Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinisms tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
No disagreement. But this subject is not quite as remote as our examples so far might suggest, and that's because of the question: how much does terrorism actually express the so-called religion of peace? If the religion itself commands violence against others, is it only violence which should be illegal, or is it also that particular version of the religion? I'm only asking...
So many misanthropic perceptions. Where to begin. At the beginning, I guess.
Now, in answer to your question, we must first answer: should children's education be required and enforced by law? If your answer to that is "no," then we are into a very different discussion -- and no doubt fruitless in terms of practical political possibilities.
No.
Were speaking in the context of education under the charge of a National Administrator, with policy and funding mandated by a National Legislature, and overseen by the majority of nine Black Robes. Whats fruitless in terms of practical political possibilities is the allusion that we can allow education to remain in the hands of the national government we have, and still indulge in the pathetic belief that we can somehow influence education in any meaningful way contrary to what that government wants. If someone is not willing to come to grips with the imperative of removing education from the hands of government, and to entertain ideas how that almost impossible task can be accomplished, then I have to conclude that person is not really interested in bringing about any significant change in our handling of education, and is, at bottom, quite content to leave things as they are.
But as long as your answer is "yes," then I think we are dealing with how to best use taxpayer monies.
I think the best use of taxpayer monies, with respect to education (and any number of other issues), is to leave that money in the hands of the people who earned it.
My solution is, I'm pretty sure, the standard conservative answer: some combination of tax breaks and/or vouchers so that parents can chose the most appropriate schools for their little Johnnys & Marys.
So here we are, having disposed of all the threats to the status quo, ready to slip into a comfortable conversation about all the things that dont matter a whit when it comes to doing anything real in education. Include me out.
And I would also allow teaching religion . . .
Aint gonna happen (speaking of fruitless). Not even if youre the all-powerful, the most merciful, the Anointed One himself. There are too many vested interests determined to erase any trace of Christianity from the public weal.
. . . you are not going to shut down all the public schools . . .
Then any discussion is pointless. Heres to the once and future Republic. May its resurrection be glorious. Its as dead as a doornail for the present.
Except when they dont.
No one is entitled to pretend their religious opinions are some kind of scientific fact or theory. Such pretense, by definition is a lie.
Some opinions are opinions. Some opinions are a pretense.
In this particular case, we have a scientist opining that "God" is an appropriate subject for scientific study. Well, that's his opinion, but it's also a lie, because by definition it's not.
But a scientist is not a liar even if his opinion is (a lie)?
On the other side, we have religiously motivated ID-Creationists claiming their "theory" is somehow scientific. Again, that's their opinion, but it's also a lie, because by definition it's not.
So that opinion is a pretense?
The definition which removes God from scientific study says: science only concerns natural causes for natural occurrances. [sic] Since God is not a "natural cause," He cannot be studied by science.
But Science can pass judgment on whether or not God exists (or not)? Is that an opinion or a pretense?
Cant lay claim to hand in the cookie jar. Thats been around since cookie jars.
Cant lay claim to sidetracks either. Thats been around since, well . . . railroads.
But you still have a learning curve problem.
At this point, given the mental state of this nations Liberal crazies, maybe we need most to be concerned that self-defense remains legal.
Just saying . . .
OK BroJoeK....
I’ve done my best to have a reasoned discussion with you...even though you seem incapable of processing the simplest logic....I’ve not insulted or demeaned you. It looked for a little bit there like you were responding in kind until this last flurry.
I’m going to respond to a few of the things in your last 11 posts that we havent already gone over and over and make a few comments...you may then have the last word if you’d like, I’ll not be responding again.
I’ve included the gang on this post because one thing that you’ve done is just too delicious and should be enjoyed by all of them.
Here’s your statement:
****”Macroevolution” is not only not science, it’s not even a real word. It’s just made-up, by creationists, as a straw man to be shot down......Real scientists never use the term “macroevolution” — not that I’ve ever seen.****
I’ll first mention the fact that the word appears in the dictionary.
I’ll also give you a bit of information since you say “real scientists never use the term “macroevolution:
In November of 1980, there was a conference held at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History. The topic of the conference was MACROEVOLUTION. (As an aside, I feel compelled to wonder how scientists could have a conference on macroevolution since they never utter the term. When it came time to use the word did they substitute another?).
