Posted on 01/18/2005 9:49:17 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Top flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alonside georgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronuncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reesrved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove veolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin*, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionits cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at pathlights.com ...
|
The Adults will be back in control of science shortly. Hold on to your seat or you might be Gored. Jesse HighJackson and Al NotsoSharpton have a better spiel than you guys. The reckoning will be sweet as the discredited are sent packing. Not by fascistic over-religiosity, rather capitalistic competition of ideas in a free market that is seeking truth to propel us into the future. |
The Imminent Demise of Evolution (from 1825 to the present)
BTW, you are aware that science isn't determined by the "capitalistic competition of ideas" but by the evidence. Reality isn't malleable such that whatever most people believe automatically becomes true. If that were the case, the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot would have been captured by now, and the White House lawn would be lousy with flying saucers.
You really should trhow in a few instances of multiple exclamation points (!!!) and some references to "fedgov" and "fiat money" to really get your point across.
The "no new information" story sounds clever but it's false at face value. Any change that helps a species adapt to a new environment is new information, even if it's a tiny bit.
No, I'm not.
Religion is not science and science is not religion
That is correct.
Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God
That is correct as well, by definition.
Unfortunately, for over 500 years, some adherents of some religions are always attacking science thinking that science is attacking religion
That statement belies your anti-fact bias against creationism. The following is a partial list of "adherents to some religions" (Christianity) who were both scientists and creationists. Note that the "founder" of the scientific method was a creation science adherent. Note the names you've read in your textbooks showing up again and again....
Early
The Age of Newton
Just Before Darwin
Just After Darwin
The Modern Period
Let me try again. Time cancels out of the equations in a steady state process. The RATE has nothing to do with anything other than determining the PERCENTAGE of the biosphere that will be undergoing speciation at any given INSTANT in time.
Considering there are something like 100 million species on the planet right now, the speciation rate would have to be infitesimal not to see ANY at any given moment. It would have to be so small in fact, that it would violate the rate evolutionists claim is demonstrated in the fossil record.
In other words, speciation rates, calculated from the fossil record, should allow us to see substantial speciation in the biosphere, especially among organisms with high reproduction rates and short lifespans.
And ring species don't count, since they are an historical construct. The theory predicts we should be seeing speciation WITHIN a percentage of the biosphere AT THIS INSTANT in time, not over a geographic area, not over a time period of a thousand years, but RIGHT NOW.
And changing environmental conditions don't count either. Environmental conditions determine which speciations SURVIVE, NOT which speciations OCCUR.
If you can't measure something in science, then it is meaningless. If you can't come up with a precise, measurable, quanitfiable, reproducible definition of a speciation event, then don't even try to tell me evolution is a science. Come back when you can.
when we identify a new insect species as we do thousands of times a year how do we know whether it speciated last week, or 3 million years ago?
Doesn't the theory of evolution predict how we should be able to spot speciation? Doesn't it provide mathematical models of how transitions will occur? What morphological changes will take place? Isn't it supposed to explain speciation in a predictable, mathematically verifiable way? Or is it nothing more than a just-so story biologists tell to their children around the fire place at night?
Interesting that neary all your list is comprised of dead people. All but a few died befor the discovery of DNA. Most of the rest died before genome sequencing and comparitive genetics. So you are left with, at most, four guys who have lived long enough to see the full range of evidence.
I could probably find four PhDs in mathematics who buy lotto tickets.
I would be a bit more impressed if you limited your list to people who have published research papers on relevan topics in the last ten or twenty years.
There are enemies in your midst that you are unaware of. Waiting for enough momentum to shed the shackles you have placed on their professional viability.
You are also overlooking the fact that there is a groundswell of Red Staters that are disgusted with the Educational establishment. Creation seminars and Homeschooling are becoming the alternative to the Liberal brainwashing. Disparage all you like, it is inevitable. The numbers of schools trying to put disclaimers regarding evolution are growing exponentially. A paradigm shift is afoot, and you choose to be entrenched in denial.
I can only credit supernatural deception for this level of blindness. Consider how we all view the blindness of Liberal political policies, and realize that is how we view your scientific beliefs.
