THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS (VON BRAUN)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/1/2000 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[_Jim]

If there is some designer behind evolution, he does his work in such a way that there's no trace of his activities.

Wow ... ever see the periodic "Table of the Elements"?

EVER wonder how that was arrived at, how the various atoms arrange themselves, interact with each other to form the myriad of compounds that make life possible?

The 'Creationists' simply astound me at how little they seem to understand the very world they live and interact with around them. It's as if they *still* think the world is 'composed' of four basic 'substances': Earth, fire, water and air.

[Elsie]

The old canard "Humans descended from apes" has been shown by the E folks to REALLY be "Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor".

Now the folks who study humans say that the 'opposable thumb' is what has given us such a great advantage over other critters: that it has given us 'tool making and using' abilities that FAR outstrecth the other animals.

My question is this: "Just WHEN did the monkeys, apes and lemurs get their opposable thumbs on their FEET?"

It seems to ME that this would give THEM a FOURfold advantage....



Another question: did our 'common ancestor' have two or four thumbs?? Did the M-A-L line EVOLVE the extra two after the split or did we HUMANS merely DEVOLVE them after the split?

[tortoise]

Isn't using W. Von Braun as a model of a creationist scientist a rather blatant and obvious appeal to improper authority?

That would be like asking me my opinions on cosmology (or rocket science), since I am a nominally brilliant scientist in my own field. I may have a detailed opinion on cosmology, but it isn't worth much more than the opinion of Joe Moron down the street because I don't have any particular expertise in cosmology. Being smart isn't enough, you also have to have detailed technical knowledge in the field of question as well. Being scientifically smart doesn't seamlessly translate across fields. And history is replete with brilliant scientists and mathematicians who made fools of themselves by trying to cross over into fields in which they were technically incompetent (e.g. Penrose).

If W. Von Braun was a creationist, who cares? His specialty was rocket science, and he was completely clueless in many important fields. Being an expert in one area does not make you an expert in all areas. People so afflicted with Carl Sagan Syndrome eventually make asses of themselves sooner than later.

[Junior]

Hitler was a Theosophist. His views on race had nothing to do with "survival of the fittest." Indeed, his views of race were colored by a particular mythology that the Aryan people were created the most perfect people on Earth and that other races -- "mongrel races" -- were degenerate offshoots of this race. In some versions of the mythos, some of the "subraces" were created after the Aryans by Satan, who used inferior materials; hence the references in neo-Nazi propaganda to "mud people."

[js1138]

Try going back and reading my post again. What part of "frequency" do you not understand? Do you imagine that new species pop up in one generation? If you believe this iswhat evolution predicts, please cite a reference from the scientific literature.

[js1138]

Then just from WHERE did this large group come?

I don't know where or how life started, nor does anyone else. Are you aware of any species with only one or two individuals? Other than the ones headed for extinction?

[TradicalRC]

"The German Fuhrer (Adolph Hitler), as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution . . . ."
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947
Anthropologist

"The 'religion' of social Darwinism belongs to the most dangerous elements within the thoughts of the last century. It aids the propagation of ruthless, national and racial egoism by establishing it as a moral norm. It Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the law of evolution, which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties."
Eric Fromm, psychologist cited in The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution by A. E. Wilder-Smith

"Evolutionary ideas - quite undisguised - lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and in [Hitler's] public speeches . . . "
Dr. Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After

"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed."
Adolph Hitler, cited in Twentieth Century in Crisis: Foundations of Totalitarianism by Larry Azar

Touche.

[Elsie]

I don't know where or how life started, nor does anyone else. Are you aware of any species with only one or two individuals? Other than the ones headed for extinction?

Throw this sentence out; it does not belong in my discussion.

---

EVOLUTION is the theme here.........

---

Either changes are advanced by TWO individuals or not. You've maintained that a GROUP seems better in your mind. I asked how a GROUP could all change at once, so to me a PAIR seems better.

Just what is this 'frequency' thing you are trying to introduce??

[Elsie]

Nice homepage; now I feel I know a bit more about you...

---

Information and AI stuff.. Cool!! I know just enough to look really dumb when compared to someone who DOES know something :)

Let me tap into your expertise, if I may....

---

I'ver heard that the DNA structure is merely a chemical way to encode information.

Is that a pretty good layman's definition?

[js1138]

Just what is this 'frequency' thing you are trying to introduce??

I'm not introducing anything. It's the definition of evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

Touche.

Really? I gave you a quote from Hitler's own book, in which he professes to be a creationist. I know of nothing he ever wrote to indicate he ever knew anything about evolution, much less that he admired Darwin. There is nothing in his background which indicates that he ever studied biology. Hitler's only known intellectual interests were art and architecture.

Further, not that I would expect a creationist to be aware of this, there is nothing in evolution theory to suggest that one race should go out and deliberately kill off another. Competition, sure. Genocide, no. Sorry. Hitler's views were entirely his own invention.

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

LOL!! Thanks. I heard that poem many years ago and have searched in vain for it ever since.

[whoozit]

Tom Lehrer Elemental ping!

Sing along with Tom!

[js1138]

Competition, sure. Genocide, no.

I'm at a loss to think of any species other than our own that has systematically set out to eliminate another species.

Certainly this happens inadvertently when a species is transported across a natural geographical barrier, but generally speaking, ecosystems are balanced. The existence of living creatures is irrefutable testimony that they have not been wiped out.

And mass extinctions seem to be tied to physical catastrophes.

[Gargantua]

I'd like a paleontologist in 2004 to show me one example, from the tons of existing fossil record, of the intermediary species between Ape and Man.

Given that Evolutionists insist we "evolved" from the Ape, surely there exists in the fossil record numerous examples of the translational species between Ape and Homo Erectus.

Or... is all this Evolution crap just a kind of Faith without any historical substantiation?

;-/

[PatrickHenry]

I'd like a paleontologist in 2004 to show me one example, from the tons of existing fossil record, of the intermediary species between Ape and Man.

Human Ancestors
Comparison of all skulls

[balrog666]

I'd like a paleontologist in 2004 to show me one example, from the tons of existing fossil record, of the intermediary species between Ape and Man.

Why, since you didn't look at it last time?

[Markofhumanfeet]

Well Elsie, The spider monkey uses the tip of his tail as an opposable thumb, and he's from South America. No other monkeys over there, or anywhere, have "evolved" this neat trick. It's a mystery

[tortoise]

I'ver heard that the DNA structure is merely a chemical way to encode information. Is that a pretty good layman's definition?

For layman purposes, instead of the word "information", replace it with the word "pattern" when you read it. It will give you a more intuitive sense of the mathematical usage.

Since everything is information, your question as stated doesn't quite make sense. I would say that DNA is a functional and semi-stable form of algorithmic information for the kinds of chemistries found on this planet. All non-trivial patterns can function as algorithmic machines, but the expression of such in an obvious functional manner is environment dependent. There is nothing special about DNA per se, and a multitude of other chemical systems would express equivalent functionality and form in similar environments.

[Junior]

Gee, nothing from the Nazis themselves on their beliefs, but from a bunch of folks with an axe to grind.

BTW, "Social Darwinism" has been most closely linked to laissez faire capitalism, not socialism (which, along with communism, if you actually think about it, are at odds with "survival of the fittest" and are, indeed, reactions to that concept).