Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
Sorry, I need to sign off, would like to continue - please send me a private FR mail and I will respond that way - have a good day - I might not be back till Monday nite - have a good one this is a fun conversation...
Thank you, we will continue when we both have time. Good day.
[[I don’t normally talk to liars.]]
That’s ok- I don’t normally talk to silly little 13 year olds like you apparently are-
wow- seems you and doc have a silly little gradeschool pow wow going on there- good for you- You’re 50-is? Amazing
What exactly am I supposedly lying about Ahayes? Are there or are there NOT 300 species showing a nice neat line of supposed jawbone to ear evolution? You infered that there were and I pointed out htere weren’t- that there were 300 FOSSILS of the same species showing slight variations open to interpretation. So quit with the petty little ‘liar liar’ kiddie crap
“Supposedly contradictory fossils”? Tell me Ahayes, are there, or are there not, fossils that CLEARLY show the jaw bones moving in the OPPOSITE direction needed for the supposed ear evolution to occure? If you can show that there aren’t fossil examples doing just that, then you are free to call me a liar- until then- zip it and dispense with silly little games.. Your article did NOT show 300 seperate species who were all related and showed a clear evolutionary movement of the jawbones to the ear. They shwed fossil remains of the SAME species with perhaps slight variances in the location and positions of the bones.
For more on how lame a jump in assumptioins is needed to make the connections between the supposed ‘300 fossils’ is needed in order to make a link between the species that supposedly show the ‘evolution of hte ear and the relatedness of the supposed relatives to supposed whales based on a few simlarities, http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
More: “The mammal has two bones in the lower jaw, the reptile has six; these bones are fused by sutures so that the assembly in each case appears as a single jawbone. The mammal has three tiny bones in the ear, the reptile has one, and it is claimed that in evolving from the reptile, two bones from each side of the reptile jaw migrated into the ear to provide the full complement of bones found in the mammal ear and account for the diminished number in the mammal jaw (Colbert 1949; Manley 1972).[8] Now the general public is not usually made aware of these assertions. The reluctance to test public credulity is understandable, and since this work is reported in the esoteric language of the scientist in obscure specialist publications, it is considered worthwhile to bring to the reader just some of the details on which the claims are made. It should be borne in mind that when fossils of these extinct creatures are found, it is usually just the teeth and jaw and only sometimes the entire skull, but in virtually every case the bones are broken and disarticulated.
In 1973 Kermack and others reported finding what they refer to as the Morganucodon, which they claim is the transition that has passed beyond the stage of the Cynodont, that is, beyond the true reptile stage. Earlier (1968) the same investigators had described a similar creature they named the Kuehneotherium. Several sets of Morganucodon fossil parts were found in China and in Wales, which would seem to indicate that the same transition evolved twice on opposite sides of the earth and at approximately the same time. The investigators acknowledged that the Morganucodon had a fully reptilian lower jaw with all six bones, but the claim for its being a transition was based on an inferred assembly of the jaw hinge. Bones in the assembled condition were not actually found. Digging through some of the minutia of a monumental eighty-eight page report relating just to the lower jaw of this creature, it became apparent that this item ranged from one-half to three-quarters of an inch long, which would make Morganucodon about as big as a rat if the entire skeleton had been available. Detailed drawings of both the Morganucodon and Cynodont jaws appeared in the Kermack (1973) paper, and although both were drawn to the same size for comparison, the drawings were actually on different scales. It turns out the Cynodont was in fact eighteen times larger than the Morganucodon. We are now faced with the reality of this notion, which is saying that a mammal-like reptile the size of a rat evolved from a true reptile the size of a large pig”
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMf06.htm
“They should provide a satisfactory explanation about how outer ear gained the feature of increasing the sound, how ear membrane, the three little special bones, together with a special organ in inner ear which has a special liquid and ten thousands of perceptive cells producing electric signals according to these vibrations on the surface of this organ came into existence by “coincidence.” Surely they fail to make such an explanation; there is no explanation for this. Evolutionists having more profound information , on the other hand, prefer to remain quite rather than ridiculing themselves like Atayman.”
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/evolutionist_misjudgments.php
You give me links to anectdotal simlarities in jaw bone structures, and would have me beleive, without further questioning, that the ear bones evovled? Sorry- but htere is far far more to the story than lining a few vastly dissimilar species who are supposedly seperated by many millions of years up next to each other and stating that the ear hearing evolution, repitle to mammilian hearing evolution “is well documented”
care to take your fingers out of your ears, quit yelling liar liar and address any of the faCTS Ahayes? Or is acting imature more preferable to you?
