Posted on 12/27/2004 2:34:25 PM PST by Ed Current
"Let me know when somebody creates an experiment to test either Evolution or Creation... Until then these are just hypotheses."
"One tiny detail is evolution explains much of objective reality, while "Creationism" simply lets those ignorant of basic science feel better."
Evolution - meaning one species changing into another - has never been proven. There is no fossil evidence to support such evolution nor has there ever been any experiments to lend credence to the idea of evolution.
Evolution is a philosophy of godless materalism. As a science, it is a fraud. Evolution's days are numbered. Like the USSR, it will come down in a flash sooner rather than later.
If a human stands in one spot, that spot on the earth will get warmer. If a hundred humans congregate together, that spot will get warmer still. "Everyone" knows cities generate heat. Duh! The real question is not whether humans might influence the temperature around the globe in some way, shape, or form, but whether that "influence" is anything other than STATISTICAL NOISE compared to natural forces/cycles. IT IS INSIGNIFICANT!
I want an explanation from you why all of your much vaunted "experts" could be so totally wrong 30 years ago, blathering on and on about coming "ice ages" and why you put so much stock in them.
Read post #141
Fast 'n loose?
"These same intellectual idiots are the ones that you bow down to? Good God, how embarrassing!"
I'm going to assume what you posted is true, though please post links from now on. For all I know, you could have gotten this from the discovery institute website.
30 years ago? Has it occured to you that much research has been done since then? Why does it matter what the first papers published on climate changed said 30 years ago? Today, scientists feel there is enough evidence to officially back the idea that global warming happens. Why are you so against that anyway? Why do you care? Wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution? Aren't you just towing the republican line? Regardless, I'm waiting for an actual reference. The 'Science' journal in the 30 year old reference you gave is an excellent journal that I would very much accept an argument from. Assuming it is a bit more recent...
Again I must ask you, why no problem with flight? Or germ theory? You are pretty selective about when to trust the scientific community, and when they are liars.
How right you are!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, it's *worse* than that. Read carefully what "The Ghost of FReepers Past" *actually* quoted:
"The paleontologists thought that ancient whales were members of an extinct group of highly-specialized ungulates (hoofed mammals) called mesonychians. Mesonychians were meat eaters and ranged in size from the size of weasels to grizzly bears."Note that it doesn't even say that whales descended *from* "grizzly bears", it simply says that they descended from animals that were sometimes as *LARGE* as grizzly bears.
So no, not even "former evolutionary thought" had postulated whales descending from bears, as Schafly incorrect asserts.
The Designed Universe crowd is back with a vengeance lately.
Evolution is a philosophy of godless materalism..... Like the USSR, it will come down in a flash sooner rather than later.
Evolution=commies. Wow. ( with apologies to Connie)
Hey, remember those old "Kill a Commie For Christ" bumper stickers?
They have a mandate, dontcha know.
If they ever are going to bring down the public school system, now's the time.
"Forget about it, Alacarte says the Scientists have spoken on global warming. In Alacarte's world, that's the end of the story."
No it's not. Maybe global warming is not happening. But who do we trust?
On one side, we have the scientists who have done extensive peer reviewed research on the subject for decades and concluded that it does.
On the other side we have greedy, self-serving multi-national corporations, and their lacky politician puppets who have done no real research saying it does not happen.
Why is this such a tough choice for you?
Gotta go, birthday party for one of the most important people on the planet scheduled for now.
Enjoy.
Gee, I hadn't noticed.
Creationism also generates a lot of web-site hits, sells a lot of books, makes money for those putting out the fallicies.
Could it be about money? Nah. Creationists are above that! </sarcasm>
"If a human stands in one spot, that spot on the earth will get warmer."
Ummm, i don't think thermal radiation from individuals has much to do with the theory... but I could be wrong. Either way it does not matter. You can rationalize your viewpoint to me all night if you like. Why would I believe you over actual environmental engineers/scientists?
