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 Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Why would anyone make the astonishing assumption that fossils would exist in some kind of continuum, like Newton's spectrum?
Fossils are more like the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum, the shadows of things.
They are the stone shadows of creatures unfortunate enough to have died in places so lonely that their carcasses were undisturbed while mineralization replaced the regular materials. As I said, a stone shadow.
That there are any at all to examine is most fortuitous. Tracking the path of life through the millenia is like trying to track a scarab beetle across a desert. Not sayin' it can't be done, but you do have to look sharp. (There's a picture for you; a Kalahari bushman, looking sharp.)
So, now you are going to cite for us even one peer-reviewed article, in a respected scientific journal, by a well recognized scientist, explaining how Intelligent Design is NOT just re-named Creationism, but rather a necessary conclusion from certain undisputed physical evidence?
And this article will demonstrate that ALL of evolution is necessarily false, while ALL changes in species over time are the product of some PROVEN "Intelligent Designer", and will also explain the mechanism by which ID is effected? And while they're at it, explain why, if certain biological features SEEM so "intelligent" why do others seem so, well, stupid?
Indeed, if there were serious intelligence directing the course of EVOLUTION, why then would there ever be any biological mistakes?
This should be interesting.
I'd say the single greatest problem that science has is weeding out the charlatans from serious scientists. Especially in highly technical complex subjects, there's just no way the average citizen can distinguish truth from fraud.
In those cases, only other experts in the field are really qualified to evaluate a scientist's work. So that's what peer-review is all about.
And peer-review has another benefit: if you can convince your peers that your conclusions are valid, they can become your fan club, and help promote your ideas.
In short, a scientist without recognized peers will necessarily have a very difficult time selling his arguments.
[[Especially in highly technical complex subjects, there’s just no way the average citizen can distinguish truth from fraud]]
Sure htere is- We know huff and puff when we see it & know how to refute such fluff- it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see through the assumptions and claims that simply do NOT follow hte evidnece.
[[In those cases, only other experts in the field are really qualified to evaluate a scientist’s work.]]
That’s simply not true- again, anyone can look at hte evidnece and see whether it is scientifically supported OR if it’s just more claims that have no evidence to bakc htem up
[[And peer-review has another benefit: if you can convince your peers that your conclusions are valid, they can become your fan club, and help promote your ideas.]]
ONLY IF you don’t deviate from naturalism- the A priori belief in naturalism must be protecte at all costs- EVEN if it means ignoring those that bring conclusive evidence agaisnt hte claims- You can sit htere and pretend there isn’t an extreme bias against scientists who deviate fro mnaturalism- but the fact is you’re simpyl wrong-
[[Why would anyone make the astonishing assumption that fossils would exist in some kind of continuum, like Newton’s spectrum?]]
I don’t- Nor does Baraminology- they exist in discontinuity, not continuity- but we’re handed the escapism excuse that ‘fossils are rare’ therefore ‘we can’t find the continuity we claim’
Dang it! That isn't it at all!
Throughout time immemorial, canid scavengers have dissipated and scattered what otherwise could have been excellent fossil specimins, undoubtedly ruining any chance for a demonstrable progression.
In other words ... um ...
... The dogs ate my homework.
Pound sand.
This, I take it, was your scientific doctoral thesis explaining why evolution is wrong and Creationism / Intelligent Design are the necessary scientific conclusions.
You have no clue how ridiculous your words look, do you? Are you even sober? Do you care about your looks? Well then straighten up, fellow -- you look like a fool and a charlatan.
The fact is, science IS naturalism, period. If you don't like naturalism, then by definition you cannot be a scientist. You could be a philosopher or theologian or something else, but science by definition deals with the natural world, not the supernatural.
Creationism / Intelligent Design requires the totally unspecified intervention of a now undefined but unnatural factor -- a Creator or some Intelligence. But there's no basis in science for it, and that's why it's not science.
No. Any real examination of the so-called evidence will show that it is specious at best.
Indeed. Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (1998)...
"Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism"
I’d like to see the so-called ‘evidence’ that God put Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden. Tell me, were they in the caveman form and what race were they? How old were they when he dropped them here?
And did they have bellybuttons?
"Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
And thank goodness for that! You see, it's all part of God's plan.
Whatever you may think of Darwin, whether as a judas goat, or a Judas, or as simply a dedicated researcher, he has executed God's Will by providing an alternative explanation for the existence of things that does not require an unmistakable evidence of God's hand in it.