You know- you started off in the beginning being able to discuss issues without resorting to petiness, and hte discussions were interesting and informative but lately you’ve apparently decided to indulge yourself in immature rhettoric- whioch is a shame, as you obviously are learned and passionate about what you beleive, which inturn lead to good discussions- but if you’re going to let your passion sink you to pettiness, then look for someone else to vent your pettiness on.
Re: your response/frustration to/with Locke_2007.
See post #293.
Strange to see pre-1st-century folktales spread around via 21st-century equipment and infrastructure.
That is exactly what you are lying about. Over and over and over. If you can prove that what you're telling is the truth, please pull up the study in question. I was the one who initially gave you this information, and I've got the .pdf right here. The exact number was 322. I'm awed that you think the gorgonopsians and probainognathians were the same species!
So quit with the petty little ‘liar liar’ kiddie crap
Gee, I'd love too, but I'm afraid I can't until you stop lying. If it bothers you, maybe you should try not making up whatever the heck you like in your anti-science crusade.
you cited two classes- now for hte 322 oth4er classes- post it
Oh, so you admit you were lying when you claimed they were all the same species? :-D Don’t act like I’m the one on the defensive here.
I didn’t say they were all the SAME species, I said there were only a few species- you made it sound like there were 300+ different species KINDS Ahayes, and that isn’t true. All your chart shows is a FEW species KINDS and shows variation within the KINDS that is normal and expected but in no way shows an ‘evolutionary evolving of hte ear’, and it leaves out species who’s jaw variations show the bones moving the other way. The species KINDS that are shown as well do NOT show hte bones moving into the ear and assembling in a complex hearing system. How many subspecies were left out that showed regression of the backwartd moving bones?
There were what? 8 or so psecies KINDS (major groups) shown Ahayes? This is the point I was making, which I suspect you knew all along and tried to make it out that I was stating they were ALL the same species KIND which I absolutely was not if you care to go back and read for yourself!
I’d also be interested in seeing the PDF file posted here or a link to it. Will be interesting to note the fact that the species KINDs that were lsited show a serious disconnect in sizes, and hte point being that setting a hippo sized species KIND next to a rat sized species KIND which evos claim are direct descendants, and claiming it shows a ‘clear evolution of the ear hearing system’ is disingenuous and quite frankly deceitful- As you full well know- the excluded myriad sized species KINDS between the hippo sized species and the rat sized species KINDS would not support the hypothesis that the jawbone evolved into the hearing system.
As I mentioned before- the chart is paramount to placing an apple next to a pinapple and pointing out the annecdotal similarities (ie: they both have stems, they both have a skin covering, and htey both are round as opposed to triangular) and claiming that the one evolved into the other- there are a TON of missing facts to support this- and placing a grapefruit, an orange and pear inbetween the two- and again pointing out anecdotal similarities which would, when compared side by side, SEEM to indicate that the stems or were ‘evolving inward to make up a seed system’ is rediculous at best. One could even take the pear KIND, and show examples of variation in stem placements down through the ages, and make the claim that they were ‘evolving into a ‘more robust’ seed encasement system- but the disconnect comes from a severe lack of evidence showing htis actually happening- making hte leap from stem to seed- One could hypothesise all day long about it happening- but the fact is, there is no evidence to back this up. Placing hippos sized animals next to rat sized ones, and claiming a hearing system evolved from jaw boens, is completely lacking in evidentiary examples of hte hearing system aseembling in species KINDS. The hypothesis is still nothing more than an assumption that both has no evidence to back it up other than some dissimilar species who’s variation in jaw bone placement SEEM to look as if they are migrating, and the charts neglect to include all the myriad species and subspecies which would show the jawbones SEEMINGLY migrating in the other direction.
Again- please post hte PDF showing the 8 or so major species KINDS and all the supposed subspecies-
No- I cited two KINDS- which there are 8 or so other KINDS and NOT 300+ other KINDS which you make it seem there are when infact they are of the same KINDS (or major species groups)- this is the confusion I thinbk is tripping you up and causing you to accuse me of somethign i NEVER said.
Yes, it is.
and it leaves out species who’s jaw variations show the bones moving the other way.
You realize accusing someone of academic misconduct without a shred of evidence is libelous? Fortunately the author doesn't care about your opinion.
I’d also be interested in seeing the PDF file posted here or a link to it.
I presented you with the reference and key summaries before. Are you admitting that you actually have no clue what the contents of the paper in question are? I mean, it's amply obvious that you're just making it up as you go along, but to admit that is another thing altogether.
In conclusion,
WHEE!!
"BUT 300 FOSSILS of the SAME wpecies that were studied?"
Hoist by your own petard.
But....she has a very good point. Where are all the fossils supporting evolution?
