Posted on 12/12/2006 8:11:24 AM PST by HHKrepublican_2
A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the Creation Museum.
But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to describe the almost completed building that stands just a few miles west of Cincinnati, on the borders of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
"We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore.
"The museum is right under that archway there," said Mark Looy, vice president for ministry relations, standing in the foyer next to an animatronics dinosaur that is munching on a synthetic plant.
Playful dinosaurs
The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible - to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
I asked a QUESTION at the end of it. Do you have an answer?
What question? I couldn't see a question for all your boilerplate.
If you're now telling me that there was one relevant sentence in your very lengthy post, you'll have to repeat it.
And please rephrase if necessary, so it isn't dependent on anyone having to actually read the cut-and-paste you keep posting.
Um, so? Of course modern evolutionary theory, being a theory of universal common descent, requires the denial of "spontaneous generation": the theory that life comes into existence from non-life as a regular phenomena in nature rather than, say, as a unique result of some process of chemical evolution or the like.
Obviously if life is continually, or even intermittently, coming into existence spontaneously then all living organisms will not share a common ancestry.
I think you don't know what "spontaneous" means.
Historically "spontaneous generation" was a creationist theory, and was finally abandoned by science shortly before Darwin introduced his ideas on evolution. As I mentioned previously, Darwin's views included the denial of spontaneous generation. Darwin saw the origin of life as most probably a unique and one time event. Modern scientists concur. No serious researcher has proposed a theory involving the spontaneous origin of life since the 19th Century.
|
I asked a QUESTION at the end of it. Do you have an answer? 122 posted on 12/14/2006 11:28:16 AM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
What question? I couldn't see a question for all your boilerplate. |
And please rephrase if necessary, so it isn't dependent on anyone having to actually read the cut-and-paste you keep posting.
Elsie, I've told you that I won't read your boilerplate any more.
If you have something specific to ask, why hide it?
Ah, there's that 'reworking' arugment that I mentioned to 'atlaw'. He seemed completely unaware of it.
Here is Woodmorappe responding to Morton.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp
Please re-read what I actually wrote rather than what you wanted me to say.
"Um, so?"
Exactly the point. Committed naturalists get to ignore all of the work done to date in favor of preserving their belief that 'something' will be found to save them.
"Of course modern evolutionary theory, being a theory of universal common descent, requires the denial of "spontaneous generation": the theory that life comes into existence from non-life as a regular phenomena in nature rather than, say, as a unique result of some process of chemical evolution or the like."
I was not talking about 'regular spontaneous generation of life'. I was talking about a 'single spontaneous generation of life'. Are you saying that 'modern evolutionary theory' denies a single spontaneous generation of life?
spon·ta·ne·ous – adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spontaneous
"No serious researcher has proposed a theory involving the spontaneous origin of life since the 19th Century."
So you're saying that the only serious researchers are the IDers proposing that life was created?
Here's another article by Woodmorappe discussing the problems with the concept of the 'geologic' column'.
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
When people start to call it "inerrant"
Ah yes, the 'arrogance' claim. Nice to see that one trotted out again. Mostly used to provide support for failed theories by claiming that, since absolutely every single possibility hasn't been tried, that the theory is still viable. Kind of like claiming that, since the infinite set of even numbers have not all been factored by 2, we can say that some even number exists that is not factorable by 2. Nice one.
"It only appears to be a straw man because religion (superstition in general really) has been slapped down so many times in the past that nobody want to own up to the tar baby of geocentricism and the other garbage that was previously held as truth."
Were you sufficiently informed, you would not make the implication that geocentrism has been 'disproved'. You merely accept what popular science tells you without question. You are guilty of the very superstition that you claim to detest.
Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.
Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973.
Similarly, Max Born wrote:
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345
Einstein himself said:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."
Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
Since you mention Woodmorappe, here's a blog dealing with his article The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms.
By the way, "John Woodmorappe" is the nom de plume of Jan Peczkis, a high school teacher.
Hoo Boy!! Your going to argue that the earth is the center of the universe? I can't wait to hear this one.
No they aren't (or rather they are micro-evolution), but they are not real "macro-evolution" becuause they are just variation within kind:
Lets look at another example: once there were on a few type of Canine Dog,but now many would you call any of these (from the small tea-cup poodle to the Great Dane) not dogs: My prediction: NO, but that doesn't mean that it would be easy for a great dane and tea-cup poodle to mate outside the scientific lab. There has clearly been genetic loss on both frots one lost in the info to be "big" and one lost the info to be "small" as part of their genetic changes (and that is just part of the changes). the same can be said of these flys. Clearly there ancestors had both, but gentic variaton and conditions caused these to become seperated (and not contain new genetic information just because of the changes that were inherent to begin with)..They are both variation within kind, not a whole new "kind"/species.
Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)
Could you please provide additional documentation on this quote? I am unable to find a reliable source through google.
Yes, I am saying that. The alternative is to use the word "spontaneous," as in "spontaneous generation," in an intentionally (or ignorantly) confusing manner.
The concept of "spontaneous generation" has a specific meaning in the history of science, such that to speak of "a single spontaneous generation of life" is nonsensical. "Spontaneous generation" is explicitly the doctrine that life comes into existence from non-life as a regular occurrence in nature.
If life came into being as the result of a more or less complex process of some kind -- probably one occurring over some period of time, and with various stages, sub-processes or parallel processes involved -- then that would not be "spontaneous," neither in terms of the way the term had been previously used in science, nor in terms of the common dictionary definition of the term.
...who's never worked as a geologist (or any sort of working scientist) a day in his life. Of course one of the "Woodmorappe" critics GourmetDan dismisses, Glenn R. Morton, DID work as a petroleum geologists for many years, and spent a number of those years desperately trying to rationalize his own YEC views, which he was eventually compelled by the force of the evidence before his own eyes to painfully abandon.
It's easy to assert that all of historical geology is b.s. when you don't have to actually do anything with it, or with any supposed alternative.
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.