Posted on 12/03/2009 8:35:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science
--snip--
Today, the Darwinian scientific consensus persists within almost every large university and governmental institution. But around the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged and has since become increasingly established. Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned earlier in this article were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
LOL...way to try and explain away evolution’s GIGANTIC failures. Creationists said that what the evos assumed was “junk” would prove functional. Evos wrong, creationists right, as per usual. The evos predicted darwood’s so-called ‘tree of life’, creationists predicted a ‘forest’ or ‘orchard’ of life. Creationists were proven correct, the evos were dead wrong, as per usual. Creationists point out that the only empirically verifiable source of the complex, specified, digital codes (such as DNA) is intelligent designers. The evos bury their collective heads in the sand. Par for the course. Many more examples could be given.
Taking things out of context as usual.
You guys are so predictable...
There are those, like you, who claim that posting keywords slanders the God of Creation.
That just makes you a blasphemer.
The vast majority of the genome has not proven to be functional at all. Still no known function.
Creationists in no way shape or form predicted that all species were related by common descent; all the “tree” or “shrub” talk is predicated on the same idea of common descent.
Creationists know nothing of DNA, they don't work with DNA, they don't understand DNA, they don't perform research on DNA. Your “Creation Safari” source you like to post from doesn’t even understand the difference between transcription and translation.
All you can do is misrepresent science, and, like your cowardly cohorts, run away with your hands over your ears in mortal fear that you might actually learn something about the subject you talk about day after day, while repeating the same misrepresentations.
What he isn't saying is that he believes that he is proven when he declares himself the winner in the competition of ideas. How ironic that he says believes in the natural selection of ideas but reverts to fabrication and self deception to avoid confronting it.
BtC: Actually yes, they do. For example, if you want to undermine radioisotope dating (by claiming that radioactive decay rates can change enough to accommodate the '6,000' number), then nuclear physics goes out of the window. And quantum mechanics (which explains the mechanism of decay). And mathematics (which is the foundation of quantum mechanics)...
You didn't respond to the comment. E-s was talking about science challenging spiritual knowledge and you said they did, and proceeded to tell him how he wants to undermine science. What's that have to do with science challenging spiritual knowledge?
from #156: "Do you have any SERIOUS suggestion how we can make the world our dominion (Genesis) while locking ourselves out in the purely spiritual reality of literally interpreted Bible and prayer?"
Why do evos keep harping on a literal reading of the Bible which no one but evolutionists think anyone does?
Why are evolutionists such Bible literalists? Don't you guys realize that there's poetry, parables, songs, metaphors, similes, and types in the Bible? Why do you demand that people read the Bible literally when even Jesus told us that He taught in parables and gave the meaning of them, indicating that they were not meant to be taken literally?
Why do you demand that people read it literally when symbolism in the form of types is used?
Actually, with what you posted as keywords and your constant harping about how you're a Christian, it's you that's cheapening salvation.
“dismissing any evidence that contradicts “creationism” (like “radiocarbon dating is all a conspiracy”). Give us a break.”
Carbon dating is accurate up to 5,000 years, after 5,000 years it cannot be calibrated against any historical data.
“If you want to ignore the overwhelming evidence in support of the evolution theory, fine. But don’t pretend you’re following any sort of scientific approach.”
Instead of pontificating the existence of the “overwhelming eveidence” in favor of evolution, please present the alleged evidence. Please do not pretend to take a scientific point of view.
Apparently instructing both sides to knock it off doesn’t always work, especially when it’s anonymous.
Both sides should stop with the keyword spam, but I’m glad it was posted.
It’s been very enlightening.
I wish the mods would do it more often when keyword situations like this come up. There’s no excuse for it and the spammers need to own it.
Yeah, sorry about “darwinliedpeopledied”, “evotardation”, “evilution”, “evoisnotscience”, “manmonkeymyth”, and “secularmythology”.