I don't know if it happens or not, and I sure as hell know you have no idea. So I trust the people on the planet best equipped to make that call, the people who study it.
"I want an explanation from you why all of your much vaunted "experts" could be so totally wrong 30 years ago, blathering on and on about coming "ice ages" and why you put so much stock in them."
If you give me a 30 year window I can likely find lots of papers disputing every recently well established theory today. WHat is your point??? You have no idea how science works! How could they be wrong then and not now? Are you serious? Maybe, uhhh, better techniques, data, equipment, not to mention tons more research. That was ONE paper published, that was obvioulsy later proven wrong. This happens all the time in science. Now they have reached a point where they feel the evidence is compelling enough to take the official position that global warming happens. Why is this so complicated? You need to go learn what a 'paper' means in the literature.
The scientific community says global warming happens. Don't trash me for taking the word of the educated people who study the subject rather than you guys!
You're d@mn right!
The point is that scientific theories change over time.
Look up 18th century phlogiston, bloodletting in medicine, sterile technique, global cooling/warming . . . lots of examples. One of my fellow freepers can find the quote about closing the patent office at the beginning of the 20th century because nothing more would be invented.
Human knowledge has expanded tremedously in the past century and will continue to do so. Human wisdom???
Scientists are fallible humans with their own pet ideas, just like you. Knowledge tends to be filtered through one's own viewpoint. Efforts are also made to prove the point of view an individual has taken.
Then you have the "scientists" who worked in Nazi Germany to find cheap ways to kill or sterilize "undesirables".
So you believe, at this point in time, the scientists have evolution completely figured out, despite a number of instances of debunking. Kettlewell and the spotted moth is a good example - embryonic development is another.
Science, for good or ill, changes and can be mistaken. Evolution suits very handily the valueless society we are developing. Unquestioning belief in science, specifically in macro-evolution is a faith just like any other.
That's a typical cop-out of Evolutionists. It's all the same garbage.
No, it's an accurate statement. Evolutionary biology concerns how living things change across generations, due to the results of reproduction, variation, and selection. By whatever means the "first living thing" (and I put that in quotes because it's actually not a trivial task to exactly define what that term means) arose, the means were definitely not through biological evolution per se.
The first living thing, would by definition, have to be a species.
Mere semantics. That still doesn't make the process of abiogenesis "evolution", nor its genesis "speciation". Speciation is a process of a species arising through changes in *another* species, not a species arising de novo.
So, the great theory about the "Origin of Species" would therefore have to explain the origin of the very first one.
Don't let the abbreviated title mislead you. The full original title of Darwin's seminal book is: "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Darwin made no claim or pretense of determining how life first arose, and only concerned his theory with how new forms of life arise from pre-existing forms. Indeed, in his concluding chapter he wrote:
I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.Note that Darwin clearly labels this as speculation (informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless), separate from his theory itself. And later in the same chapter:
The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of a length quite incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created.[...]
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
I can understand people in the 19th century buying into evolution, when they were almost entirely ignorant of the enormous complexity of living things, and believed that the universe was eternal. But to believe in evolution in the 21st century, requires brain washing and blind faith.
Not at all -- it requires understanding, knowledge, and a familiarity with the evidence. Things which, unfortunately, the average anti-evolutionist usually lacks, causing him to ridicule that which he does not fully understand.
I have spent decades closely examining evolutionary biology and the vast amount of evidence for it, and it's extremely solid. Perhaps you could explain why you think it might not be. And no, an observation that "gosh, life is complicated" is not sufficient, since evolutionary processes can and do produce results of great complexity (as for example in genetic algorithms, which are routinely used to solve problems which are beyond human analysis).
Not to worry, Ed. I know who Phyllis Schaffly is and of her bio. Have watched her on CSPAN a number of times. She is a very accomplished woman. She is just out of her expertise on this topic. At the very least, she ought to know how much the feminists she has been warring with for decades hate Darwinism.
Apparently she hasn't a clue. I expected more of her.
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.