely where creationists fail. They can’t demonstrate their own thesis. Show me the water, ABO. You can’t. Demonstrate how a flood could carve the Grand Canyon, ABO. You can’t. Demonstrate a mechanism that shows the flagellum was designed. You can’t. Show me where I’m wrong as a scientist and why. That’s all it takes and creationists have never, ever, ever been able to do it. Why? Because they’re wrong as rain. And that’s it. Your missing part of the point. It’s not all experimentation, data collection and analyses that are involved with the conclusions arrived at. There is bias, which has as much to do with the original hypothesis as the conclusions that are drawn. It’s been said that science is not a quest for truth, but a system of acquiring knowledge. In that thought, the conclusions of science can be completely false and be completely validated in use of the scientific method. Omitting non persuasive evidence in data collection appears to be a foundational prerequisite of evolutionary theory. As to the discussion we are having with e-coli, there is no doubt that a change has occurred. A change, if I’m not mistaken, which is unexplainable. Evolution of the species, no one can deny it. But to take this observation as evidence for a continuum of change to a completely different creature goes beyond reason. A fair comparison might be a leaking faucet causing a global flood. Using half truths or bate and switch tactics seems to be the norm with monkey to man evolution. Presenting a small change and then announcing that supposed major changes have been confirmed. To show you where your wrong is not my goal I’m trying to find out why you think your right. I can’t find a secular reason, it’s not a quest for truth but maybe a quest for intellectual gratification who knows. Using smoke screen intimidation, criticism and ridicule to establish evolution as the authoritative platform appears to be, 101 evolutionary evangelism. Another great strength is stubbornness and consistency with the stand. This was a good example You: “The moon is made of cheese.” ME”Umm. It’s a proven fact that the moon is NOT made of cheese.” You: “The moon is made of cheese.” Me “Ok, look, I have a piece of moon ROCK at my house. It is not made of cheese. It is made of ROCK.” You: “The moon is made of cheese.” Me “No, it isn’t. We’ve sent ships to the moon. People landed on it. They looked at it. They said it was made of ROCK. They brought back ROCK. It is made out of ROCK.” You: “The moon is made of cheese.” Not to get of track, but another example of what I’ve observed is the bias in your atheist site Talk Origins. Look at the information about polystrate fossils on the CRS site http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm and then look at the evasive propaganda herehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html Malone, along with many “young Earth global flood creationists”, have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the “polystrate fossil trees” part of their presentation. “Polystrate fossil trees” are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.” If it’s so weak why would it matter? Don’t think I’m trying to insult you, your accomplishments are outstanding, but to provide you with convincing evidence that the flood carved the Grand Canyon or demonstrate how the flagellum was designed probably won’t be possible, because your not looking for and will not except that type of evidence.http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=942&start=135

What I do see as a huge issue is a very anti-science vibe. Like I said, the newspapers talking about evolution versus creationism is very much an attack on science as a type of religion—believing that the scientific method is some type of religious belief. And it’s not! That kind of attack absolutely is damaging science exploration across the whole country. I do think that’s a significant problem. And until we can get our head out of the sand and realize that science isn’t about truth—it’s why this debate about the “theory of evolution” bugs the hell out of me. What scientists mean by theory is very different than what people think.   http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4280765.html        

This clear thinking primate has evolved with all the attributes necessary to identify faith from science. 

 “I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith.”

Obama is  a true believer in the faith based teaching of the Prophet Charles Darwin.

 http://bigdumbchimp.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-and-evolution.html

Is science today really using the scientific method?  “ Centuries before the European scholars Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo considered the scientific method, the great thinker Ibn Al-Haytham (10th century) laid down the rules of the empirical approach, describing how the scientific method should operate through observation, measurement, experiment, and conclusion, the purpose being to “search for truth, not support of opinions.” Likewise, Ibn Al-Nafis (13th century) stressed the importance of accepting contrarian views, subject to the test of evidence and rational analysis.” 

Full article. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;321/5890/745?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=321&firstpage=745&resourcetype=HWCIT

BS=Bad Science

In effort to promote their dogmatic religious view, the Florida Citizens for Science has provided a list of candidates running in the 2008 elections.    However, distasteful this group of religious fanatics  insinuates any candidate who questions the imaginary doctrine of molecule to man evolution, should be considered unworthy of their desired post. This is an ongoing violation of the separation of church and state. Disgusting!

 http://www.flascience.org/elect08.html

 The First Church of Evolution does not support or promote any political party or candidate for one.  Nor is it the intention of this religious origination to force our views on any primate.  Only through imagination can the acclaimed transitional ancestors be seen.  To insinuate otherwise is simply untrue.

 “This is a sad day in Florida, when a handful of religious Darwinists can hijack the curriculum framing process and push their ideological agenda at the expense of the education our children.”

http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/Email%20Alerts/021908%20-%20Breaking%20News%20Board%20Approves%20Evolution%20Standards.pdf

EVOLUTION IN THE STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS AND MORE

http://www.flascience.org/project.html

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.physorg.com/news137679868.htm  

The Church continues to recognize the Florida Citizens for Science website as a great source for witnessing and understanding the faith based religious order imagined by the Prophet Charles Darwin.  As church members we should stand in awe of those who have journeyed far beyond imagination and view themselves as  mutants.           www.flascience.org