Darwin, Lyell and Origin of Species (unscientific aspects of Darwin's ToE explored)

CMI ^ | November 5, 2009 | Dominic Statham

[GodGunsGuts]

The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Buck W.]

“The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth...”

Thanks God creation rationalizers who believe in the literal inerrancy of Genesis fit the description of the ideal!

[Moonman62]

Isn’t the automatic rejection of any evidence or theory indicating an Earth more than 10,000 years old real science?

[Buck W.]

Of course it is. After all, what good is science if it doesn’t perfectly support our pre-determined conclusions?

[RioSmith]

You creationists are the biggest bunch of morons on the face of the planet.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Evolution is the application of emotion to science.

[stormer]

Religion is the application of emotion to the unexplored.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Philosophers of science indeed....

OMG!!! Darwin lived in the science world of 150 years ago and an administrator thinks that means Man wore dinosaur skins and hunted T. rex.

[dirtboy]

YEC’ers calling anyone unscientific is the ultimate in pot/kettle/black.

[GodGunsGuts]

Your reply was most expected, seeing how you are an evo-athiest who pretends to be a Christian in order to make it appear that your attacks against genuine Christians are coming from within Christianity.

You have been asked if you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior many times, and not only have you refused to answer, you have likened this question to a rectal exam on numerous occasions.

As you are a liar and a deceiver there is no point in debating with you, as it might give lurkers the false impression that I think you are an honest person. There is only one approach to dealing with lying wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15-20) like you, and that is to expose them for what they really are. You have been unmasked!

Take a bow, Bucky-boy:

[GodGunsGuts]

Would you care to back that up, or are you just flinging monkey poo?

[Buck W.]

Why do you humiliate yourself like this? I’m not complaining, just asking...

[Matchett-PI]

"Religion is the application of emotion to the unexplored."

Spend some time at the links below and you may be able to come up with some less ignorant comments and/or questions.

October 2009 Continuing to November 2009

<>

More

Even More

[Buck W.]

Why do YECs demonstrate such an icky measure of coprophilia?

[RoadGumby]

Science is a wonderful thing ! Look at all it has allowed mankind to do for himself. The Lord gave us a wonderful ability to think and reason. Monorail trains, fission reactors, light bulbs, radio, oh the list goes on. Science good.

But in regards to this Theory, science has done us no service, nor has it come close to proving a thing. If evolutionary Theory is true, given the enormous number of fossilized remains, WHERE are the transition animals?

Evolutionary theory says that life began in the ‘primordial ocean, in an organic soup” and that then, life began to diversify, become more complex. Eventually, life struggled itself out of the seas onto land. Where are the transitory animals showing that bridge?

Additionally, IF all life started in the seas, the seas being a relatively homogenous mix, all that initial life would probably be very similar. What made the differentiation between vegetation and animal life? If animals descended from early sea vegetation, where is my chlorophyl?

Silly perhaps, but still applicable.

Sadly, a man-made construct such as evolutionary theory, carries more weight with some Christians than the Word. A truly sad state of affairs when a Christian would deign to point at the Word of God and yell “You LIE!!!”

[ElectricStrawberry]

Here he listened to fiery free-thinkers who wanted to “liberate science” from religious influences. Lectures were given by radicals intent on reforming Church-dominated society and removing the Church’s influence.

Those BASTARDS!!! Who on earth would EVER think a church-dominated society is a bad thing??? Those radical SOBs...

[wbarmy]

Since the majority (if not all) all of the founding fathers were creationist (in that they believed God created the Earth), does that mean that they were all morons too?

Or just ignorant?

Or just willing to give credit to something greater than themselves?

[Buck W.]

“Sadly, a man-made construct such as evolutionary theory, carries more weight with some Christians than the Word. A truly sad state of affairs when a Christian would deign to point at the Word of God and yell “You LIE!!!””

Catholics recognize and acknowledge evolutionary theory. Are they yelling “You LIE!!!” at God?

[qam1]

“The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth.”

There are, they are the oil and gas companies

Exxon Mobil doesn't care if the age of the Earth is 4 Billion or 6 thousand years old. All they care about is finding oil.

So who do they employ to find oil? Geologist who follow "Mainstream" Geology or "Creationism" Geologist?

[Moonman62]

I’m with you on this one. You’re delusional, not a moron.

[GodGunsGuts]

See my last.

[Buck W.]

“See my last.”

ONE CAN ONLY HOPE!

[stormer]

I'd rather not. I'm allergic to codswallop.

[RoadGumby]

IMHO, yes they are. They are assisting in the discrediting of the Bible, Gods written word.

[BrandtMichaels]

Oh OK - it’s only science if it indicates more than 10,000 years huh?!

