Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science

CMI ^ | December 1, 2009 | Dave Woetzel

[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...

[BroJoeK]

quoting from post #194 BroJoeK: "“To cite just one example, it is said that human and chimp DNA is something like 98% identical.”

responding in #289 BenKenobi: "This is completely untrue.

BenKenobi quoting link: “When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.” [in other words: 98.6% indentical]

BenKenobi quoting link: “But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.” [=94.6% identical]

BenKenobi: "Do you have any more fables you’d like to peddle?"

What is your problem, pal?
Why are going to insult me for saying "something like 98% identical," when according to your own numbers a more-or-less random comparison produced results of 98.6% using one method and 94.6% using another?

Do you consider the difference between "something like 98% identical" and 98.6% or 94.6% identical scientifically significant? If so, in what way?

Or were you just hoping to distract attention away from the point of my comment in post #194? ;-)

[BenKenobi]

“What is your problem, pal?”

You excised the portion saying that they compared one percent of the total respective genomes.

[SunkenCiv]

That’s rich coming from a group that says every word of scripture is unequivocally allegory.

Really? And what group would that be? You're just here to be offensive, and in fact, that is all you are doing. It is clear that you are merely another troll, operating here with your own agenda.

[Gordon Greene]

“It is clear that you are merely another troll, operating here with your own agenda.”

Have fun with your little theory, there... you need to read a few posts before you throw that one around.

Speaking of reading posts, have you read any of the posts by evos on GGG’s threads? I’ve had the allegory argument with evos more times than I can count... poke your nose under the tent before you make your conclusions and then go slam your brethren.

Now, if you think I’m on a mission to annoy and eventually see the radical wing of the Temple of Darwin dismantled on FR, you would be correct. I don’t mind stating that as an agenda. But my primary focus here is and always has been to support and promote conservatism. How about you? What’s your agenda?

[RFEngineer]

“Religious beliefs that accept creation are mocked, ridiculed, maligned, and regulated.”

Come on.....it’s the “creation science” that is mocked, not religious beliefs.

“Evolution is the best weapon the atheists...”
Stop right there.......you do not qualify your statement, again, you misrepresent - presuming that Evolution equates to atheism.

[jimt]

Men did not write the Bible. To believe that discredits it. Why would you believe any of it if it were written by men?

I'm sorry, men quite obviously wrote the Bible, unless you believe it sprang from a tree or rock printed and bound, or some other miraculous method of appearance.

Believing that does not discredit it. Men have written fine, even divinely inspired works. The Declaration and the Constitution, or the Statute of Religious Freedom, or even The Screwtape Letters.

I would believe it, even written by men, if it accords with what I believe is right and wrong, and what can be learned through prayer and reflection.

[demshateGod]

Men “penned” the Bible, there’s a difference. If it was their thoughts, it’d have no authority. As for what you find believable, that makes you your own god. The constitution or screwtape letters is only divine where their principles match those in God’s Word.

[jimt]

As for what you find believable, that makes you your own god.

I am a long ways from being my own God. I can't even lay claim to being the best human, indeed, I'm far from it.

But when I read things in the Bible like Paul's admonition that it's better not to marry, I strongly question whether that's God's word. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not. I think that's Paul's word, not God's Word.

[GourmetDan]

"You have done absolutely nothing to show that what I have said about chromosomes was false. You took the phrase “putative fusion” from one of the sources and suddenly you have shown it false? Putative doesn't mean false."

This is known as the 'negative proof fallacy'. That is, if your imagination cannot be proven false, then it is true. Once again, fallacy used as 'support' for evolution.

As I posted, 'putatative' means "commonly accepted or supposed or assumed to exist or to have existed". Simply put, it's a belief and beliefs cannot be refuted as you again demonstrate below.

"And coordinate system doesn't explain what force is moving what and how; it just explains the COORDINATES. Quote people about CS’s all you want, it doesn't answer the question about what FORCE is doing the moving."

What do you not understand about "...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..."? You would have to claim that gravity is metaphysical to have a point.

"But thanks for showing the futility of reliance upon flawed scriptural interpretation in lieu of actual scientific discovery. How ludicrous and moronic your arguments are. That is why I like having you ramble on about coordinate systems and the Sun going around the Earth. HILARIOUS!"

Actually, I used to believe in geokineticism over Scripture until I started turning up quotes by knowledgeable people showing the equivalence of the two models under GR. At that point, it became senseless to choose geokineticism over geocentrism any longer.

I actually appreciate your continued focus on the subject as it allows me to reach those who may not have heard. Thanks.

[demshateGod]

After some introductory remarks Paul makes this declaration:

1Cr 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

An apostle is a sent one to proclaim God’s message and the will of God is what’s driving him to write.

That’s the introduction to all that’s going to be said in 1 Corinthians. Then the passage you refer to is in Chapter 7. Look at the closing remarks of that chapter.

1Cr 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

There’s some evidence that Paul is giving his opinion in Chapter 7 but then puts that thought to rest by claiming he has the Spirit of God. Though it is Paul’s opinion, his opinion is shared by God.

But alas, you’re just trying to turn this into a debate on doctrine so these threads will be banished to the religion forum, so they’ll be censored, so Satan’s doctrine of evolution will no longer be challenged on FR.

[allmendream]

If you derive geocentrism as a consequence of the “main tenant” of Einsteins theory; why then was Einstein NOT a geocentrist?

You think you understand relativity better than him?

And “ways of looking at it” STILL doesn't explain what FORCE is doing the moving.

Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun.

There is no force that could move the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.

Simple physics, no wonder it confounds you so.

