Freud was destroyed?
Posted on 03/14/2006 1:37:33 PM PST by joyspring777
Of the three intellectual pillars of modern liberalism -- Marx, Darwin, and Freud -- only one is still standing. Marx fell in 1989, along with the Berlin Wall. Freud's demise is more difficult to date; suffice it to say that, by the end of the century, no one, with the possible exception of Woody Allen, took him seriously any more. Darwin, I predict, will suffer a similar fate within the next ten to fifteen years.
That may seem counterintuitive in light of recent legal and public-relations setbacks suffered by critics of Darwinism -- notably a federal judge's decision forbidding the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (a term for one aspect of the anti-Darwin critique) in Dover, Pa., public schools. But it is a sign of weakness, not strength, when one side in an ostensibly scientific debate resorts to silencing the other. If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?
No, Darwinists are running scared. Even their attempts to declare victory on scientific grounds betray more than a whiff of desperation. Case in point: the year-end edition of the journal Science hailing "evolution in action" as its "Breakthrough of the Year." Among the "dramatic discoveries" said by the magazine to make 2005 "a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds," none in itself demonstrates whether evolution proceeds, and they only shed light on how if you first assume that it does.
Here, for instance, is Science editor Donald Kennedy describing "one of my favorites" in this evidentiary explosion: "the European blackcap, a species of warbler that spends the winter in two separate places but then reunites to breed, with birds selecting mates from those who shared the same wintering ground. Assortative mating of this kind can produce a gradual differentiation of the two populations. Biologists have shown that new species can arise because of geographic barriers that separate subpopulations, but the divergent evolution shown in this case could result in new species arising within a single range."
If it seems that the bare facts adduced here don't quite amount to a clear instance of "evolution in action," that's because they don't. At best, they demonstrate what's known as "microevolution" -- modification within a species -- which no anti-Darwinist disputes. What is disputed is "macroevolution," the change of one species into another, which is the central claim of Darwinism. If macroevolution occurs, the "assortative mating" of the European blackcap might help to explain how it works, but it does nothing to prove that it does occur.
The fact is,nothing proves that macroevolution occurs, or ever has occurred. And, at a certain point, the absence of proof, especially where it ought to be abundant, constitutes, if not positive disproof, at least strong reasons for doubt. According to Darwin's theory of descent through gradual modification (by way of random mutation and natural selection), the fossil record should contain near-infinite numbers of ever-so-slightly-different "transitional" forms, and even greater numbers of evolutionary dead ends. Despite the best efforts of archaeologists, not even a hint of that has materialized in the fossil record. Instead, what we should not expect to find, according to Darwin's theory, is what we do find: the sudden appearance of innumerable distinct species, as we have in the so-called Cambrian Explosion.
Needless to say, a debate like this can't be settled in the space of a column. Neither, however, can it be settled by shutting out the other side. Darwinists, of course, would have us believe that there is no other side, only a bunch of anti-science religious fanatics who don't deserve to be heard. That approach can succeed, but not for long. As I say, I give them fifteen years, tops.
Not so.
You just close your eyes and refuse to read the other side regarding so many skulls.
If I pointed you to the link, you would discount the publisher or writer or some such thing.
Who is dishonest??
Nor me!
Then don't press my Reply button my friend.
I don't feel the need to be sent off on wild geese chases by a darwinistic evolutionist, if that is what you are.
Foolishness...they are not even remotely similar.
You flying whatever is meant as a slam.
You have no belief in such a thing, you are simply trying to devalue the other person's belief as myth...which it is simply not.
Most seek to discount as myth the existence of Almighty God...because to recognize His existence...demands a conclusion on their part.
Book: Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Define him away...so my mind can be at "false peace".
Saying it (Evolution is Science) does not make it so...only within the fabrics of your mind...and the minds of its adherents.
Now, I want you to tell me precisely which of the other fossils: B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M are. Since you deny that there are any transitional fossils, please check one of these boxes:
1. [_] Just an old chimpanzee or other ape, or
2. [_] Just an old human
Can you do it?
Because is you who assert common descent of all life from a putative single or few ancestors, and since the entirety of your evidence in post 84 constitutes vertebrate skulls or portions of skulls, or even small fragments of skulls that were glued together, which altogether in turn constitute an incredibly minuscule percentage of that tiny percentage of the fossil vertebrates other than fish, out of the entirety of the massive trillions of invertebrate fossils in the record, perhaps first you can tell us precisely what you think the ancestor/descendant relationship of these vertebrate skulls or portions of skulls is. The only way you can do it is to first assuming the very thing in question, as was even done in giving names to these fossils, namely, common ancestry of all life from a single or a few putative ancestors.
We know that it is impossible when confronted with a fossil, to be certain whether it is your ancestor, or the ancestor of anything else, even another fossil. We also know that adaptive scenarios are simply justifications for particular arrangements of fossils made after the fact, and which rely for their justification on authority rather than on testable hypotheses.
In Search of Deep Time (1999) p.127Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.
Evolution (1999) p.109
Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History Amazon GPSediments between 4 and 10 million years in age are potential guardians of the Holy Grail of human evolution--the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all.
Stephen Jay Gould "Empire of the Apes" Natural History May 1987 p.24
If you want to use fossils for evidence, the burden of proof is on you to show some evidence in the fossil record of any evolutionary link between these extinct apes and the human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record. You can't do it.
Cordially,
"particular creationist shibboleth"
another typical tactic of "your side"
when you can't win the argument you try to belittle the other person's position.
why not try losing the spleen and the smart mouthed comments and answer my question.
Why does your side try to stifle debate?
Your side got a federal judge to refuse to allow creationism to be taught in schools.
You cannot defend that honestly.
Hugh Ross, a theistic evolutionist, has been one person who I heard on live radio say:
I don't debate non-scientists.
His definition of a non-scientist was anyone who believed in special creation without evolution. It mattered not their credentials, their university training, their following the scientific method of examination...
if they believed in special creation without evolution...they were a non-scientist and he dismissed them.
What do you believe regarding God?
I trust it is not the flying spaghetti monster faith.
I am deeply convinced, based upon 20+ years of study of scores of books, articles, monographs, etc., that the Bible is the revealed Word of God to man/womankind.
Care to read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Part I or Part II.
Hundreds of pages of research by a faithless man who set out to disprove it all.
He found the truth, and published the volumes of his research down through the ages.
Just so fine.
Dissing is a really fine debate tool.
Get honest and real.
You said:
"How about archaeology, sedimentology, and radiocarbon dating, which together show the global flood never happened."
Arguable opinion...not fact....
There is just as much evidence to make a case for the global flood.
It is debatable.
Only a learned scientist can respond in a defensible manner.
So I won't do it. I have indicated I am not a learned scientist.
Not dodging, just lack of background, though there are creationist texts out there have undermined the photos and evidence.
Huh?
The problem is that there cannot be upteen Almighty Gods for every person that dreams up one for the purposes of controlling the population over which they wish to rule, no matter how small or large.
We can't all be right.
Who died and made you a little god?
I don't believe so.
The god of SH is man in the center of his universe.
Answers in Genesis web site you yahoo!
Opinion, not fact.
I spoke with staff and AiG this morning.
Ken Ham and an associate debated on John Ankerberg's program a week or so ago against Hugh Ross and what you would refer to as an esteemed scientist.
The esteemed scientist embarassed himself by being reduced to his religious arguments on behalf of evolution. Hugh Ross was non-plussed and relatively speechless by his fellow evos activity in the debate.
waste of time placemarker.
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.