Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate political struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law — as now controlled and defined by anti-God naturalism — has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
Whereas the Founding generation esteemed the Bible and used it to teach their children to read, comprehend and think logically as well as to properly train them in morality and self-discipline, in contemporary America, God, Bible, and moral absolutes have been banned in favor of evolutionary science, atheism, moral relativism, and self-gratification. The still-unfolding consequences of all of this are destructive and terrible, adversely affecting every level of society from the individual to the family, community, and cultural institutions to local and national politics.
In post-Christian America atheist evolutionism is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern thought and experience, especially within the progressive liberal community. Evolution not only undergirds biological and earth sciences, but also Freudian and Jungian psychology, anthropology, law, sociology, politics, economics, the media, arts, medicine, and all other academic disciplines as well.
Evolution-believers range from atheists and scientists to esoteric Free Masonry, Hollywood insiders, occult New Age spiritists, Satanists, powerful Transnational Progressives, and large numbers of people who call themselves Christian. Among this last group are Liberal Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Emergent Church leaders Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, growing numbers of the Evangelical contemporary Church, and an increasingly vocal community of Christian scholars and scientists such as Dennis Venema. Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary science, and as a consequence teach that humans emerged from apes.
Evolutionary naturalism is poisoning and destroying America's traditional foundations, and when the foundations have finally been destroyed, all that is built upon them will be destroyed as well.
Americans have been deceived, and are needful of learning the truth about Darwinism — and all other evolutionary theories, by whatever name they are called.
Evolutionism: Spiritual...not Empirical
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also forthrightly stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism metaphysical (spiritual), but so are its' two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. For this reason, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination.
In other words, all three theories originated in the mind, a power of which is imagination. As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
In Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: "The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason."
The Founding generation knew that mind is a power of soul, and imagination the power by which mind conceives:
2. Imagination: "...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature."
In conclusion, evolutionism is an invention of imagination, an invention more terrible and more destructive than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature. It imagines that God is dead, that life somehow emerged out of nonlife, that man is not created in the spiritual image of God the Father but is rather a soulless, mindless ex-ape of evolution. It imagines there is no sin, no "hell below us, and above us only sky."
Evolutionism is an invention of imagination, and it has taken the post-Christian West by storm.
copyright 2011 Linda Kimball
I'll ask one more time just to make sure you're not intentially avoiding answering the question - HOW MUCH DO THE RESULTS VARY??????
What changed?
So if you previously answered the question about error prone DNA polymerase what other possible answer could you have had other than that in the context of a bacteria under stress “mutations are good”?
Yes, more than 99.9% of all the species that ever existed upon the Earth are now extinct. There is absolutely no evidence that they went extinct due to mutation.
All life is not “devolving”. Nor does “macro” evolution (i.e. speciation and the common descent of species) involve DNA being “completely re-written” - there is after all only a 2% difference in genetic DNA between a chimp and a human - a 2% change in genetic DNA is hardly “completely re-written”.
Do you think a bacteria under stress expresses error prone DNA polymerase in order to increase its rate of “deevolution”? Why would that lead to better survival outcomes?
Does your inability to make any coherent sense of reality in the context of your Creationist views trouble you?
It should.
Great thread and comments.
Seems to be pretty straightforward. If it did not "change", "it" would die, which it does eventually. But to the more immediate concern, the bacteria "adapts". The real question is how it "knows" it is under stress in order to react to the stress.
That sure is a lot of rambling to completely miss the premise.
You can not repeat events from the big bang nor millions nor billions of years ago. It is all conjecture and very loosely based at that. I highly doubt Darwin would continue to stand by his theory today in light of all that we have learned in the past 150 years. No primordial soup! No transitional fossils! Vestigial organs turns out to be a lie! Organs that have outlived their purpose [i.e. appendix] a lie!
Tell me what is it that we truly know about evolution other than small changes within a kind [aka micro-evolution]?
amd said: “Previously almost the entire Christian world thought the Bible indicated that the Earth did not move and that all observable celestial objects (the Sun and the planets) were in orbit around the Earth.
What changed?”
Lazy scientists that liked the heliocentric math and chose to ignore what Einstein said about the math working for both geocentric and heliocentric models. That it is just a question of coordinate systems for either to be a working model. Scientists continued in their laziness and continued the evolution paradigm of ignoring any data that did not agree with their majority opinions as they shoved the Michelson-Morley experiments under the rug.
amd next said: “So if you previously answered the question about error prone DNA polymerase what other possible answer could you have had other than that in the context of a bacteria under stress “mutations are good”?”
Missing the point entirely where I have never yet agreed with the total conjecture that any mutations are good. Here’s a hint for you amd ‘error prone DNA’ implies a stored collection of rejected mutations employed as a survival mechanism when the bacteria are under stress to try to ensure survival no matter what the cost. That is hardly a way to improve upon the original DNA.
