Posted on 03/29/2006 7:53:52 PM PST by SampleMan
Because God don't make junk. I know this is true because I saw it on a bumpersticker once. :-)
My personal opinion is that statements in the general form of "some random freeper gave his personal opinion on whatever, therefore science cannot say anything about whatever" should be banned.
If I couldn't meet the challenge, yes. But I can and will after the other two reply. I'm sure they will, aren't you?
Also, please don't conflate these very different things. Theories of evolution, biogensis and the origin of the universe are all distinct. There isn't even an accepted theory of biogenesis although there are many speculations.
"That is a surprising admission. Since you seem to expect no answer, the conclusion to your challenge is that science cannot say anything about intelligence. Why don't we just reduce evaluations in schools to dart board outcomes?"
Ok, it seems that you are trying to avoid my question by raising a point which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you have a scientifically useful definition of intelligence or not? If not, do you think it makes sense to talk about the "science" of intelligent design?
Now to answer your irrelevant point, I believe it is possible to formuate tests which measure abilities that correlate to success, employability, etc. for human beings (i.e. can you read/write, can you do algebra, do you know powerpoint, excel, etc.) However, I don't see how such tests would be relevant for the purpose of creating a scientific definition of intelligence applicable for the purposes we have in mind here...that is unless you anticipate the Creator sitting down for the SAT; if He does do that at some point in the future then I think the ID side will have a pretty strong case. But I'm not holding my breath.
"Also, please don't conflate these very different things"
don't worry i wasn't. i specifically listed them as three distinct items.
"But I can and will after the other two reply."
yeah right. likely excuse.
(and don't go giving micro-evolution proofs as if they were repeatable tests for macro-evolution)
The state of knowledge about evolution is changing very rapidly these days. I don't think any pro-evolution scientist today blames Darwin for not knowing all that would be discovered in the future. Nevertheless he discovered the basic principle that even very slight variations in individuals of a species, if the confer a survival advantage, will over time lead to a shift in the nature of the organism. Given enough variations and enough time you eventually end up with a new species. There is no way he could know how the subsequent developments in Mendalian genetics, the double helix, Hox genes, genetic switches, etc. would modify his basically correct observation.
On the subject of homosexuality. In a world in which we are overusing our resources, and causing the extinction of tens of thousands of God's creatures perhaps homosexuality is a way to prevent excess human reproduction. Groups of rats kept in overcrowded conditions will engage in homosexual posturing. Might this actually be God's answer for our failure to be good stewards of his marvelous creations.
Yes and yes.
"Yes and yes."
Ok, let's hear your scientific definition of intelligence.
We're ignorant. Gotit.
Even better, you will understand why intelligent design theory is going to become a major force for good in the battle to rescue our collapsing culture – because the way we think about origins affects the way we think about nearly everything.
God space-aliensDidit and if you don't straighten up and go to church he'll smite thee.
But I.D. theory is a science-driven enterprise.
Judge Smells: "Weellll? ... We're waiting! ..."
... defense of Christianity as total truth about all of reality.
Which explains why the other two thirds of the earth are just figments of our imagination.
Microbiologist Michael Behe has coined the term "irreducible complexity" to describe this. That is, the cell consists of coordinated, interlocking parts that must all be in place simultaneously, or it won't function at all. You can't improve the cell through one random mutation at a time because if you change any one aspect, the whole thing will crash. For evolutionary change to occur, every single piece of its Rube Goldberg-like factory would have to mutate at exactly the same time, and each single mutation would have to be beneficial, or the cell would just die.
And Dr. Behe is wrong.
Darwinists cannot explain irreducible complexity.
Most of the surviving Darwin clan married into the Wedgewood family, but the Wedgewoodists can't explain Santa Claus either. And for the same reason.
(Note: Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only.)
Funny. Evolution doesn't address the origin of life. Just the development of new species.
So ID only deals with origin, but not the formation of species; And if evolution doesn't deal with origin, only speciation -- Then what's the friggen problem?!
It is no exaggeration to say that Darwinism has led to the killing of untold millions of human beings.
Not only not an exaggeration, it's a outright lie.
