Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fire Destoys Darwin Manuscripts
ap ^ | October 25, | ap

Posted on 10/25/2001 8:20:39 PM PDT by classygreeneyedblonde

GLASGOW, Scotland (AP) -- Rare scientific books written by Charles Darwin were destroyed in a fire that gutted a building at Glasgow University, authorities said Thursday

The blaze broke out Wednesday at the 100-year-old Bower building. No one was injured, and the cause remained under investigation, police said. The lost manuscripts, including a collection of 19th-century volumes on botany, were valued at more than $2.86 million, university officials said.

Damage to the three-story building was estimated at $11.4 million.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: classygreeneyedblonde
"Rare scientific books written by Charles Darwin"

I'd say that they were rare! - Darwin wrote exactly "0" scientific books. He was big on Sci-fi.

"Shame a piece of history lost.."

Not really, this is 'living history' in the making; enjoy it!!!

21 posted on 10/25/2001 8:57:04 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Nothing miraculous about mindless, directionless evolution. Just take inanimate matter, sprinkle liberally with time, and--PRESTO--Charles Darwin!

What does inanimate matter have to do with evolution?
22 posted on 10/25/2001 8:58:06 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio
What does inanimate matter have to do with evolution?

Well, let's see: what kind of matter are creatures made of in your universe?

24 posted on 10/25/2001 9:00:12 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Well, you've got to start somewhere.
25 posted on 10/25/2001 9:03:24 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: classygreeneyedblonde
Probably just the devil reclaiming his own $h!t; figured after the end of naziism and communism, Earth didn't really need it anymore.


26 posted on 10/25/2001 9:04:17 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
What does inanimate matter have to do with evolution?

LOL! That's your problem to solve--not mine.

I have an answer. But I don't believe you'd like it.

27 posted on 10/25/2001 9:07:06 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I'll take Sci-fi over mythology any day. :)
28 posted on 10/25/2001 9:08:04 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: classygreeneyedblonde
Evilution...for those with open minds only....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part1.html
29 posted on 10/25/2001 9:08:29 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classygreeneyedblonde
Its nice when somebody takes out the trash. A big pile of lies goes up in smoke. Anybody who has any doubt about a divine Creator, please read "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross. It will blow away all the lies they taught you in school about Darwin and other completely insane and absurd doctrines of devils regarding creation.

Link here for book

30 posted on 10/25/2001 9:10:31 PM PDT by Russell Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
"Darwin did predict ignorance and lower forms of life would ultimately triumph."

proven by the fact that _Jim, Fred25, and LLAN-DDEUSANT still post at FR.

31 posted on 10/25/2001 9:10:57 PM PDT by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
That's two by fire .... hmmmmm
32 posted on 10/25/2001 9:11:31 PM PDT by classygreeneyedblonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1
What the article headline should have said was that files were burned up that were 'science, falsely so called' (1Tim.6:20 KJB)

Even so, come Lord Jesus

33 posted on 10/25/2001 9:42:11 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Well, that did happen. Some years ago some monkeys typed on some typewriters and came up with an operating system. They called it MS-DOS, sold it to IBM and now they're one of the biggest companies in the world. (Though it'd been better if they 'screwed' up and wrote Hamlet instead)
34 posted on 10/26/2001 5:19:50 AM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
>What does inanimate matter have to do with evolution?

LOL! That's your problem to solve--not mine.

Why is this my problem? I am aware that ultimately the chemicals that compose organic material are themselves inanimate, but that has less to do with evolution than it does basic biochemistry.

I have an answer. But I don't believe you'd like it.

What's your answer?
35 posted on 10/26/2001 6:09:21 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 2sheep; babylonian; Jeremiah Jr


36 posted on 10/26/2001 6:44:05 AM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2sheep
Even though Darwin denounced his theories on his death bed they are still thriving among the ignorant!
37 posted on 10/26/2001 8:33:37 AM PDT by TrueBeliever9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2sheep; Thinkin' Gal; RnMomof7; Prodigal Daughter; MissAmericanPie; xzins
One of the BEST teachers and series on evolution:

http://store.yahoo.com/grace-to-you/batforbeg1.html

38 posted on 10/26/2001 9:04:07 AM PDT by TrueBeliever9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal
You are so funny! Where do you find these great posts?
39 posted on 10/26/2001 6:37:18 PM PDT by Prodigal Daughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TrueBeliever9
Even though Darwin denounced his theories on his death bed they are still thriving among the ignorant!

This is one instance in which ordinary ignorance doesn't really cut it; you've gotta be really, seriously STUPID to be an evolutionist.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror or F for Fornicator or some such traditional device, or an I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the former choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God hates IDIOTS, too!

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.

Most people only have to take one look at a flight feather with its complex system of interlocking barbules under a microscope to comprehend that such a thing could not possibly evolve from any sort of a pre-existing down feather, the purpose of which is insulation rather than control of air streams.

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, 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. In real life, it's even worse than that. 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 (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) 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). 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 or hear them, they wouldn't be witches...) The best example of that sort of logic in fact that there ever was was Michael O'Donahue's parody of the Connecticut Yankee (New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court) which showed Reggie looking for a low outside fastball and then getting beaned cold by a high inside one, the people feeling Reggie's wrist for pulse, and Reggie back in Camelot, where they had him bound hand and foot. Some guy was shouting "Damned if e ain't black from ead to foot, if that ain't witchcraft I never saw it!!!", everybody was yelling "Witchcraft Trial!, Witchcraft Trial!!", and they were building a scaffold. Reggie looks at King Arthur and says "Hey man, isn't that just a tad premature, I mean we haven't even had the TRIAL yet!", and Arthur replies "You don't seem to understand, son, the hanging IS the trial; if you survive that, that means you're a witch and we gotta burn ya!!!" Again, that's precisely the sort of logic which goes into Gould's variant of evolutionism, Punk-eek.

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:

The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

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 ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?

40 posted on 10/26/2001 9:14:03 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson