Four Evidences of Cosmic Youth ("more empirically justifiable to infer young ages than old ages")

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | August 4, 2007

[CottShop]

[[Well of course — your wild fantasies and false claims *are* unlikely to stop anyone from realizing the validity of evolutionary biology, because it’s based on vast amounts of evidence and research, along multiple independently cross-confirming lines, meticulously gathered over more than a century.]]

Yup it sure is- and thanks to evolutionary research, we’ve uncovered much to support MICRO-evolution, and zilch to support MACRO-evolution- You’re right though- there is vast evidence for MICRO-Evolution

[CottShop]

[[Again and again, every time studies and analyses like this — and every other conceivable type — are performed, the results “just happen” to fall in a way that makes perfect sense if modern (and fossil) life had arisen from earlier life forms in a common-descent, evolutionary process, like individual jigsaw puzzle pieces all of which form a smooth, coherent picture (albeit with some pieces still not yet discovered) where all the pieces found so far all mesh smoothly with their neighbors]]

And again and again, the eivdnece falls to support another hypothesis- one of special creation and not common descent- the only problem is that those who dissagee often fall into character assasinating and belittling hte other hypothsis advocates- ridiculing htem in hopes I guess of squashing any of hte counter evidneces that support the special creation hypothesis. Science indeed!!!

[gondramB]

>>PC term for darwinism, specifically his macro-evolution theory - you know the one where one species lays an egg and out pops another different species, like a reptile egg cracking open and out flies a sparrow.<<

“Species” is a label that man applies. We have set the level of genetic difference or physical difference it requires.

So the more accurate scenario is a reptile who already is at the extreme edge of one species having offspring that just barely over the line to a very similar but slightly different species.

[gondramB]

>>”...Really, he self identifies as a Darwinist?”

---

He certainly doesn’t correct those whom identify himself as such, does he? By your own shouting, one must conclude that Dawkins himself is either/or “without much science knowledge” [he is not without critics, in the science community, concerning his published writings] and/or is “someone deliberately distorting the truth”.<<

That’s your definition, if somebody calls you a name and you don’t correct them then the name is true?

Somebody like Dawkins gets called lots of names. South park showed him having butt sex with a male teacher/pedophile/sex changed patient.

So, no I would not say that makes Dawkins a Darwinist, I would say that people who wish to mislead are calling him names.

And who knows that term might be reclaimed at some point but right now, only those who don’t know better and those who seek distort are seen using that term.

>>Aah, but I have heard the use of “Darwin”, as in “Darwin will take care of all that”, the contextual meaning being that the fittest would survive<<

You might also hear similar things about Newton or Gallileo who also made incredible scientific advances. There is a whole branch of physics named for Newton. I “believe” but you won’t hear me calling myself a Newtonian or Newtonist.

[gondramB]

>>You are twisting facts. They were speaking theoretically. What they are actually saying is that there is no reference point in the Universe that can be declaimed the “center” that is not equivalent to any other point, as far as observations from that point are concerned.<<

Another way to look at it: The laws of physics have to work from any point.

[razzle]

go look up “punctuated equilibrium” yourself you dummy, even wikipedia know it.

[gondramB]

>>go look up “punctuated equilibrium” yourself you dummy, even wikipedia know it.<<

>>Gould calls this accelerated equilibrium or neo-darwinsism. The reason for this is that Gould discovered that there was no way these tiny random mutations would ever amount to a hill of beans<<

1. Gould is presenting an alternative to neo-Darwinism

2. That’s not anything like what Gould said.

3. You do understand that Gould is an evolutionist, yes? You are supporting evolution if you support Gould’s position.

[Ichneumon]

And again and again, the eivdnece falls to support another hypothesis- one of special creation and not common descent-

Correct, it does fail to support that. Example: The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

the only problem is that those who dissagee often fall into character assasinating and belittling hte other hypothsis advocates- ridiculing htem

Yes, I've noticed that the anti-science people do that quite frequently.

in hopes I guess of squashing any of hte counter evidneces that support the special creation hypothesis. Science indeed!!!

Excuse me? If you have any "counter evidnceces [sic]" that "support the special creation hypothesis", you should have actually posted it instead of just rambling.

[Ichneumon]

Yup it sure is- and thanks to evolutionary research, we’ve uncovered much to support MICRO-evolution, and zilch to support MACRO-evolution-

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

You’re right though- there is vast evidence for MICRO-Evolution

As well as common descent across larger taxa, which is macroevolution. See my links in my above posts.

You can't make this stuff go away by just pretending you're not aware of it.

[Coyoteman]

You can't make this stuff go away by just pretending you're not aware of it.

How about stamping one's foot and waving one's arms frantically?

Or posting repeated and totally unsupported denials?

Will that make that stuff go away? (It must, we see it so often here!)

(Good posts above, Ichny!)

[Ichneumon]

go look up “punctuated equilibrium” yourself you dummy, even wikipedia know it.

Just.... wow.

Is that all you can manage to mumble in response to my long post pointing out and documenting your multiple misrepresentations and errors?

All you can think to do in response is to tell me to "look up" a term that I used myself in my post and clarified for you after you youself had messed up both the term itself and its tenets?

Is that really the best you can do?

Yes, apparently it is...

[GodGunsGuts]

==The Universe has no identifiable center. All galaxies are moving away from each other as space continually expands.

Once again, the notion that the universe has no center is based on an assumption, as stephen Hawking and George Ellis freely admit:

“However we are not able to make cosmological
models without some admixture of ideology. In the
earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a
commanding position at the centre of the universe.
Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily
demoted to a medium sized planet going round a
medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average
galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of
galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we
would not claim that our position in space is specially
distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi
(1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle”

—Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 134, 1973.