Caesar's Gallic War killed an estimated million enemy and probably half that of noncombatants.
The Christians and the Muslims managed to kill an estimated 4½ million between them in the wars of the Crusades.
Credit Islam with 1½ million in their Iberian and Persian conquests. The Christan Church gets ½ million for Bohemia, another million for the Cathars in France, and seven million for the Thirty year war -- a third of Europe.
All that 150 years before Darwin was even born.
Of course, there's no need to mention the six million that died in the trans Atlantic slave traffic, or the 19 million slaves killed going to Muslim and the Oriental markets ...
In the 20th century, we get Hitler -- a Catholic turned demented; Joseph Stalin -- a Orthodox seminary student turned Orthodox Megalomaniac. Neither was particularly interested in Darwin or his theories. And the greatest murderer of all, Mao ze Tung, never heard of him.
Darwinism is also behind the sexual revolution (just doing what comes naturally), radical feminism, family breakdown and normalization of homosexuality (gender roles are social constructs we can discard as we "evolve" as a society). ...
With 10 kids with the same wife, I'd say Darwin has zip-zero-zilch-nada to do with "family breakdown", to say nothing about homosexuality.
Multiple research studies documenting the need that children have for a mom and a dad are probably the best defense we've got, but in a nation full of divorced or never married single parents, and with a media quick to promote "gay" families, it's a tough slog. So far, a majority of the public opposes homosexual marriage, but it's mostly instinctive and traditional. ...
Fascinating...
But what does that have to do with evolution or IDIOTS?
Shhh ... don't look now, but there's an ape on your keyboard.
Yet, somehow, we did it....and we are a long way from Gods.
Don't let your personal mental limitations definte the limits of what is and what can be....
With an attitude like that, we'd still be living in trees....
Laughing at Evolution
Dr. Edward Blick has been Professor of Aerodynamics, Nuclear Engineering, Geological Engineering, and other subjects for more than thirty years at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Blick worked on Project Mercury at NASA, as well as the F4 fighter. He has written over ISO scientific papers, and he rej ects the possibility of an old Earth or the process of evolution occurring within either plant or animal life.
We all love to laugh, it's good medicine. We laughed at the Queen in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, who said, "I sometimes believe in six impossible things before breakfast." The Darwinists are even more hilarious—they not only believe, but also teach more than six impossible fairy tales in their biology classes. The history of their pathetic attempt to pump life into the Lenin-like corpse of evolution is full of laughs.
Charles Darwin was born into wealth. He spent two years in medical school, dropping out after spending too much time in bars. He had some divinity training but failed to make it as an Anglican minister. He was never a scientist but took a position as a naturalist on a ship and later wrote his racist books The Origin of Species and the Preservation of Favored Races and Descent of Man. He was ignorant of genetics. He married his first cousin. All seven of his children either died young or had mental or physical disorders.
Without any facts, he conjured up his pangenesis theory. He assumed that species changed to other species because all cells produced gemmules. Gemmules supposedly arose by some kind of reaction to the environment. Each of these gemmules entered the sex cells of the sperm or egg (it must have been crowded in there), which later were transmitted to the offspring. Big problem! No one could find Darwin's imaginary gemmules and pangenesis died shortly after birth!
In 1870, Adam Sedgewick, leading geologist of England, wrote Darwin: "I read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts, I laughed at till my sides were sore; others I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false—you deserted the true method of induction." Induction is reasoning from facts to theory. Darwin reasoned from theory to facts! His writings were conjecture piled upon conjecture. "Maybe" and "perhaps" form the basis of his books!
Darwin's writings were not science but philosophical musings. But something had to be done to keep the world believing Darwinism. Prof.
Ernest Haeckel tried by faking drawings of embryos (which he claimed repeated "fish to reptile to mammal" evolution), but fellow embryolo-gists in his trial at Jena University discovered his fakes. Believe it or not, Haeckel's fakes are used as proofs of evolution in biology books today. His forgeries are like gonorrhea, a gift that keeps on giving!