[GourmetDan]

"If you derive geocentrism as a consequence of the “main tenant” of Einsteins theory;"

Oh, you just misunderstood what was posted again. The 'main tenet' is that "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." You don't 'derive geocentrism' from the "main tenet". You derive the equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism from the "main tenet". Different thing and very difficult for you to understand, apparently.

"...why then was Einstein NOT a geocentrist?"

According to Ellis: "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.”

"You think you understand relativity better than him?"

As Ellis documents above, the choice of model is philosophically-based. It is scientifically irrelevant which model you choose as a philosophical preference; the important thing to remember is that, scientifically, geocentrism is equivalent to geokineticism under GR.

" Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun. There is no force that could move the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless. Simple physics, no wonder it confounds you so."

Again, "...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..."?

You would have to claim that gravity is not physical but metaphysical to have a point.

[allmendream]

The scientific model: Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun.

The GourmetDan model: I will not say what force could possibly move the MASSIVE Sun around the tiny Earth, while leaving the Earth motionless (because there isn't one); but either model is equally valid as a coordinate system- and that is good enough for me to embrace Geocentricism as the SUPERIOR model, because either is equally valid as a coordinate system.

Laughable. The scientific model is superior in that it has a FORCE that can ACCOUNT for the motion, not just an “equally valid” coordinate system.

[jimt]

But alas, you’re just trying to turn this into a debate on doctrine so these threads will be banished to the religion forum, so they’ll be censored, so Satan’s doctrine of evolution will no longer be challenged on FR.

Horsepuckey.

You told me I was setting myself up as God. I gave you one reason for my not believing the Bible is the literal word of God.

I have no reason to want GGG's threads "banished" as I find them highly amusing.

Is it fun to feel persecuted ? You're sure working hard at it by ascribing things to me that are utterly unfounded. Let's forget it. I wouldn't want your crusade against "Satan's doctrine" impeded.

[GourmetDan]

"The scientific model: Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun."

No, that is what you don't understand. That is philosophical as attested by the statements from Ellis.

"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

" The GourmetDan model: I will not say what force could possibly move the MASSIVE Sun around the tiny Earth, while leaving the Earth motionless (because there isn't one); but either model is equally valid as a coordinate system- and that is good enough for me to embrace Geocentricism as the SUPERIOR model, because either is equally valid as a coordinate system."

I explained this to you as long ago as 2008.

"Laughable. The scientific model is superior in that it has a FORCE that can ACCOUNT for the motion, not just an “equally valid” coordinate system."

Again, “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..."

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

Again, re-read Ellis' quote above. The contention that geokineticism is 'scientific' is simply wrong. It is philosophical.

[allmendream]

What you do not understand is that Ellis’s statements about coordinate systems in no way contradicts the simple fact that.....

GRAVITY MOVES THE EARTH AROUND THE SUN.

Models to explain the motion do not explain what is the CAUSE of the motion.

In your model, what is CAUSING the motion?

No answer? More garbage you don't even understand about coordinate systems... OK. Rinse and repeat.

[sodpoodle]

Just rec’d. this text message:

*Now wasn’t that fun?

Merry Christmas FReepers.

God*

[GourmetDan]

"What you do not understand is that Ellis’s statements about coordinate systems in no way contradicts the simple fact that..... GRAVITY MOVES THE EARTH AROUND THE SUN."

What you don't understand about Ellis' statements is that you cannot say that scientifically. You are making a philosophical statement.

" Models to explain the motion do not explain what is the CAUSE of the motion. In your model, what is CAUSING the motion? No answer? More garbage you don't even understand about coordinate systems... OK. Rinse and repeat."

Here's a second post where I explained this to you as far back as 2008.

Heliocentrism always ignores the rest of the universe while geocentrism always includes it. Your example above shows how the rest of the universe is ignored by focusing on the sun/earth CG.

Consider that the solar system is a mere point when compared to the universe. Then consider that it does not take much gravitational imbalance in the universe to move the CG from somewhere inside the sun (for heliocentrism) to inside the earth (for geocentrism).

This is what Ernst Mach understood under classical physics and what Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis understood under GR.

[allmendream]

There is nothing philosophical about the gravitational force of attraction between the mass of the Sun and the mass of the Earth.

There is nothing philosophical about the orbital acceleration that this force causes upon the Earth.

There is no known force that could move the MASSIVE Sun around the tiny Earth, while leaving the Earth motionless.

The “rest of the universe” could not produce a gravitational force that would move the Sun around the Earth and leave the Earth motionless. The physics just doesn't work. F=m*a.

Einstein was NOT a Geocentrist, no matter how many times you throw out his name in support of your asinine model.

[GourmetDan]

"There is nothing philosophical about the gravitational force of attraction between the mass of the Sun and the mass of the Earth. There is nothing philosophical about the orbital acceleration that this force causes upon the Earth. There is no known force that could move the MASSIVE Sun around the tiny Earth, while leaving the Earth motionless."

As explained previously, the philosophy is in your decision to ignore the gravity of the rest of the universe and your focus on the earth-sun CG. Your statements simply demonstrate that you don't understand the issue, the model or the physics.

"The “rest of the universe” could not produce a gravitational force that would move the Sun around the Earth and leave the Earth motionless. The physics just doesn't work. F=m*a."

This is what you don't understand, yet Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis did, hence their statements that I have posted.

"Einstein was NOT a Geocentrist, no matter how many times you throw out his name in support of your asinine model."

Again, I never said Einstein was a geocentrist. Your assertion that the geocentric model is asinine is purely philosophical. As I have posted many times, Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis all recognize the scientific equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR. Your philosophical opinion is just that, your opinion.