There was a report on the conference in Science Magazine, volume 210, November 21, 1980, pages 883-887 titled Evolutionary Theory Under Fire. How exactly do you figure Science Magazine was tricked into reporting on a conference whose sole purpose was for scientists to discuss a topic that doesn’t exist to “real scientists”?
By the way....in this article written by Roger Lewin, who incidentally won the British Royal Society Prize in 1989 for his Science writing, was this little treasure:
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
All that is fun and revealing and refutes your somewhat dull and uninformed point....but it’s not even the best part. Here’s the best part:
You have urged people numerous times in this thread to read Eugenie Scott’s book “Evolution vs. Creation” because she would set us all straight on the whole ID/Evolution deal.
In that book, on page 183, she says this:
“Evolutionary Biologists use the term ‘macroevolution’ to refer to the topics relevant to understanding the distribution of patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time.”
It seems that Ms. Scott, your icon of science, must not have anything to do with real science. Also from the statement made by her we can extrapolate that evolutionary biologists are not real scientists either since they use the term macroevolution.
So here’s the downlow:
No “real scientist” ever uses the term macroevolution that BroJoeK has ever seen, except that it is discussed in detail (looks like about 5 pages) in the book that he is recommending that we all read by the author who he says is the authority.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ IT YOURSELF BROJOE!!
Oh yeah....you said this about Eugenie Scott in Post #1658:
“My opinion is that Eugenie Scott speaks in the voice of science itself. So, when you trash her words, imho, you trash all of science.”
You have therefore engaged in self-trashage.
It looks to me (and I’ll admit upfront that I’m surmising this) like you picked up an argument used by some evo on some blog, took it for gospel without looking into it and decided to throw it at me, since I’m a “half-wit” (see the next quote from BroJoe):
****there must be a school somewhere for half-wits — that is to say a school for otherwise normal people who wish to become half-witted. And the first thing they teach at this special needs school is: reject anything and everything found on Wikipedia!****
You have to be a nitwit (which is much worse than a half-wit) to use a source that anyone from the general public can go in and edit at any time. Some things may be true, some things may not...some things may be biased, some may not......the point is, how would you know? Come to think of it, maybe “half-wit” is right. You might be right about half of the time.
****So you have not actually made an argument here, but you did insult me — becoming more and more YHAOS-like, I see. Let’s see, is that micro- or macro-evolution? I suspect macro, since YHAOS seems to me a different “kind” of critter! ;-)****
YHAOS....he’s calling you out again without notifying you.
****To determine the age of any particular rock strata, geologists look at everything in and around the layer, including any materials which can be dated by radioactive decay.****
Dating methods again......I noticed you never responded to this question I put to you in Post#1603:
The volume of ice in a glass of water is twice as much as the volume of water. How long did it take from the time the glass was filled until now to reach the current state?
Is it possible to answer that question without more information?
Is that question any different than this question?:
Black rock was examined that had been formed as a result of lava flow from a volcanic eruption. There is twice as much Potassium as there is Argon in the sample. How long did it take to reach the current state?
How about responding to it now?
Heres what I say: Neither can be answered without making MANY assumptions....that fact makes dating methods subject to bias. Any date assigned (by an evo or a crevo) is unknowable and therefore wishful thinking.
****Understand that geology is not evolution, geology is just rocks — what they are made of, how and when they formed, is what geologists think about. Then biologists studying evolution use the results from geology to date fossils.
So, when you deny evolution, you are also denying geology, which means that basically, you’re saying all of science is a Big Lie.****
There are Geologists who disagree with the orthodoxy.
Read this from Steven Austin, who has a PhD in Geology from Penn State:
http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/imp-137.htm
I know you won’t....it refutes the current paradigm on the geologic column at the very least it will make you think about it . therefore I know you won’t read it. I still felt compelled to put it here for the rest of the gang...they might find it interesting.
Your other posts are just a rehash of all of your bluster from previous posts.....Ill ignore them and make my final points (most of which you know but bear repeating):
1. Science does not seek the truth when it comes to the theory of evolution. They seek validation of their worldview....that there naturalism is all there is. There are other theories and hypotheses out there. The proponents of those ideas are shunned, fired and denied tenure if they work at the wrong universities. If the truth means design (in spite of the fact that science readily admits that biological systems “look designed”) then they are unwilling to go there.
