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 Darwins 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 ...
“There are those, like you, who claim that posting keywords slanders the God of Creation.
That just makes you a blasphemer”
I so appreciate you guys making my points... I’ll tell you like I told Buck...
“Taking things out of context as usual.
You guys are so predictable...”
DISCLAIMER: This is a message to the Evo-Atheists (There are those few sensible ones on this site who participate in reasoned debate... This message is NOT for you)
Begin message to Evo-Atheists... now.
I’m talking about your overall “body of work” not your playground antics with keywords. Schoolchildren, all... You play with your Star Trek dolls and treat fairy tales from old men with microscopes as truth (see any evolution documentaries, for instance “recreating” the meteorite extinction theory... widely discredited by even your own now.
The evolution disciples and the “scientists” who act as their priests take a few sad little bones from their pockets and and lay them at Darwin’s altar. Then they pronounce words called “theory” over them which magically transports impressionable school children into a land of the lost these worshippers have no way in creation of knowing how to re-create. And it’s all presented as the absolute, unadulterated Gospel!
You and the rest of your congregants continually deride and challenge the faith of those who worship God and believe in the Creation account as it is written in the Gospel that WE believe. You and your priests are no more important to the world than the bunch of small-minded climatologists involved in climate-gate. There’s not a dimes worth of difference in the two with the possible exception the climatologists claims tried to force changes on the temporal while your side would ask us to deliver our eternity and our children into the hands of hell.
I’ll be frank... you can take your opinion of what I am or am not and shove it up the primordial ooze. And that goes for your little dog too.
...And you just keep living the dream of a beginning that began with mud and incest.
Hmmm. Seems that I indeed have had my faith derided and challenged; and I do indeed worship God. There are constant accusations that I am not really a Christian, or am just pretending to be so; along with statements that all Catholics are going to hell unless they renounce Catholicism.
Except that all those statements were made by creationists to me because I do not accept their interpretation of scripture along with their ludicrous fudges to try to make the data fit; but go more with what the Pope has to say on the intersection of faith and science.
"Just a bit of research would answer your questions."
I believe that a bit of research on your part would reveal that the sequences interpreted as centromere and telomere 'relics' on Chromosome 2 occur in other places in the genome but are not considered to be 'fusions' there.
I believe a further bit of research on your part would reveal that comparing the genes on the chromosomes in question do not line up as expected if there were a fusion.
So, not only are you forced to cherry-pick the data wrt 'fusions' you are also forced to assume the genes have moved around 'post-fusion'.
Just if you're interested in research...
A bit of research would show that the genes on the chromosomes in question DO line up as if there was a fusion.
Genes do move around, post fusion, it is called transposition. But besides a few transpositions; the genes line up.
And if you are interested in research; you might want to look into how Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun.
Of what chromosomes?
"A bit of research would show that the genes on the chromosomes in question DO line up as if there was a fusion."
Reference please?
"Genes do move around, post fusion, it is called transposition. But besides a few transpositions; the genes line up."
Reference please?
"And if you are interested in research; you might want to look into how Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun."
There is no one so blind as he who refuses to see.
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? [ ] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the earth moves or the sun moves and the earth is at rest would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is right and the Ptolemaic theory wrong in any meaningful physical sense.
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, Ellis argues. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. Ellis has published a paper on this. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
Faulty generalization noted.
"A comparison of the DNA shows the same genes lining up; exactly as if the human species had fused two of its chromosomes some time in its evolutionary past- along with telomeres and an unused centromere!"
Reference please.
“You play with your Star Trek dolls and treat fairy tales from old men with microscopes as truth...”
I accept your surrender. The others, however, may not be quite so accommodating.
“...And you just keep living the dream of a beginning that began with mud and incest.”
All that work on a message for you and this is the best you can think of?
Evo’s are certainly a brilliant lot. Put some thought in it, man!!!
If you took it personally then I guess it was for you.
“I accept your surrender. The others, however, may not be quite so accommodating.”
Come on... you’ve got a real argument, don’t you?
Well... I guess you haven’t had one before now, so why would I think you’d suddenly sprout intellect.
Guess I hoped it would evolve, but I never put much stock in that as you know.
Geocentric idiocy duly noted.
Here is a reference, in complete agreement with what is known about human and chimp chromosomal alignment; and completely at odds with your ignorant and unreferenced hogwash...
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:
1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)
2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)
3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)
4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).
Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.
You make Star Trek references and then ask me if I have a real argument?
Here’s an idea—why don’t you provide an analysis of the cancer cure post found upthread a bit?
The Star Trek reference was a tweak... one that seems to work fairly well. If those few words are all your mind can pick out of that extensive reply then, hey.
I can’t give an analysis of a cancer cure and how it relates to evolution because any relation is speculation on the part of the scientist and not proof of evolution. I don’t have time to look at it now, but I will respond in more detail later. In the meantime, here’s an idea for you... show me the link.
Can’t do it?
I know... that’s because it’s missing!
I’m curious...do you consider your assertion that teaching evolution delivers children into the “hands of Hell” an example of “reasoned debate”?
Well, if geneticists have said it for years and it has been confirmed by data, it should not be a problem for you to provide a peer-reviewed reference.
"Here is a reference..."
That reference merely repeats the faulty generalization error you committed earlier.
I should have been more precise in asking for a peer-reviewed reference. Not only for the supposed fusion but also for the genes supposedly lining up.
Surely you can do better than that if geneticists have said it for years and it has been confirmed by data.
"Geocentric idiocy duly noted."
What part of "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, Ellis argues. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. do you not understand?
We, 'evos', do not. Only they, 'creas' (the YEC breed) want to interpret Genesis literally. If you are not one of them, then what are we talking about? As for answering the question, yes I did answer, and in a subsequent post we were discussing details.
Carbon dating is based on the rate of radioactive decay. It may be further verified using historical data, but it's not necessary, "doctor".
Exactly the way crevos pi$$ on your leg and tell you it's raining.
Ellis did not have the data showing that the universe is far from symetrical, nor the proof from gravity lensing that far more universe exists out there [in some directions, and not others] than we can observe without 'special tricks' provided by nature itself.
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.