Posted on 05/20/2009 8:07:15 AM PDT by lakeprincess
"This is an incredible piece of hype to popularize a movie and a book. It's hard to believe that this story took off, but the media picked up on very emotional claims about the 'missing link.' It's created good publicity," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
You forgot, "what she fed her children for breakfast before sending them off to lemur school..."
The following is long, but a classic "buried" example of "scientific charlatanism" which I actually lived through and finally saw rejected, proven wrong, ridiculed, but now forgotten:
Sir Eric Thompson, the leading Mayanist of the mid 20th Century---
He asserted, with no foundation whatsoever, that, ... the ancient Maya were thought of [by whom? no one knows] as a theocracy, time worshipers with an immensely sophisticated calendar and a deeply spiritual outlook. Their ideal was said to be [by whom? again, unknown] 'moderation in all things,' their motto 'live and let live', and their character to have an emphasis on discipline, cooperation, patience and consideration for others'. Theirs was a a civilization unlike any other, maintained Thompson, who looked to the Maya as a source of spiritual values in a modern world that placed far more importance on material prosperity..." *
Mind you, this fruitcake was exquisitely educated, erudite, knighted for his "work", and completely wrong. The net contribution of his life was zero. Sort of a parallel to other modern "scientific" contentious foodfights; but I digress...
Today, we know... that the Maya were obsessed with war, and that both the rulers and the gods liked to take hallucinogenic or inebriating enemas using special syringes. 'The highest goal of these lineage-proud dynasts was to capture the ruler of a rival city-state in battle, to torture and humiliate him (sometime for years), and then subject them to decapitation following a ball game which the prisoner was always destined to lose. *
There are two lessons here. Thompson, highly educated, actually believed the myth he created and spouted all his life, and about which he was passionate. He was honest about his "work", which was fundamentally flawed, and he never achieved what others, less obsessed, doggedly worked at --- the decipherment of the Maya language. His delusion contribute negatively to the problem. He delayed successful decipherment for decades
Secondly he illustrates perfectly the parallel to the "Global Warming" delusion of today.
I could quote Santayana again, but what's the use?
*The Story of Writing, Andrew Robinson, 1995
Most informed adults with a rudimentary grasp of real science will immediately realize that this data proves violation of the essential prerequisite of this particular "science": knowledge of in-situ conditions is never an option. it is sine qua non...
Now the TV hucksters, masquerading as scientists take over...
Europeans evolve?
Whod'a thought?
... nice red herring, by the way...
LOL! That's gonna leave a mark!
Isn't having discussions with mental children wonderful?
Not interested in debating what "is" and what "is not" a transition fossil? You bet I'm not. Countless times on countless "crevo" threads I've seen it debated, with no fruit to show for it. Why? I think this portion of what Darwins Revenge posted on another thread is a good indication of the problem.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds — it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features . They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group.[47's editorial here: Which is EXACTLY what you and others on this thread are doing] Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Sound familiar? Seems like this is EXACTLY what was demanded on this thread. Also, it's exactly what Ham is suggesting in the quote I posted that started this all.
So again, am I interested in playing the anti-evolution shell game of "Give me a transition fossil, ANY one, except THAT one or THAT one or THAT one....."? Not a chance!
Oh and for the record, I do not believe in “Cold Fusion” or “Man made Climate change”, but I like how you try to lump what I’m saying in with that junk science.
What we dispute is that a series of random mutations is what had lead from one species to another species. We often see species 1, species 2, etc., ... species N. But even the adjacent species on that imaginary line are still too far apart: they do not appear to be a product of a single mutation. So finding one more species does not really help your case: what I want to see is a cloud of specimens with species 1 at one edge of the cloud and species 2 at the other edge. Until I see that, all I see proven is that we previously knew of N species and now we know of N+1 species and all have similarities.
It is not semantics. The theory postulates that one mutation at a time, one species becomes another species. So prove the theory.
“don’t you agree?”
Obviously we don’t agree.
don’t you agree?
You and I, being both Catholics, have no real need to debate this however since ultimately, in our Church, both "sides" are allowed to co-exist. One can be a strict "evolutionist" or a strict "creationist" or anything inbetween so long as no one maintains that the soul itself "evolved".
This is another reason I rarely post on these threads, because ultimately this is an issue that has no real bearing on true Christianity, IMO. It doesn't matter *how* we got here, even the strict "creationist" so much as admits this by the utter lack of regard they have for science in general. That is, for the creationist it IS irrelevant *how* we we got here. The only thing that matters for the creationist is that God created us to be with Him fully and not "through a glass, darkly".
Well, that's pretty much what anyone like myself believes too. Ultimately, the theory of evolution can only answer HOW we got here, but the more important question of WHY is left to theology. Why we all can't just focus on that commonality instead of insisting that "our view is the only view" is beyond me. Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less if someone believes in a 6-day literal creation. I don't think that will send anyone to Hell.
I don't know why it's implied that people like me are hellbound, simply because we are more curious about the mechanism of God's creation than others. (not that you say that, but some around here SURE DO imply that)
good stuff!
Thanks for posting that!
...still laughing
“Oh and for the record, I do not believe in “Cold Fusion” or “Man made Climate change”, but I like how you try to lump what I’m saying in with that junk science.”
