THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS (VON BRAUN)

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

[bondserv]

I forgot the link for the above article.

[balrog666]

Why some do not believe and others do is a true mystery...

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA. It is no mystery.

[PatrickHenry]

Creationist Makes Racist Speech

The quote that follows proves nothing at all about race; but it demonstrates that racism isn't something that suddenly began with the theory of evolution (Darwin published "Origin of Species" one year after the Lincoln-Douglas debates).

I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother; but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever. ... Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates
First Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858
Stephen Douglas, his Opening remarks: online version here.

[Elsie]

"I was against Hitler all along". What a crock.

HMmmm.

---

Sounds a bit familar............

[ventana]

PatrickHenry (Theory: a comprehensible, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanation of verifiable facts.)

I'm not a Crevo follower, and I may even be slow, to boot, but how is the Theory of Evolution falsifiable? And when expressed in that manner, is it intended to preclude any possibility of intelligent design at any point, or is it silent on that score?

Just something I had been wondering about, prior to encountering this thread. Your tagline made me recall it.

v.

[Ichneumon]

because the FRevos tell us that all creationists are idiots.

Don't you ever get tired of this straw man?

And he couldn't have been a scientist because all scientists believe in evolution.

And this one?

No, the "FRevos" don't "tell you" that. But some overly defensive creationists often misunderstand other statements that way.

[PatrickHenry]

... how is the Theory of Evolution falsifiable?

The theory states (based on the verifiable evidence) that all species are descended (as a result of mutation and natural selection) from earlier species. For those that appear late in the fossil record, we find their ancestors in earlier geological strata. (Not everything has been found, of course, but what has been found fits the theory.) When we examine their genetic composition (where the evidence is available) we find in the later species the DNA markers from their ancestors. All pieces of the puzzle that have been thus far found fit neatly into a chronological, structural "tree of life" picture.

To disprove the theory, all that would be required is to find a late-developed species as a fossil in some very early stratum, prior to the appearance of its ancestors. For example, finding a mammal in the precambrian period. According to evolution theory this can't happen. And, in fact, it's never happened. But if creationism were true, then all species would be found together in the same geological stratum. For example, donasaurs and humans. This is never seen. It would be like finding a photograph of you, as an adult, holding your infant grandfather in your arms. Impossible -- if he's your grandfather.

Evolution theory makes other predictions as well. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

[ventana]

So the mutation and natural selection mechanisms as the sole driving force behind the Theory are not considered to be falsifiable? Just the presence or lack of fossil anachronisms? What about the rest of my question? Does the Theory specifically argue against intelligent design at any point? And if so, is that contention falsifiable? Or does it not reference it (id) at all?

Just trying to understand.

v.

[Ichneumon]

Evolution theory makes other predictions as well: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

I'd like to point out that not only does that link lead to a lot of predictions, it also explicitly lists potential falsifications for the predictions.

For example:

Prediction 5.8: Genetic rates of change

Rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide substitutions, must also be consistent with the rate required from the time allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between species.

Confirmation:

[major snippage]

Potential Falsification:

It is entirely plausible that measured genetic mutation rates from observations of modern organisms could be orders of magnitude less than that required by rates inferred from the fossil record and sequence divergence.

[VadeRetro]

Neatly done, sir! </Syndey Greenstreet Mode>

[jennyp]

That's a cool list of quotes! I especially like this one:

"I see what will be the effect of it; that it will set the whole world a-gadding. Twenty miles an hour, sir! - Why, you will not be able to keep an apprentice boy at his work! Every Saturday evening he must have a trip to Ohio to spend a Sunday with his sweetheart. Grave plodding citizens will be flying about like comets. All local attachments will be at an end. It will encourage flightiness of intellect. Veracious people will turn into the most immeasurable liars. All conceptions will be exaggerated by the magnificent notions of distance. -- Only a hundred miles off!--Tut, nonsense, I'll step across, madam, and bring your fan'...And then, sir, there will be barrels of port, cargoes of flour, chaldrons of coal, and even lead and whiskey, and such like sober things that have always been used to slow travelling -- whisking away like a sky rocket. It will upset all the gravity of the nation...Upon the whole, sir, it is a pestilential, topsy-turvy, harm-scarum whirligig. Give me the old, solemn, straight forward, regular Dutch Canal - three miles an hour for expresses, and two rod jog-trot journeys -- with a yoke of oxen for heavy loads. I go for beasts of burden. It is more formative and scriptural, and suits a moral and religious people better. -- None of your hop skip and jump whimsies for me."

