Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Rise of Scientific Racial Ideology
It's for a seminar, so it won't be there forever. Dumb question - if I save it as HTML on my hard drive can I save the actual image or am I just storing the link?
Evolution certainly does pertain to origin of life. Neodarwinism says that we got here by molecule-to-man evolution (mutation + natural selection). That would require that life "originated" from a proto-bacteria of some type, and I have yet to speak of a neodarwinian naturalist who doesn't believe that that proto-bacteria arrived on the scene either by abiogenesis or panspermia (chuckle). You can PRETEND that it doesn't speak of origins but we all know that it does, don't we? Only those whacky theistic evolutionists (Christian mutation - haha) believe that God unleashed DNA or some such on the planet and then guided its evolution.
You speak of the "only viable alternative." In post 2894 you state, Since evolution and creation are the ONLY two viable options for origins of the universe and life." Maybe you missed it the first 4000 times on FR as well, but surely you understand there are numerous (nay, infinite) creation myths, right?
Maybe you missed it the first time I used the word "viable."
You asked us to "get it thru [y]our thick skulls," that we don't live in your community which is apparently made up of 100% christian fundamentalist YEC bible literalists. However, now I beg you to please understand that in my community, some believe in vastly different creation myths than you. Reality ain't that bad, exmarine... jump on in, the water's fine.
Not 100%, but we are a force. By the way, Jesus Christ is no myth - no serious or respected scholar (believer or unbeliever) doubts he was a real figure. Only atheists with slanted historiography and bad scholarship believe he was a myth.
That's why there are no flying squirrrels.
Interesting that conservatives agree that economies can't be designed, but some think ecologies can be designed.
Depends on how you save it. You should probably right click on all images and save them. Then save the source. You may have to edit the source to point to the local images.
Stultis: Make up your mind. Which is the issue, "testing" or "proof"? If the later, please cite an example of a scientific theory, preferably (for purposes of comparison) a biological one, that you consider to have been "proven".
HalfFull: < -- Insert Response Here -- >
Hello, Condor, glad you are checking on my responses and will try to answer Stultis. Believe it or not, I post on FreeRepublic sporadically, since I work and travel a lot, and have family activities and hobbies that don't include the computer. Because of this, I am several hundred posts behind on this thread. But, it is nice to know that folks like yourself are there to remind me when I miss a response. Thanks.
Anyway, as I remember it, I was making the point that many attempts have been made in the laboratory with the poor fruit fly to simulate mutations and multi-generational conditions that would hopefully result in the fruit fly turning into another species. These attempts have failed, of course, and all we see is freak fruit flies with one wing, for example. I used the word "test" concerning this (perhaps the term, simulation would have been better)...that this test/simulation was trying to somehow "prove" that such evolution is possible. The "test" failed.
As far as an example of a biological "proof", I think this same example applies. We have pretty much "proved" by the many simulations, that the fruit fly cannot be forced into evolving into another species, (like a butterfly, for example).
Another example of something proved in biology is the process of photosynthesis...whose processes can actually be observed and measured. That is science. Evolution, however, cannot be observed (past or present), and its processes cannot be measured. It is not science, but something believed in merely by ardor and faith (i.e., religion)
A "completely misses the point" placemarker.
I'm still kind of curious about your reaction to Darwin's comment on the Turks. Is it your opinion that It would have been a good thing for the Turks to overrun Europe? Anyway, as long as we're bashing Darwin's character, we might as well post the entire offensive letter, so we can see what a miscreant he was.
C. DARWIN TO W. GRAHAM.
Down, July 3rd, 1881.
Dear Sir,
I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably written 'Creed of Science,' though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work. You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation—and no doubt of the conservation of energy—of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you attribute to our greatest men; I have been accustomed to think, second, third, and fourth rate men of very high importance, at least in the case of Science. Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. But I will write no more, and not even mention the many points in your work which have much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement in my mind which your book has aroused.
I beg leave to remain,
Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged,
CHARLES DARWIN.
Saying Creationism "is not science" is merely a philosophical statement predicated upon one's definition of science. According to YOUR definition, it's not science. But I reject your definition of science, and you can't prove that your definition is true. I give no validity to axioms (truth by definition). If you would like to discuss the deeper philosophical implications behind your definition of science, then first give me your explicit definition so I can dissect it.
Once you reject scientific inquiry, how do you determine which of these myths you want to use to answer questions about observed phenomena?
This is another statement predicated on your DEFINTION of science. Give me your definition of science doctor, and then I'll give you a lesson in philosophy.
Quoting some idiotic bs): The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.That's why there are no flying squirrrels.
Lack of preditors: the reason there are so many nuts.
Crap. Science is what scientists do. There is general agreement on the meaning of the word. You can make up any alternative definition you want, but it does nothing more than classify you as outside the bounds of regular social communication.
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.