What is this “admixture of ideology” (or unproven assumption)? It is the Copernican principle. The notion that not only is the Earth not the center of our solar system, but that our solar system is mediocre, not unlike the other solar systems, that our galaxy is mediocre and not unlike other galaxies, and finally that the universe is homogeneous, has no center and no edge. In that sense, the Copernican principle is badly misnamed, because with the exception of heliocentrism, Copernicus didn’t subscribe to such unscientific rubbish (most people have forgotten that Copernicus held to a heliocentric universe...a far cry from the modern Copernican principle!). But the modern Big Bangers wanted to make sure that earth, our solar system, and our galaxy had no special place in the universe, even though the most simple, straightforward interpretation of the evidence suggest that we in fact do. So they ASSUMED that the universe has no center and no edge for religious and philosophical reasons, not because their scientific observation demanded it. But if you assume that our solar system is at or near the center of the universe, suddenly we occupy a very special place in the universe, suddenly we expand out of a white hole (instead of being sucked in to a black hole), suddenly time stands still on earth at the event horizon while billions of years go by for distant objects in the universe (thus allowing for the earth to be young and the universe to be old in terms of Gen. Rel.). And finally, the new cosmological model is backed up by a simple, straightforward interpretation of the observable facts, whereas, because of the prior religious and philosophical commitments (ie the Church of Darwin), the current proponent of the “Big Bang” cosmology runs into all sorts of problems, that the proposed non-isotropic model avoids altogether.

[GodGunsGuts]

Very good observation MacDorcha! Very simple and elegant I might add. Good job.

[BlueDragon]

"That’s your definition, if somebody calls you a name and you don’t correct them then the name is true?"

Oh, pah-leeze! Dawkins has enjoyed the publicity, has enjoyed the luxury of a great number of "friendly" interviews, and by all appearences, appears to ENJOY being called "Darwin's Rottweiler"!!!
Sorry, but that dog [of yours], don't hunt...

Here on the pages of FreeRepublic, the term "Darwinist", for whatever reasons, has become to be seen as being an insult, by those who both hurl it as some type of invective, and by those to whom it is addressed.

I do find your emphatic denials, this attempt on your part to disassociate entirely from the term "Darwinist", as being flat-out silly.

How about the term "Darwinism", is that verboten, too?

Would one who ascribes to those constructs widely & commonly known as "Darwinism", be, by default, a "Darwinist"?

If not, why not? You really think I should accept that, for now,

"only those who don’t know better and those who seek distort are seen using that term."

I gotta a bit of a problem with that, due to your insertion of the word only.

It sort-of sounds like what we've all experienced in the U.S. with the word "nigger". All sorts of folks could get all sorts of offended, unless it was a rapper, who could fill his songs with "nigga", this, "nigga" that. It was ok for him, but for not for whitey, right? Oh, but they've gone and held a funeral for *that* word...now.

[BlueDragon]

"Somebody like Dawkins gets called lots of names."

Dawkins deserves to be called lots of "names".

[Ichneumon]

Very good observation MacDorcha! Very simple and elegant I might add.

But wrong.

Stellar parallax, for example, shows that the Earth actually *is* moving around the Sun and not vice versa. It's not just a "simpler explanation", it's the one that matches the observations and matches all that is known about the physical behavior of matter (including gravity), and does not require invoking "explanations" that are not merely "less simple", but are downright ridiculous and contradicted by other observations.

[razzle]

“You do understand that Gould is an evolutionist, yes?”

Gould is a darwinist but he (unlike you clowns) have looked hard enough at the real evidence to see BIG problems with darwinism. So he devised all these ridiculous alternative theories (not the same as the numerous outright frauds that are still in the biology textbooks to fool our school kids into believing this crap) like punctuated equilibrium; and just like all good liberals, when he was caught disagreeing with approved beliefs, he was hauled back into line apologizing all the way, blaming all of it of course on the IDers.

[GodGunsGuts]

I din’t get the impression that he’s postulating that the sun revolves around the earth. Rather, he was pointing out that geocentrism was unnecessarily complex and led to its downfall, but that you can’t prove heliocentrism strictly on the basis that it is simpler. It is also simpler to assume that the earth revolves around the center of the Milky Way, and...(now this is me talking) that the Milky Way revolves around the center of the universe, and finally, that the Milky Way is at or very close to the center of the universe (which makes us very special indeed!).

[CottShop]

[[As well as common descent across larger taxa, which is macroevolution. See my links in my above posts.]]

Wrong- but thanks for inviting me to the game- There is nothign but hypothesis to suggest the possibility of macroevolution- and you know that full well.

[[Yes, I’ve noticed that the anti-science people do that quite frequently]]

Well then you should stop doi ng that.

[[Excuse me? If you have any “counter evidnceces [sic]” that “support the special creation hypothesis”, you should have actually posted it instead of just rambling.]]

Oh it’s been posted many many times htrouhgout FR- but hte usual hand waving and foot stomping gets thrown the way of htose who post it- but thanks for playing- you can’t make the info go away just by pretending it doesn’t exist or that you’re not aware of it. And pretending that speciation is an example of macroevolution won’t change the fact that it isn’t. but whatever, seems soem liek to play symantics to try to show a hypothesis that is unsupported in the biological record.

[CottShop]

[[See my links in my above posts]]

Gosh golly gee wiz- a site devoted to an a priori belief that differs from Creationist views, and designed to malign chrtistianity- Gosh- didn’t see that one coming. I’m shocked.! [sarcasm[]