Posted on 10/22/2009 8:31:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The British Broadcasting Corporation in England has deemed it necessary to try and absolve Darwinism from any responsibility for the Holocaust and the many other atrocities committed in the name of evolutionary progress ever since Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. To achieve this, BBC2 produced a TV “documentary” entitled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,[1] written and presented by their journalist and political commentator Andrew Marr. This 3-part series...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
LOL!
It’s bad enough the closet liberals demand posts be removed or placed in the religion forum, but they also make these kinds of comments too:
“Hm. Maybe thats why these freepathons are dragging on longer and longer...”
which stands to reason, I surely wouldn’t put anything past liberals, even if it meant contributing to FReepathons with deliberate intentions of undermining FR. The more liberals that understand the core values will not be contaminated or compromised, the more likely these liberals will eventually go home or back to DU/DC or whatever under what rock it is they call home.
Luckily, Jim is crystal clear on this issue:
“The Godless liberals have outlawed discussion of God’s work from schools, government and all public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re going to outlaw it on FR.
If that means liberals, atheists, Darwinists, RINOS, etc, withhold their donations from FR, well, I guess we’ll get along without them”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2347175/posts?q=1&;page=301#323
You mean questions and comments like “Christian taliban”? (on 9-11 no less.)
“religious attacks on science”?
If anyone seems insecure, it’s crystal clear it’s the evos!
Always demanding threads be pulled or placed in the religion forum.
I wonder how many evos get their comments pulled.
I wonder how many evos get banned.
I wonder which side makes the most personal attacks.
You know...compared to the creationists.
And often enough, the mods aren’t even called...I’ve seen brand new threads with comments removed by mod, before there’s even 3-4 posts TOTAL in the thread.
-=The Cambrian explosion, which a journal article went to far as to call the “big bang of evolution”, sort of like the big sex orgy of chastity or some such as if the word “oxymoron” were not part of their vocabulary. All of the known animal phyla basically appear out of nothing in the blink of an eye, with no antecedents at all.=-
Your point has been disproved many times.
Wow...Well Wendy...I see the best they can do is call you Ted and post gibberish about Jesus riding dinosaurs and their homerun walk-off grand-slam consists of answering their Cambrian problem with this little gem:
Your point has been disproved many times.
How is string theory testable, replicable, repeatable, verifiable...
you know...all the hoops to jump through evos demand of creationism...
or would this be just another case of liberals making up rules they never intended following themselves?
“String theory” posits myriad universes and you have to assume that adherents and evolosers like this because they know what the mathematical odds are against evolution in the one (real) universe which we actually know anything about...
"Your point has been disproved many times."
Nobody is accusing them of being intelligent...
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening at once (which is what you'd need), best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. For the pieces of being a flying bird to evolve piecemeal would be much harder. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, Gould and others are actually claiming that the lack of intermediate fossils supports their theory since it is what their theory would predict. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools and could easily be adapted to prove the existence of any sort of thing which you'd never seen.2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I mean, basically, I wouldn't know where to tell anybody to go to look for anything stupider than that.
Hi Ted
doesn't seem to work anymore, does it?
There is a reason it is called a theory and not a principle, it has not passed the challenges you presented. At this point theoretical physicists are treating it like an unknown variable in an equation in place of (also theoretical) particle-point. It can be used and even characterized, but not yet solved.
Although it is by no means obvious, this simple replacement of point-particle material constituents with strings resolves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which, as currently formulated, cannot both be right). String theory fills a void in by unraveling the central Gordian knot of contemporary theoretical physics.
Its similar to Obama's strategy of overtaxing and driving out the productive class. Dont be surprised to find the end result the same.
Ive seen that before. Did you write it?
Like I said , Hi Ted!
“A lot of intelligent posters who didnt subscribe to the YEC worldview have been banned. I would bet a substantial proportion of them held jobs with high salaries (read: they had plenty of disposable income to donate to websites).” [excerpt]Looks to me like thats a convoluted way of saying JR doesn't pander to deep pockets. (even if you did get a bit of straw in there)
“Its similar to Obama's strategy of overtaxing and driving out the productive class.” [excerpt]It is?
ALOT of liberal DU/DC disrupters were banned. And like JR said numerous times, if you can’t control the flow if information...TOO BAD!
I guess you guys would consider Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek liberal disruptors too.
“ALOT of liberal DU/DC disrupters were banned.” [excerpt, tpanther]
“They were all DC/DU disruptors? Amazing.” [excerpt, Nilla]Bold is mine, fail is Nilla's.
Wow...you’re one of the few that didn’t get the memo, because anytime the liberals begin explaining they know more about science than everyone else, they always manage to fit in that creationism and ID can’t be science because they’re not “repeatable, verifiable, measurable”...blah blah blah...
and when I point out string theory and multi-verse theory and their blatant hypocrisy, I never get this particular response.
But your response is just as dodging.
Still no explanations as to why there’s no such standards for all these other theories.
Come on Fich. Most of those people were not disruptors. Some were part of FR from the beginning. Somewhere along the line Young Earth Creationism got conflated with conservatism.
“Most of those people were not disruptors. Some were part of FR from the beginning.” [excerpt]JR zots who he sees fit, just as CA does.
“Somewhere along the lineThe words ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ might have something to do with it.Young EarthCreationism got conflated with conservatism.” [excerpt, strike through mine]
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.