Posted on 11/05/2009 6:15:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
In August 2009, retired University of Liverpool marine biologist Donald Williamson officially challenged the standard Darwinian interpretation of caterpillar origins. His paper was fast-tracked to publication by a “high-placed advocate,”[1] but shortly afterward his ideas were rebutted in the very same journal. While this back-and-forth exchange has sparked intense criticism over the submission and review processes that were used, the situation also reveals core problems with broad-scale evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
1. something like that cannot happen,And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.
2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and
3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar.
1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?
2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.
I just want to make sure I understand: you're talking about the creationists who say that we can't know anything about evolution because no one was there to see it, right?
That is very questionable.
“The conflation of the two shows how little so many of you know about science.”
I was only referring to the actual TESTING part of the Theory of Gravity.
Since the TOE can’t even be tested and observed under controlled conditions, it doesn’t even qualify as a Theory. It’s an idea — just like Intelligent Design is an idea.
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.
Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn't see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science's giants. In the same way, Darwin's ideas will prove influential for decades to come.
When did God give you a free pass on Exodus 20:16?
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
Repeating the same fallacy over and over will not make it a fact.
You should really be more respectful of God. I don't really care whether you capitalize God or not. But it does show where your soul resides when you don't. Actually, the capitalization of God is a fairly recent invention by man but since most religious people capitalize it puts you out of the mainstream and in the category of a cultist.
I know and I have posted examples and links for the not quite as lazy as count-your-change types.
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear freedumb2003!
>>Since the TOE can’t even be tested and observed under controlled conditions, it doesn’t even qualify as a Theory. It’s an idea — just like Intelligent Design is an idea.<<
Again, you are using a layperson’s definition of a “theory.” Learn a little and then try again. As far as testing and the like, you are 100% wrong. Unless you want to say that Geology is just an idea.
ID meets zero criteria for a Scientific Theory. TToE meets all.
It is totally anti-God to try to describe God in human terms.
Show me the test that will demonstrate one species evolving into another. There isn’t one. Adaptation can be shown but not speciation.
Or how about this one: based on genetic manipulation, show the minimum amount of change required for one fossil to be a mutation of another. It can’t be done; maybe sometime in the future but certainly now now. That’s why the whole thing is not even a theory, it’s just a convenient idea for scientists who favor naturalism as a worldview.
You can continue your Al Gore-like appeal to authority, but it’s impossible to insist that it can be known how events took place based on the evidence that’s available in the fossil record.
So far, evolutionary theory has NOT been falsified.
How about this?
I am not responsible for your ignorance. If you can’t Google to answer your questions, then I am not going to teach you what people spend years learning.
In the meantime, your questions show your ignorance and you should quit featuring it.
“So far, evolutionary theory has NOT been falsified.”
True enough, I guess. Neither has it been demonstrated that mutation and natural selection can change a cow into a whale (or whatever it is that is supposed to have turned into a whale).
That is not Jonah 1:17
“That is not Jonah 1:17 “
???
Maybe I didn’t read upthread far enough. Anyway, was it an evolved cow that swallowed Jonah?:)
You just reminded me about that silly story I was taught about Jonah in the belly of the whale.
“You just reminded me about that silly story I was taught about Jonah in the belly of the whale.”
Silly as the virgin birth and resurrection...right?
Thomas Jefferson thought so.
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.