Read a medical journal some time. The nature of lung cancer is not based on the published opinions of cancer researchers (note the word research). It is based on the experimental findings of lung cancer researchers (note that pesky word research again). Research which has been independently verified. Any researcher who simply stated it was his opinion that lung cancer was x would never get published. You see, he has to back it up with experimental evidence.
You could ask the same kinds of questions about weather prediction and get similar answers.
First of all, evolution specifically does not and cannot predict the direction of change. It is not even theoretically possible.
Dismissing ring species is just hand waving. You can't believe it is happening; therefore it isn't happening. Nice work if you can get paid for it.
When a person views the interpretive skills of the scientists in peer-reviewd journals, truth is rarely the desired result. Many of these clown boxers can't program their VCR, let alone make judgments on less than 1% of the potential data. Most of them are sheep that tow the line so they can get their grant check from the alums.
Give the alums a capitalistic chance to see the data handled with integrity and they will begin forcing changes at their Alma Maters. Disclaimers in the textbooks is just the calm before the storm. The Adults are taking back the establishment.
Yawn.
Note to self: In the future, don't bother to post in threads about 'creation science' or 'intelligent design'. These are really religious discussions, and not about science.
I discount all the examples listed except the goatsherd, which may very well fit the prediction: A new speciation within an existing population at a given moment in time. Unfortunately, Talk Origins sometimes plays loose with the facts. I'll have to see if I can dig up the original Scientific American article. Similar cases in the past have turned out to be nothing more than discoveries of an established species, either by stumbling across it, or by changing the definition for what constitutes a species within the genus.
If we can find one example, that strengthens the theory. The next step would be to determine if the percentage rate observed matches that predicted in the fossil record.
So basically you, who have little or no grounding in the biological sciences know more about the subject than folks actually working in the field (the peers reviewing the work). Why haven't you submitted for your Nobel Prize yet?
The list is found at the Answers in Genesis webiste, here, and from there it has found its way to several other websites. The bottom line is that "creation science" itself is totally sterile, and has produced nothing in the science of biology which is a result of creationism's beliefs. A creationist such as "Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist," who is actually listed there, is meaningless. He may be a great puller of teeth, but so what? He's as irrelevant as a creationist policeman.
The theory of evolution makes numerous precise, verifiable, quantifiable, reproducible predictions. Those predictions have been endlessly verified in the fossil record and the genomes of living creatures. Biologists regard common descent as a fact beyond doubt, and the theory of evolution as the only viable explanation for numerous observations.
You are in the position of demanding that someone travels to other stars and checks that they are suns similar to our own before they will acknowledge that astronomy is a science and those dots of light in the night sky aren't just painted on a backdrop in the sky like in "The Truman Show". I expect that you would think such a person foolish. Virtually all scientific evidence is inferrential and indirect.
Rather than demanding a particular experimental evidence that will satisfy you (observed speciation), you should consider what the evidence is that persuades professional biologists that evolution is a fact best explained by the theory of evolution. If you wish to displace the theory of evolution you need to propose a theory that fits the evidence better. For all the kicking and screaming of the ID/Creationist lobby they have been unable to do this, which is why they are ignoring the scientific process and feeding their religious viewpoint that makes no predictions and cannot be falsified directly to schools.
Occasionally, less is more.
And, sometimes, I'm just tired.
But it's so nice to see such . . . caring . . . he he.
The suck-ups to idiocy dismiss such lists but I still love them.
It still boggles my mind . . . we have absolutely
NO
EVIDENCE
IN ANY SPHERE
of chaos observably, experimentally or otherwise tangibly resulting in more and more elegant order--not in our lifetime--not in recent centuries--not in recorded millenia.
NONE.
Yet, in a very long list of THE MOST COMPLEX CASES--incredible organisms, this
GREAT IDIOTIC LEAP OF UTTER BLIND FAITH labeled evolution is considered the HOLY, righteous, flawless, truest truth GRAIL.
Fascinating psychology; fascinating sociology; fascinating idiocy.
There is becoming enough momentum to shed the shackles the Education Establishment has placed on the professional viability of Creation Scientists.
Here is just one small think tank amongst many that are surfacing daily.
Their views are propagated by capitalism, whereas yours are propagated by socialistic methods. We may have to come up with a prize that isn't dictated by the "United Nations of Ideas" like the Nobel Prize has become.
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.