2. Evolution (specifically macroevolution....which it’s ok to discuss because your hero Eugenie does it)....does not and cannot by definition conform to the scientific method. It is not observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable. Looking at bones and trying to figure out what lifeform led to the next is guesswork done by those who adhere to a construct that evolution occurred, so there MUST be a series we can put together. When you have that mindset, you’ll find what you want to find.
3. The probability of the simplest protein (200 Amino Acids) forming by random processes is 1 in:
2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ....and I’m supposed to believe that this happened for all 10,000+ proteins in the human body?
4. Dating methods can best be described as “educated guesses within a predetermined framework of assumptions”.
5. There are many animals out there that defy evolution....their morphology is such that they have parts that are interworking and therefore must all evolve at the same time if evolution is indeed true. (I’m sorry that you have an inability to critically look at this.)
6. Mutations BY OBSERVATION do not add any information to the genome, they are information-neutral or result in a loss of genetic information. Therefore it is not possible for natural selection to act upon new information to create new species. It can only act upon information that already exists. Therefore, it must logically follow that for the theory of evolution to be true, all of the genetic information for every species of life... plant, animal, whatever...had to have been in the first gene. This strains credulity.
7. There are things in our science textbooks today that have long ago been proven false at best and fraudulent at worst. Some of these are:
Haeckels embryos
Peppered moths
The Miller-Urey experiment
Darwin’s “Tree of life”
Vestigial Organs
Macroevolution extrapolated from Darwin’s Finch Beaks
Miscellaneous faked and fraudulent “Apemen”.
I could list more but what’s the point? If the proof of evolution is so abundant, why do they have to hang on to these things that are known to be fake/false and used to teach our kids?
Could it be that they’ve got nothin’ else they can use to indoctrinate them?
Ah, the word indoctrination which of the two of us has been indoctrinated me or you?
Maybe one day youll figure that one out.
BroJoeK:****Macroevolution is not only not science, its not even a real word. Its just made-up, by creationists, as a straw man to be shot down......Real scientists never use the term macroevolution not that Ive ever seen.****
Just for kicks.....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macroevolution
Main Entry: mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
http://www.bartleby.com/61/48/M0014800.html
macroevolution
NOUN: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
macroevolution - 4 dictionary results
You are pretty hung up on *real* scientists. Just for the record, because I don't recall seeing it posted anywhere, what field is your degree in?
Well, scientifically, how many "kinds" is that, and which ones of those were biblically "created," versus those which arose through ID-acceptable MICRO-evolution?
Here's the bottom line: real science does not play those games, only religiously motivated Creationists / Intelligent Designers do.
No, science just plays those games with a larger field. They go back further than *kinds*.
All those questions that you propose that you seem to think are discrediting the ID/creation POV are ones that can be used in exactly the same way against evolution.
The issues you have about the specifics of the classification of *kinds* can be used for the definition of *species* as well.
You're shooting yourself in the foot with those arguments.
But if you want published in real scientific journals, then you'll have to meet the standards of those journals, and so far, you haven't done that, have you?
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth there.
In one breath you're saying that they're not being suppressed and in the next you admit that that is exactly what scientists are doing.
I do know, Darwin speculated that life may have started in some "warm little pond" eons ago, but I don't know what scientific hypotheses have ever been proposed in this regard, much less which ones are confirmed as theories.
Do you always contradict yourself like you have been in this thread?
By today's liberal standards they were.
What would your opinion be if a group of the Religious Right in this country, led by Billy Graham and Pat Robertson, proposed an armed insurrection against the government and intended to throw off the yoke of the government and establish a new one because they said that God was leading them to do so?
Still waiting for an answer?
I saw lots of replies, but couldn’t find much that qualified as a direct answer.
"YHAOS....hes calling you out again without notifying you."
Yes, I know, but no real concern there. He's harmless.
Anyway thanks for writing. I appreciate being included.
Thanks for the CCs.
YHAOS:"No."
Anyone reading this should note carefully both the question and the answer. My question was NOT: should the federal government control public education? My question WAS: should children's education be required and enforced by law?
In response, YHAOS says "No," but then goes on to make clear that what he's really talking about is federal control of public education. Well, that wasn't the question.