Source: From the Western Sun of Vincennes, Indiana, July 24, 1830, as quoted by Seymour Dunbar in A History of Travel in America, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1915, Vol. III. p. 938.

[PatrickHenry]

So the mutation and natural selection mechanisms as the sole driving force behind the Theory are not considered to be falsifiable? Just the presence or lack of fossil anachronisms?

Huh? Everything is, in principle, falsifiable. But we know there are mutations, and natural selection is observed and is readily understood. Even in the short time frame of our observation, we've seen Observed Instances of Speciation. I assume that you don't argue about the lack of anachronisms. Surely then, you would agree that millions of fossils, all supporting the theory, and none which contradict it, is a very significant matter.

What about the rest of my question? Does the Theory specifically argue against intelligent design at any point? And if so, is that contention falsifiable? Or does it not reference it (id) at all?

ID isn't mentioned by Darwin, and it's not supported by evidence, so it's not a scientific theory. How would you falsify the notion of ID?

Just trying to understand.

Just trying to help you.

[Ichneumon]

That's a cool list of quotes!

If you enjoy that sort of thing, like I do, you might want to get a copy of this book:

(Click image for link.) I've got a copy, and it's great. It's also huge, 480 pages, containing thousands of such erroneous predictions by alleged "experts" on just about every topic.

"If the motion of the earth were circular, it would be violent and contrary to nature, and could not be eternal, since nothing violent is eternal. It follows, therefore, that the earth is not moved with a circular motion."
-- St. Thomas Aquinas, 1270

Hey, wasn't Aquinas a noted creationist?

[PatrickHenry]

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-- Arthur C. Clarke. Source: HERE.

[PatrickHenry]

"When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion — the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."
Isaac Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law (not actually a corollary, strictly speaking). Found at the prior link.

[ventana]

Surely then, you would agree that millions of fossils, all supporting the theory, and none which contradict it, is a very significant matter.

Well yes perhaps, but a lineup of all Augusté Rodin's sculptures from first to last would show a similar relationship of evolving style. One of them is clearly ID, one is less clear. The gaps in the fossil record speak far more clearly than does mere stylistic continuity. To me.

How would you falsify the notion of ID?

That's an easy one (I think). Just prove abiogenesis. Create life in a test tube. Make it reproduce. Would that do it?

Just trying to help you.

You have, thanks.

v.

[PatrickHenry]

The gaps in the fossil record speak far more clearly than does mere stylistic continuity. To me.

What do those gaps tell you? That you still have a chance of finding something -- anything -- that might give evolution a problem? Does that disprove evolution? Why is it so easy for you to sweep aside the mountains of evidence supporting the theory?

[How would you falsify the notion of ID?] That's an easy one (I think). Just prove abiogenesis. Create life in a test tube. Make it reproduce. Would that do it?

No, probably not. Whenever the subject comes up, as it often does, the creationists claim that when we do something in the lab, that only "proves" that an intelligence is involved. There is no conceivable evidence that could disprove ID. If you can come up with something, I'd like to see it.

I agree, however, that producing life in a test tube would demonstrate that a miracle isn't required for the creation of life. But still, the creationists would claim that the lab experiment doesn't disprove divine intervention. (Or ID.)

In any event, once life exists, however it happens, evolution then begins.

[Dataman]

Try your best to avoid focusing in on the first thing you disagree with in order to rationalize your desire to ignore the evidence.

Well said!

[old-ager]

> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA. It is no mystery.

(pass this on ... you seem to know him) No, Satan, there's no mystery for you. This is only for believers, and it won't always be a mystery for them. You know all Christian doctrine is true, but it does you no good! You were judged when Jesus Christ, God's Holy One, rose from the dead!

"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

[balrog666]

There's a sucker born every minute. Hope you enjoyed your minute.