God wants us to have faith, and free choice. Without a possible material explanation for how species evolve, and come into existence, it would seem irrefutable that "Goddidit".
With Darwin's explanation, we can examine evidence dispassionately, (we don't, but we could!), and apply the materialistic viewpoint to our own challenges here on Earth; producing better-yielding crops and stronger beasts of burden, and we can still pause at the end of day to wonder and be appreciative for what we were "given".
Great point....I’ll have to remember that one.
Of course. Clothes make the man.
A man with a button; a woman with a smile.
[[Whatever you may think of Darwin, whether as a judas goat, or a Judas, or as simply a dedicated researcher, he has executed God’s Will by providing an alternative explanation for the existence of things that does not require an unmistakable evidence of God’s hand in it.]]
Ys- God allowed Darwin to advance earlier discoveries (By Religious folks) of Microevolutionary adaption- Yes God is allowing the fight between ID and Macroevolution- I have no problem with hte fight- when kept strictly objective- however it’s when certain folk start interjecting false accusaitons and false claims, and claiming they are evidnece, and belittling and demeaning those who present coutner evidnece showing why the evidnece present4d By macroevolutionsits isn’t true, that is where hte problems arise.
[[God wants us to have faith, and free choice. Without a possible material explanation for how species evolve, and come into existence, it would seem irrefutable that “Goddidit”.]]
Yes, God does want us to have faith- in certain things- however He never demanded we simply shut down our brains and reasonings, and just accept what Macroevolution tells us- He EXPECTS us to examine the supposed evidneces for macroevolution carefully and honestly, and to expose the problems, and He also expects us to discover and present what scientific evidence htere is for Intelligent Design- if hte evidnce is out htere- it behooves us to find it, and not just ignore it and just claim Goddidit-
God gives us certain degress of wisdom and knowledge, and He expects us to use it as best we can to discover the depths of whatever evidence is available and understandable, and so far, it is quite understandable that ID & IC exist, and the deeper we look, the more we discover just how integral IC and ID really is to hte survival and flourishement of species
[[With Darwin’s explanation, we can examine evidence dispassionately, (we don’t, but we could!), and apply the materialistic viewpoint to our own challenges here on Earth; producing better-yielding crops and stronger beasts of burden, and we can still pause at the end of day to wonder and be appreciative for what we were “given”.]]
Yes, we can and have discovered Microevolution, and have explored how microevolution can be utilized and manipulated to better suit our needs- it’s just that when Macroevolution is htrown on hte table that we MUST be as dispassionate and objective as possible in order to discover the TRUTH, and the most plausible scenarios- Which we are doing, and it is turning out that Macroevolution has nothign to stand on scientifically, except for assumptions, and that ID and IC are apparent all throughout the species, and the more plausible and realistic scenario is ID
You seem quite hung up about this micro-evolution versus macro-evolution situation.
You do realize, don’t you, that genetic mutation occurs, not just by single bit deletions, but also by loops and foldings of the chromosomes as they are hurrying into their coats at the end of the school day.
In this wise, Johnny goes home with Suzie’s mittens, and not just the lint from her pocket.
It seems evident that some chromosomes were separated from longer ones by being looped out. Just like polar bodies, the recipients who were short-changed simply fade away, but those with extra material can survive.
Then having a second set of notes wherein to jot things down, without a minor mistake becoming fatal, the Johnny-genes get an opportunity to start tinkering with protein synthesis in ways which may not be productive, but aren’t particularly harmful either.
Until one day, perhaps, those new color-receptors, functioning at a slightly different frequency of light, allow Johnny to distinguish the ripe fruit from the unripe, and make him a more successful gatherer.
Even though this genetic manipulation might have taken many thousands of generations to manifest itself, it is only at the opportune moment that it truly makes a difference, allowing the Johnnies to move out onto the Savannah successfully, while those who remain less prepared must perforce stay behind.
So where in this scenario does micro- become macro-?
I think it is in the graduation ceremony.
Neither one is intended to. You have all the information you need to answer the question honestly. I would note that the aim Weinberg has stated would require legal authority or some other power so strong that it was at least equivalent. It's likely, however, that you realized that before I pointed it out.
Instead of trying to mold the parameters of the question to your liking, why don't you just answer it?
When I'm handed a loaded question, my first reaction is to see if I can unloaded it, disassemble it, and hand it back in pieces, without pulling the trigger. If you don't want that done with them, don't hand them to me.
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.