2% difference in DNA is not a small enough gap to allow for macro-evolution. Macro-evolution has never been observed. No transitional fossils have ever been found. The vast amount of evidence uncovered in the last 150 years is enough to completely discard the theory that all life evolved from a simple cell!
How is that different from geologists studying strata laid down billions of years ago? Archaeologists studying fossils laid down millions of years ago? Planetary scientists studying images sent to Earth months or years ago?
So you found out that scientists made some hypotheses in the past that have now proved to be wrong. Would you have preferred it if scientists held onto their beliefs forever regardless of the facts? Would you have preferred it if scientists behaved more like you and dismissed all evidence contrary to their preheld biases?
There are scientists then spend years carefully examing rock and/or fossil specimens in dusty basements looking for patterns. There are other scientists that travel to some of the most horrendous places to dig fossils slowly and meticulously out of rock under hot pounding noon day sun or in mosquito infested jungles.
Yes there are lazy scientists, but as a group scientists are not lazy.
Science is not some sort of club where everyone agrees and all dissenters are banned. At any one particular time it may appear this way. However, over time science advances. F=mA is replaced by the Schroedinger wave equation. Conservation of mass becomes conservation of mass-energy, etc. There has even been advancement in geology, archaeology, and other fields impacted by the theory of evolution. Where did punctuated equilibrium come from? It certainly wasn't the consensus in the 1900's.
Pretty much every one of the concerns posed by creationists has been responded to in many places: books, articles, web sites: Polonium halos, xenoliths in lava, gaps in the fossil record, Piltdown Man, variations and errors in radiometric dating, etc. They have all been asked and answered. They have not been ignored.
Some of the questions asked by creationists are so patently absurd that most people working in the relevant fields are too busy to waste the time and energy to dispute them.
Some of the claims have already been disputed. Just because you haven't seen a particular creationist claim demolished doesn't mean it hasn't already been. It only means you need to do a bit more googling.
Error prone DNA polymerase introduces random mutations throughout the genome when the bacteria is replicated.
There isn't anything “stored”. The entire genome - instead of being copied with a DNA polymerase with high fidelity - is instead copied with a DNA polymerase that introduces mutations.
Now why do bacteria HAVE a gene for an error prone DNA polymerase in addition to their high fidelity DNA polymerase and why would it be expressed during high stress?
Does your inability to answer trouble you?
It should.
bkmk
Blithely stated, but the mechanism was there before the chemical insult because the DNA polymerase itself is far removed from the chemical process which kills the cell. Your answer is akin to saying, "a car runs because a spark ignites a air/gasoline mixture", which it does, speaking of the spark.
You’d be best off reading the material for yourself.
The book is “The Young Earth” by (geology PhD) Dr John Morris.
I looked up something for your answer last night, and it involved dating an igneous layer in the Grand Canyon. They used various methods and multiple times per method. The Potassium-Argon decay measurement, taken 6 times, yielded results from 10,000 yrs to 17 million years. Remember, these are in the same layer, which according to uniformitarian assumptions, should all be approx the same age. On the other end of the spectrum of measurements were the lead-lead isotope decay that yielded a 1.16 billion year age.
No use arguing with me over these data, because I didn’t do the tests or write the analysis. Read it for yourself and judge for yourself.
What I can say is that all the measurements were done under the same isotope decay assumptions of uniform rate, initial state, and absence of leaching.
This is his favorite example.
That bacteria under stress mutate rapidly and survive the stress.
I looked up a counteranalysis of this example/experiment and it turns out that the resulting mutated bacteria had actually lost a lot of their previous ability to survive and thrive in “normal” environments.
So, the mutation only provided a temporary survival of the strain, but no long term permanent benefit.
The same place as the "Oort cloud" came from - someone's imagination to explain away evidence that the previous theory didn't hold water. IE, a "theory rescuing device".
I'm going to take exception with your term of "micro-evolution", and I think you'll agree. It's not "evolution" at all. It's simply ADAPTATION, based on information and ability ALREADY IN the creature, and NOT ADDED TO IT.
The "talking points" surrounding it appear to be focused on the argument that whatever fossils are within the same layer would be of the same age, and trying to cast doubt on that assertion by using radiometric dating of the rock.
As I said earlier, volcanos are not nuclear fusion engines. Whatever fossils might be embedded in that layer would have been created relatively concurrent with the volcanic event that created the layer, according to "uniformitarianism" (and Occam's Razor). The elements within the rock were not created by that volcanic event, they were merely deposited there by the event.
Did they do any uranium decay analysis at all?
Sounds to me that you’re not open to looking at evidence that puts doubt on something you’ve already decided.
Thanks for revealing that - I’ll no longer waste time with you.
(dusting off my sandals)
And it sounds to me like you're not open to anyone questioning whether these experiments prove what you've been told they do. You appear to want me to question my beliefs, while having no expectation that you should also question yours. I don't see that working out well.
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.