The next attempt to resurrect Darwinism came in 1872. The British ship HMS Challenger had dredged ocean sediments for four years looking for half-formed fossils. None were found. Since none had ever been found on land, the evolutionary fairy tale of the gradual production of billions of fossils in sedimentary strata was quietly set aside. The Challenger did provide a momentary hope when it dredged up some blob from the ocean floor. It was a live microbe, some kind of a missing link! They named it Bathybuis Haeckeli after the old king ofbiblogical fakery, Ernest Haeckel. In 1875, however, it was discovered to be not a life form, but a chemical precipitate of sulfate of lime. True to form, the discovery was carefully swept under the rug and hidden from the public.
In the meantime Darwin had returned to Lamark's previously discarded idea, that giraffes developed long necks by stretching to reach those leaves on the top of trees. This theory died again in 1883 when German biologist Leopold Weisman cut offthe tails of white mice in 19 successive generations and the tails always reappeared. Similarly, after 4,000 years of circumcision, Jewish men still had foreskins. More bad news for poor old Saint Darwin!
Who can rescue Darwinism? In 1930 Austin H. Clark tried to plug the gap with a new theory, "zoogenesis." Clark was a well-respected Darwinist at the Smithsonian Institute. He had written books and 600 articles in five languages. However, to his dismay, he could never find any evidence of macroevolution in animals or plants. In his 1930 book The New Evolution: Zoogenesis he cited fact after fact proving macroevolution could not have occurred. He concluded, therefore, that plants and animals must have sprung fully formed from dirt and water! The evolutionary world was stunned into silence. Clark was the Carl Sagan of his day. He supposedly knew all the answers. Quickly they buried Clark's theory.
The next "batter up" was world-famous geneticist Richard Gold-schmidt, who tried to come to the rescue of the embarrassed Darwinians
by attempting to prove macroevolution was caused by mutations. For 25 years he was the godfather to millions of generations of gypsy moths. He zapped them with x-rays and chemicals. He found mutations produced nothing but deformities. No new species! He concluded rats were still rats and rabbits were still rabbits. In his 1940 book The Material Basis for Evolution, Goldschmidt exploded the ammunition box of evolutionary theory. He literally tore the theory to pieces. He was an honest atheist who faced the facts. But not wanting to acknowledge God, he proposed a new mechanism of evolution called the "Hopeful Monster Mechanism." One day an alligator laid an egg and a turkey hatched out! You've got to remember, boys and girls, this is science!
For the next 30 years evolutionists were in turmoil because they had (1) no proof that evolution had ever occurred, (2) no reasonable mechanism to explain evolution, and (3) zillions of missing links! They had bitter arguments among themselves about possible theories. The embarrassment of Goldschmidt's crude theory caused Harvard's Stephen Gould in 1972 and a little later, Steven Stanley of Johns Hopkins University to "smarten up" Goldschmidt's ugly theory by giving it a new name, "Punctuated Equilibrium" (Gould), and the even better "Quantum Speciation" (Stanley). But it was still a monster by any name.
The discovery in the 1950s of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson crushed the hopes of biological evolutionists. It provided clear evidence that every species is locked into its own coding pattern. Only variation within a kind (microevolution) can occur. Mathematicians showed the odds against forming DNA by chance were "quad-zillions and quad-zillions to one." Evolution by chance was impossible! But atheist Crick was not ready to believe in God. He dreamed up a new theory: some unknown "space alien" sprinkled sperm in our solar system and eventually creatures evolved on some planet (Krypton?). These "evolved space creatures" then built a "Noah's Ark" rocket ship and, after a long journey, came down to the earth to unload their zoo. Crick named his new theory "Panspermia." This, boys and girls, is called science or! Now NASA's "Life in Space Program" is spending billions of our tax dollars shooting probes into our solar system looking for this "sperm donor"!
There you have it—the skeletons in evolution's closet. The kooky theories of pangenesis, gemmules, Lamarkism, zoogenesis, punctuated equilibrium, quantum speciation, and panspermia are all just guesses. None were proven. They make good fodder for fairly tale writers. They are a barrel of laughs!
How can supposedly reasonable men believe this weird stuffand then try to pass it off as science? They've emptied out the stables and dumped it on the gullible public. Most Americans believe people with Ph.D.s in science are unbiased, honest, and seek the truth. But they are fallen creatures like the rest of humanity. They can have biases, be dishonest, and seek only to further their own goals, honorable or dishonorable.