Let’s see some more of your evolutionary explanations for why these natural clocks are ignored in favor of carbon and radio-isotope dating please. Last time I think only one natural clock was predominantly discussed.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264681/posts

[Buck W.]

Your honesty is refreshing. I disagree, but I feel that we can actually have a conversation.

[Matchett-PI]

:)

[Buck W.]

Let me get this straight—you are putting forth 101 evidences for a young earth that originally appeared on the Creation Ministries site. Is that correct? If so, do you see a conflict? Are you concerned by the lack of scientific peer review?

[GodGunsGuts]

Sadly, that probably is your only hope.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You are incorrect.

Leftists are the biggest bunch of morons on the planet.

I put creationists somewhere near my neighbor who let his kids store his leftover wood from his deck up against my garage.

[RoadGumby]

I was not under the impression that the Catholic church had succumbed to the “Man comes from apes” idea yet. If this is true, perhaps it is a further sign of where the church is at in these ‘Last Days”. Something about a ‘great falling away’ or something.

This is observational in nature, not a perjorative. God will and does test Faith in many ways. Eve, Abraham, et al can testify to Gods testing of faith. Where is your faith that what God says is true? Where is the Catholic church’s faith in His Word?, or is it just trying to accomodate the world to entice people who would otherwise not be members?

So, if Genesis be Not True, if is just ‘allegory’, Then what else in the Bible is merely allegory? The 3 Hebrew children in the fire? Oh, I know, perhaps Jonah. I mean EVERYBODY knows that if a fish eats a man, the man does not survive at all, much less 3 days, much less being vomited back out to finally do Gods bidding. Maybe the Virgin Birth is allegory..... Hmmmm.

[Buck W.]

Does pi=3?
Where do you buy your slaves?

[Matchett-PI]

"Religion is the application of emotion to the unexplored."

On the contrary.

"For an atheist to reject religion means only that he has failed to understand it, precisely. A confession of atheism is simply an honest confession of ignorance of any realities that transcend the human ego, nothing more, nothing less. And why argue with a man who not only clings to ignorance, but is proud of the fact?"

“..For reason is only a faculty of knowing something indirectly in the absence of direct vision, while God is known directly, the same way one knows one is alive, perceives reality, or is aware of free will. In order to see something, it is not necessary to logically prove the existence of sight. Many of the most important truths are known simply by their “superabundance of clarity,” by pure intellect, not by the reason which is its servant. Reason is not Intelligence in itself, only an instrument of intelligence.

Few things create more mischief than reason in the hands of an unintelligent or immoral wonker. .[..] Not for nothing did Richard Weaver say that “every attack upon religion is inevitably an attack upon mind.”

Naturally there are many forms of stupid religion, for there is nothing touched by humans wonkers that cannot be made stupid. But at least religion as such does not exclude the possibility and priority of Intelligence, and therefore, Truth. ...” The Absolute Science of the Center and the Darwinist Religion of the Periphery

[Matchett-PI]

Think of a-theists. They define themselves by their opposition to God.

Without God, what would they be?

The "hole" at the center of their being would be exposed, so they would merely be a-holes.

Just Say Yes to Drags

[BrandtMichaels]

Here’s a clue how Darwin appears to have bent the rules of peer review, outright deception, circular reasoning, and straw-men arguments (and the evos still persist in the same tactics today).

From the OP article linked by GGG:

“According to Professor Gould, the first bit of cunning was to set up a “straw man” to demolish. This was to imply that his scientific opponents argued against his theory on the basis of a belief in a young earth, which was untrue. The arguments against Lyell’s theory were based on geological observations, and were presented by people who believed in an ancient earth as well as those who believed in a young earth. The second bit of cunning was to persuade his readers that the rejection of his uniformitarianism would amount per se to a rejection of science itself. That is, acceptance of the scientific principle of the uniformity (unchanging character) of natural law necessitated an acceptance of the uniformity (unchanging character) of geological processes.”

[RoadGumby]

Cute. Still a non-answer to my questions. When cornered, change direction!!

Not sure of the pi reference, but cute none the less.

The there are mention in the bible several ‘practices’ that were common in those times. Keeping of slaves was one of them. I do not believe that God, thru the Bible, advocated the practice, but merely acknowledged it AND forbade mistreatment. Also, the word slave is not the same as the experience here in early America. In those days it was common to indenture yourself to another. God did not advocate the forced slavery of others. If I am mistaken, please show me otherwise.

[Matchett-PI]

“I was not under the impression that the Catholic church had succumbed to the “Man comes from apes” idea yet.” - RoadGumby

It’s not that simple.

“Which theory of evolution are you talking about?

“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.

A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.

By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.

Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”

Excerpted from:

Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996

bttt
22 posted on 05/25/2007 8:41:28 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22

[Moonman62]

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe

What are they? They weren't listed in the thread.

[RoadGumby]

“I was not under the impression that the Catholic church had succumbed to the “Man comes from apes” idea yet.” - RoadGumby

It’s not that simple.

Yes, it truly is that simple, hence my stance on being grounded in faith. Even the Pope is but a man, I care not much what he thinks when he conflicts with the Word of the One he is supposed to be speaking for. I place my faith in what God says in the Bible, not on the writings of a man.

“Which theory of evolution are you talking about?

“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.

To address this is to consider the question, "Why did God lie to me, AND where else in his Book did He Lie">

[BrandtMichaels]

After clicking on my posted link then click on the articles’ link entitled ‘creation.com.’

[DoctorMichael]

Whenever I want scientific
information I always go to
CREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL!

[BrandtMichaels]

Crazy aunts huh? Every groundbreaking piece of science throughout history was first regarded as crazy too.

You and your ilk are so sure that science has every major piece of the jigsaw figured out and that the peer-review by consensus will correct each and every ‘minor’ error that you are blind to doing any research of your own. Even with something as powerful as the worldwideweb at your fingertips.

[Matchett-PI]

“101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe” ~ BrandtMichaels

Kurt Wise: “Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. “

Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=344
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson

Excerpts:

Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.

“One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day,” Mohler said.-

“This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day.”

Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...

...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern’s Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.

Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.

Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.

“With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches,” Moore said. [snip] ..

*

A couple of interesting items on the web regarding Kurt Wise:

[1] 7/3/2003 http://www.christianforums.com/t43741&page=12 “Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:

“I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable.” ~ Kurt Wise

[2] December 19th 2004 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44017 Theologyweb.com

Post # 7:

“...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I’d like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs.”

bttt HERE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=24#24

[count-your-change]

Darwin was obviously not so an original thinker as might be supposed and most certainly bore the bias’ and prejudices of an Englishman of his time such as the belief in the native intelligence of the European and especially of the Englishman.
But in his “Origin” he flies off into speculative philosophy when discussing natural selection.

“As man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection, what may not nature effect? Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions of life. Man keeps the natives of many climates in the same country; he seldom exercises each selected character in some peculiar and fitting manner; he feeds a long and a short beaked pigeon on the same food; he does not exercise a long-backed or long-legged quadruped in any peculiar manner; he exposes sheep with long and short wool to the same climate. He does not allow the most vigorous males to struggle for the females. He does not rigidly destroy all inferior animals, but protects during each varying season, as far as lies in his power, all his productions. He often begins his selection by some half-monstrous form; or at least by some modification prominent enough to catch his eye, or to be plainly useful to him. Under nature, the slightest difference of structure or constitution may well turn the nicely-balanced scale in the
struggle for life, and so be preserved. How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time! and consequently how poor will his products be, compared with those accumulated by nature during whole geological periods. Can we wonder, then, that nature's productions should be far “truer” in character than man's productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life, and should plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship?

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” (Chapter 4)

Darwin didn't lose his faith, he simply transferred it to another deity of his own making.

[BrandtMichaels]

Interesting that once again we are told the ‘majority’ of evidence favors older creation without:

1) citing what the majority old earth evidence is

2) addressing any of the natural clocks that completely contradict the notion of millions or billions of years.

Incidentally Russell Humphreys in “Starlight and Time” describes a very keen hypothesis for reconciling the apparent age of starlight against a YEC big bang scenario.

[Moonman62]

Why don’t you post them here, or do creationists have a copyright on their “facts?”

[BrandtMichaels]

I’m not so inclinded to hijack the thread, esp. when they are only 2 clicks away.

What’s wrong are 2 clicks too many?

[GodGunsGuts]

I like the fact that you are one of a growing number of creationists on FR who have learned not to the evos’ clicking for them :o)

[TooFarGone]

can’t believe I’m doing this, but here goes . . .

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: FOR HE IS HIS MONEY.” (emphasis mine) Ex.21:20-21

yea, yea there are at least 6 types of slavery in the bible . . .blah, blah, blah
here is “god’s” law- it’s o.k. to beat & kill your slave if the slave last a few days after the beating because why? because he’s your money/PROPERTY! “god” condones slavery defined as a person being another person’s ‘money,’ and it’s O.K. to beat that property to death if they last a few days after the beating.
that’s mate to you.

side note- so wonderful for the ‘almighty’ to let the nomadic sheepherders know that things like slavery and other ridiculous practices of the time (do rabbis still take the infant’s penis in their mouth during the circumcision ritual?) were wrong although common practice at the time-how revelatory! how inspired! please let the mental gymnastics begin . . .