I'm simply arguing the following point: there is no possibility -- zero, zip, nada, fahgettaboudit -- that laws requiring children to be educated will ever be revoked. And as long as there are any Democrats there is no possibility that poor people will ever be required to pay directly for their own children's public educations. That's a fact.
The issue then is, how to restore pre-WWII concepts of community standards or personal choices? Here the normal conservative answer is: some combination of vouchers and tax breaks so that parents have more options about where to send little Johnnys & Marys for their legally required educations.
I would expand those options to include private, religious and home schools. That seems to me entirely reasonable, doable and would go a long way towards solving the current insanity.
Imho, for what it's worth, in both these particular cases, opinion equals pretense equals lies. Here it seems you imagine I'm trying to let this scientist off the hook, but that's not the case, and I think I've expressed it rather clearly, many times now.
"In that book, on page 183, she says this:
Evolutionary Biologists use the term macroevolution to refer to the topics relevant to understanding the distribution of patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time."
My apologies: you are certainly right, schaef21, and I was wrong about "macroevolution." I did indeed read Scott's section on Micro versus Macro-evolution, but I took the following statement as being the gist of it:
"Micro- and Macroevolution are thus different levels of analysis of the same phenomenon: evolution."
Obviously, I misread the words "same phenomenon" to refer to micro- and macroevolution. My bad.
I also note from my Webster's dictionary, that though these words are new to me, they are not new to science, having been invented around 1940.
But on more careful reading of Scott's section on this subject, I note that the word MACROevolution, does not really mean the same thing to scientists that it means to creationists.
Here's the conclusion of Scott's essay on page 184 (my emphasis added):
"Creationists' view of microevolution is similar to that of evolutionary biologists, but the two groups understand macroevolution very differently.
"Creationists accept microevolutionary processes affecting genetic variation of populations, and most also accept speciation, or the branching of a lineage into reproductively isolated groups.
"But creationists take literally the evolutionary biologists' definition of macroevolution as "evolution above the species level," and infer that major groups of living things such as phyla and classes -- the upper taxonomic levels characterized by body plan differences -- have a qualitatively different history than lower levels such as populations and species.
"They view the distinguishing features of phyla and classes as appearing suddenly, denying that such structures as segments, appendages exoskeletons and the like could evolve through microevolutionary processes.
"Their definition of macro-evolution thus overlaps only slightly with that of evolutionary biologists because they concentrate only on the emergence of new body plans or major features which distinguish "major kinds" of living things.
"Effectively, macroevolution to creationists equates to the inference of common ancestry, which they reject. Their view is that because God created living things as separate "kinds," major groups and the features distinguishing them could not have come about through natural processes, microevolutionary or otherwise.
"Their position is "micro yes, macro no."
"There is a robust argument among evolutionary biologists over how new body plans or major new morphological features arose.
"No one disputes the importance of natural selection: it affects the genetic variation in populations, which may be the basis for a new species (in conjunction with isolating mechanisms).
"All parties likewise recognize the possibility or even likelihood of other biological mechanisms affecting morphological features that distinguish major groups of organisms.
"The issue in evolutionary biology is how and how much natural selection and other microevolutionary processes are supplemented by other mechanisms (such as regulatory genes operating early in embryological development)."
At no place does Scott suggest that scientists might include in her last sentence the word "design."
"How about responding to it now?
"Heres what I say: Neither can be answered without making MANY assumptions....that fact makes dating methods subject to bias. Any date assigned (by an evo or a crevo) is unknowable and therefore wishful thinking."
See page 156 for Scott's discussion on radiometric dating. It mentions over 40 different radiometric dating methods plus a number of non-radiogenic methods. Item 14 of that discussion addresses your potassium-argon issue directly.
"14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.
Answer:"There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them.
"Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above.
"Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths..."
I think the key words here are: "multiple dating methods used together." We should remember that over many decades now, geologists have used "multiple methods" to date many many strata in geological columns world-wide. Probably the major reason is the search for minerals -- gold, iron, oil, etc. -- with geologists knowing that where, for example, oil is found in one kind of strata one place, it may well be found in that same kind of strata somewhere else.
So, here's the bottom line: in your efforts to trash evolution, you end up also trashing much of biology, geology, chemistry and physics. So it's pretty hard to pretend you are not anti-science, isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.