The Darwinists have a well-oiled propaganda machine to keep their true goals hidden from the taxpayers, two-thirds of whom believe in creation. Darwinists have Web sites set up to deflect criticism of evolution and to further their legislative and judicial goals, which are to kill God and elevate humanism to His throne.
Darwinists try to hide their atheist religion from the majority of Americans who believe in God. One of the Darwinist Web sites has enlisted Jimmy Carter to proselyte Christians and baptize them into "The Church of Darwin" (in the name of the unholy trinity, Darwin, Haeckel,
and Nietzsche?). These new converts are called theistic evolutionists. At the 1959 Darwinian Centennial Celebration, Julian Huxley's keynote address focused on the total repudiation of God. Huxley was asked whj the world, 100 years ago, leaped at Darwin's book. He answered it freed us from God's sexual mores! Evolution is a religion of no God!
Darwinists have given up public debates because they lost hundreds of them in the 1970s and '80s. Why did they lose? As a participant in two of them, I will tell you. They lost because they had no proof. Amazing! No proof! They usually tried old debate tricks of personal attacks on their opponents, i.e. "You can't be a scientist because you believe the Bible," etc. But they lost because audiences were shocked—shocked that the Darwinists had no proof! And they have none today!
In editorials and letters to the editor, the Darwinists produce no proofs. They commonly try to bluff us with pompous statements like. "Evolution has been proved as much as gravity and it is believed by all scientists." Get real—sure, and the moon is made of green cheese! It's all bluff, designed to shut up critics and convert us to their atheistic religion. Hitler and his propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels would have been proud. You tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe it! Unfortunately, a lot of Americans have swallowed the lie, including about half of our college graduates. Our courts and media are full of Darwinists. Their bulldog, the ACLU, is working overtime to wipe God from all of public life. Humanism over all is their goal!
Tragically the Darwinists are wrecking western civilization. In the first half of the twentieth century, Darwinism hijacked the militant policies of Germany. The religion of Darwin, Nietzsche, and Haeckel became the religion of Hitler and his Nazi gang. The result was 11 million dead in their attempt to produce the Aryan super race and a victorious Germany. World War II was the most violent form of evolutionism ever seen.
In the last half century, evolution has softly hijacked the American educational system and inflicted a great defeat on American culture. Crime has skyrocketed; homosexuality and gay marriage have been mainstreamed; and our morals have submerged into a cesspool. Why? Kids brainwashed with this kooky nonsense, are taught that they evolved from apes, so they act like apes. If it feels good, do it.
Not only are the Darwinians scrambling to deflect attacks from creationists, but also they are arguing with each other over their different theories. "So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty, the used car business" (Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80).
"I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology.... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science" (Soren Lovtrup, The Refutation of a Myth, 1987).
© 2006 by Southwest Radio Church
Reprints of this publication may be obtained from: Southwest Radio Church
P.O. Box 100 • Bethany. OK 73008
(405)789-1222 • (800)652-1144 • FAX(405)787-2589
25 copies for $5.00 (plus $3 S&H) • 100 copies for $20.00 (plus $3 S&H)
1000 copies for $125 (plus $5 S&H)
You can listen to our daily broadcast on the Internet at www.sufrc.com
Something that passes the Turing test. Plus you gave a credible one in your answer. Tell me what is the scientific definition of species?
To me, the lack of any possible way of falsification is what tells me ID is not science.
If there's no way to prove something wrong, you can never really know if it's true.
Argument from incredulity.
I'm sure you can back up your slanderous assertion that the evo posters support those things you mention.
You wouldn't be making things up, would you?
I think Revolting Cat's post was the intellectual equivalent of projectile vomiting.
I wonder what Dr. Blick would say about this:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
I wonder what Dr. Blick would say about this:
Why don't you ask HIM?
Sorry, but you just proved EVOLUTION is a religion, and not science.
You didn't address any of the scientific inferences once. You only got offended when your religion got attacked.
Evolution is not science, it is a false belief.
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.