OK. Glad I didn’t bring up the absolute CERTAINTY of scientists in the ‘70’s that we were entering an Ice Age...that would have been unfair, too...the POINT, is that Science is always CERTAIN of something that turns out wrong, but they just don’t know how to stop being so CERTAIN...the only thing I know is how little we know...
Your contempt for the field of science in general is duly noted.
Neither point 10 or 15 in that long post speaks to the lack of fossil evidence of an evolutionary path from sufficiently complex species to another sufficiently complex species through single (or otherwise probable) mutations. What I need to see is a chain of species S1, S2, Sn, where S1 is not the same species as Sn, yet for every q Sq+1 is a mutated direct descendant of Sq.
It is true that should the evolutionary hypothesis be ever proven, it will in no way take God as the Primary Designer out of the equation, and therefore will be fully compatible with Catholicism. Mine is not a theological argument. My point is simply that it has not be proven, and it cannot be proven by discovery of new species, no matter what other species the new species resembles.
I agree that there are observations that indirectly corroborate the hypothesis. The creatures do look alike, and simple organisms do mutate to a distinct but separate variety, and if you wish you might call it species. On the other hand, in complex species we see stable distinct species and no productive mutations. Further, the scant observations that do corroborate the evolutionary hypothesis can also be explained without it.
This...
Neither point 10 or 15 in that long post speaks to the lack of fossil evidence of an evolutionary path from sufficiently complex species to another sufficiently complex species through single (or otherwise probable) mutations. What I need to see is a chain of species S1, S2, Sn, where S1 is not the same species as Sn, yet for every q Sq+1 is a mutated direct descendant of Sq.
...is saying the same thing in so many words as this...
Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
whether you realize it or not, with all due respect. And it was 10 and 14 I recommended you read for the "genetic" objections to evolution. Not 15.
But really the whole post is quite useful, even given its length.
“Your contempt for the field of science in general is duly noted.”
Interesting interpretation of what I said, coming from one with such an “open Mind” about opinions. Contempt has nothing to do with noting a “field” (I thought it was a discipline) prone to HUGE mistakes. My point was that there was a lot of room for doubt with a discipline that has a background of such monumental mistakes. That does not equate to contempt, just doubt. I do not have contempt for my sister, for instance, even though she has been wrong about many things, but I do not trust everything she says...I will not wait for an apology...
Of course.
“Interesting interpretation of what I said, coming from one with such an “open Mind” about opinions. Contempt has nothing to do with noting a “field” (I thought it was a discipline) prone to HUGE mistakes.”
You seem to be saying that mistakes in science are in some way a negative—that is not a surprise to me. I have never met a creation rationalizationist who had any real understanding of the scientific method. Science is a process of conclusion, correction, conclusion, correction, etc. With each iteration, we get closer to the truth. Compare that to creation rationalization which proudly and loudly proclaims its mistake to the world with absolutely no mechanism for self-correction.
“You seem to be saying that mistakes in science are in some way a negative—that is not a surprise to me.”
Well, then you are a true scientist. Mistakes are a negative - they are a result of misintrpretation (intentional or not) that leads to a false conclusion. Sometimes, mistakes are beneficial - allowing us to advance - but sometimes (and here I would bring up the same point that I know you hate - spending TRILLIONS of dollars on something like global warming (or “climate change”)that has the capacity to finanacially cripple us.
“I have never met a creation rationalizationist who had a real understanding...”
Please...are you a scientist or a mind reader?
“With each iteration, we get closer to the truth.”
Hopefully, we will not all be mired deep in a world-wide depression or have taught several generations of children erroneously before we arrive at “the truth”....
“Compare that to creation rationalization which proudly and loudly proclaims its mistake to the world with absolutely no mechanism for self-correction.”
And little destruction, except to the wounded egos of the intelligentsia who can NOT BELIEVE they could be wrong...just not right THIS TIME.
And the self-correction for throwing me and my progeny and the US and possibly the world into a deep multi-trillion dollar hole is???
Sorry, Skippy, you lose this one. And you know it.
“Well, then you are a true scientist. Mistakes are a negative - they are a result of misintrpretation (intentional or not) that leads to a false conclusion.”
You misunderstood my point—perhaps that was my fault. Your post impugned science on the basis of the fact that mistakes are possible at all, i.e., that errors, misinterpretations CAN happen. That it is not as perfect as creation rationalization in which contrary evidence is banned. Don’t worry—despite that, science remains quite accurate in its predictions and conclusions, the global warming red harring notwithstanding.
Sorry—I don’t get your multi-trillion dollar hole rant. Why do creation rationalizationists always try to mix politics into the debate?
So, as you can see, I don’t lose. In fact, I win.
“Oh and for the record, I do not believe in “Cold Fusion” or “Man made Climate change”, but I like how you try to lump what I’m saying in with that junk science.”
Whew, sorry it took so long to respond, but I just now stopped laughing. That was pretty funny. They were lumped in to demonstrate how destructive a worldwide pursuit or belief in flawed scaince could in fact be catastrophic - you seem to be diligently ignoring this point - the real point - of my criticism of science and the folly of the leaps sometimes taken...that is all.
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.