Here's a Link to a site listing many, but by no means all, the fossils believe to show aspects indicating transition from reptile to mammal, reptile to bird, fish to amphibian, etc., along with the reaons why it is believe to be a transitional fossil. Enjoy.
[[Hoist by your own petard]]
Petard- had ot look that one up.
1: an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, form a breach in a wall, etc.
Are you saying I firecrackered myself?
[[”BUT 300 FOSSILS of the SAME wpecies that were studied?”]]
I was NOT implying that they were ALL from ONE species KIND- as well, I was making hte point that you were making it seem in your responses that there were 300 seperate KINDS that ‘showed a nice neat clear line of evolution of all completely different KINDS- this is hte point I was trying ot make- My Gaff was not making it clear that there are infact not 300 different KINDS- I wasn’t intentionally making that gaff- when I said 300 fossils of the same species, I was assuming you thought that since everythign has common descent, that they were all the same species. The point I was trying to make was not that there were 300 of the same species KIND but 300 of the same species within the KINDS- as I explained, there are 8 or so major group KINDS, and the point I was tryin to make was that the 300 fossils were all of the same KINDS- not 300 seperate KINDS
This is an important point- because if there were infact 300 KINDS showing the jawbones moving clearly backerds, then the case would be much stronger for your case for common descent and the interelations of the jaw bones- however, the fact that there is no connection showing hte relatedness of the major species KINDS, means that the examples given, show nothign but species specific variation well within the norms of adaptive limitations and should be expected in species KINDS, but does nothign to show a ‘clear evolution of the ear hearing system’.
Again- it wasn’t my intention to mislead- I didn’t clarify precisely enough what I was talking about and that led to misunderstanding- My statemnt should have said “BUT 300 FOSSILS of the SAME wpecies “KINDS” of the 8 or so major groups that were studied?”]] and “300 different species “KINDS” Ahayes? I took for granted that you knew that I wasa refering to that, and obviously you didn’t. I’m not backtracking here, nor trying to cover up- this was really my intentions which unfortunately were not relayed very well in print- but instyead of accusing me of lying- several times infact- and quite adamantly- it weould have been nice if oyu simply took that statement I made and asked me to clarify it more- I didn’t see the mistake at the time and wasn’t intentionally attempting to make a false statement. If you know my writings here- you know that I constantly stress KINDS because this is germane to my poijnts beiung made and it was something I wishjed to point out in my statements- So no- I wasn’t intentionally lying, I simply gaffed by not being clear and precise enough in my statements- but thank you for making a mountain out of a molehill
You link starts off with an apologetic for ‘types of transitions’ which are all based on a priori assumptions and no cold hard evidence- it then proceeds to list species KINDS that although they have a few similarities, are vastly different, and the claims are made that they are trhe same KINDS without any proof.
When one uses assumptions without genetic proofs, one can make any claim they like and call it science I guess.
For the truth on TalkOrigin’s article titled Transitional Vertebrate fossils and how they use major unsupported assumptions and call it science- head on over to http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp where you’ll find much science to refute the so called transitions used in TalkOrigins article.
“Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.”
enjoy
[[Yes, it is.]]
NO it’s not Ahayes- there are not 300 species KINDS and this is the main point I’m contending.
[You realize accusing someone of academic misconduct without a shred of evidence is libelous? Fortunately the author doesn’t care about your opinion]]
Yup- but hte fossil record will show species within the KINDS given as examples for the supposed evolution showing clear evidence of jawbone moving in the other direction- When a fact is infact factual- there is no need to worry- the fossil remains don’t lie Ahayes.
[[I presented you with the reference and key summaries before. Are you admitting that you actually have no clue what the contents of the paper in question are? I mean, it’s amply obvious that you’re just making it up as you go along, but to admit that is another thing altogether.]]
There was another reference which I followed and posted about showing 8 or so major species KINDS along with some references to subspecies within the same KINDS- then you come along claiming that all the species are related, and I’m telling you that there is absolutely NO proof that ANY of the species or even yea, the species KINDS are related- infact- there IS some evidence that they ARE NOT as the cynodont HAS NO direct predescesor- but that doesn’t stop the authors of the ear evolution chart from making hte claim that a rat sized species is related to the hippo sized Cynodonts? amazing- incredible- astounding!
The question was, "Where are the transitional fossils?" In all those cases there are scientists that believe that the fossils in question represent transition and list their spectific reasons for believing it. At the same time there are other scientists who disagree with their findings. That's the scientific process at work. At the other end there are folks like you. You enter into it with the presumption that evolution does not take place, and will discount anything that differs from that. So be it. What, in your opinion, does the fossil record show?
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.