Oh, wait—that was one of your guys. Here’s the difference between us, though: I think it’s funny—even his!
Almost two months ago. Is that the best you can do?
This is a miniature essay I wrote, which still need some work. It was posted on another topic but did not get much feedback.
The scientific community has mistakenly called self-ordering phenomena, self-organizing. A self-ordered phenomenon is not to be confused with self-organized. Self-order are events determined by the laws of nature. Bona fide self-organization, on the other hand, is the ordering of physical elements in such as way that yield complex formal function, requiring choice with intent. Self-organization and self-ordered should be thoroughly examined to correct the current paradigm. Many scientific papers have been published that presuppose self-organization as observed fact, despite the absences of empirical support; only self-ordering has been observed.
Stand-alone physicodynamics has never been observed to give rise to sophisticated formal function nor a formal utility of any kind, yet scientist hold the metaphysical belief that unaided physicodynamics can give rise to complex formal function; this is lacking empirical support. Self-ordering events are in accordance with physical law. No known law has been observed to give rise to formal self-organization, laws do the same thing every time: they are forced behaviors, they do not program at any level, nor generate the organization, coordination, and cooperation required by complex formal function. When we, as intelligent humans, organize something, we do so with a choice in mind; mere chance and combinatorial complexity is not organization. Organization does not take place, in the absence of someone making the correct choices. Randomness of physical elements cannot self-organize, however, they can self-order.
One of the requirements of organization is true decision nodes at every level, pre-programmed to make the correct choice that steer toward a formal function. All know life is cybernetic, yet self-ordering, limited by physical laws, is not capable of cybernetic programming, program for a potential function, steer toward pragmatic benefit, controlling and regulating integrated formal function, produce prescriptive information, or manifest useful utility, and other characteristics of complex functioning biological machines. In other words, self-ordering events do nothing useful; there is no goal, only an agent can do this.
We cannot self-organize ourselves internally, we only find ourselves in a already organized organism. Self-organization cannot happen in accordance with physical law, because physical laws of themselves do nothing. Self-organization can only take place if free from physical laws; natural forces do not make choices with intent, a requirement of formal self-organization, but even free of physical constraint does not program any kind of sophisticated formal function.
The current paradigm is what most scientists believe, not what is true. Most scientists believe self-organization has been observed, but in reality self-order is being observed. Self-ordered phenomenon is purely physicodynamic, not formal. Formal choices are instantiated into a physical matrix when you perform an action, which is not determined by natural laws. When you do something, such as build a car, you are instantiating your thoughts (non-physical) in the physical world by dynamically inert configurable switches. Configurable switches bridges formal to physicality and are only set my formal choices; unaided physicodynamics cannot set the switch. Physical law will not built the car, it is only when you make the choice and intend to carry out that decision, will the car be built. There is a one-way flow, that is formal toward physicodynamic. Self-organization requires freedom from constraints of natural laws, and is always the result of choice with intent.
I didn’t see my name up there.
Yours was.
And yours was worse.
You’re in no position to throw stones.
Why don't you believe that God is the Intelligent Designer?
I am a Christian, and you do cheapen salvation by condemning (literally) those who post joke keywords.
The keywords are but an appetizer. The main course of ludditry and shameless stupidity is found in the actual posts (I’m referring to the best of your side, of course).
Interesting how when evos keyword spam, it’s a big joke, but when creationists spam, they get their knickers in a knot.
Typical evo double standard.
That is such a stupid statement! - There are more creationists in high level positions in genetic research than non creationists. I know this from stock holder open house days. I suspect that this is why you are so vile and bitter here; your boss is almost certainly a creationist, since non-creationists simply cannot comprehend the subject, and are always trying to inject their religion into the work.
I didn’t say “yours”. And mine were clever, funny, and dead-on accurate. I provided a valuable service for academics searching the FR archive.
As time goes on more functions for this noncoding dna are being found.
I told you I thought both were quite funny.
But mine were funnier.
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.