For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:
Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
Again I say, if you're really serious about putting religion on an equal footing with evolution in schools, the religion you choose has to be the RIGHT one, i.e. a religion AS stupid as evolution, and the only two which are even close are voodoo and rastifari. Rastifari would be my own choice since it would work in a sort of a natural way with certain kinds of team teaching situations. I.e. a biology teacher looking for a way to put 30 reasonably bright teenagers into the right frame of mind to be indoctrinated into something as stupid as evolutionism, could walk across the hall to the rasta class for a box of spliffs...
That's wrong and the best case for seeing the problem with it is probably the fruit fly experiments. Fruit flies produce new generations every few days and experiments were conducted over many years in the first part of the 20'th century which amounted to subjecting large numbers of fruit flies to everything known which causes mutations and then deliberately recombining the mutations, i.e. a process which should have speeded up evolution millions of times to the extent that evolution was possible. All they ever got was what the breeders told Chuck Darwin was all he would ever get, which was sterile individuals and individuals which returned, boomarang-like, to the norm for a fruit fly,
All they ever got was fruit flies; no spiders, ants, wasps, butterflies, or anything else but fruit flies. A number of the scientists involved in the experiments gave up on evolution as a result, the most famous case being that of Goldschmidt.
The Evols have no answer for this so they don't want to talk about it. I've brought it up before but it's always ignored. Some science.
I don't believe it is possible that the Bible predicted that a Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and be presented as King of the Jews in 32 AD, (and hundreds more fulfilled prophesies) and then right exactly on time a man named Jesus shows up, born in exactly the right city, in exactly the right time-frame, who then goes on to be the most remarkable human being that ever lived, whose teachings were so profound and moral that the world sets time based on His birthday, just by coincidence.
Again, please read my note # 332, and grasp the argument I make there before responding.
There are myriads of reliable observations that point towards the process of evolution -- no one of them or even three of them can constitute a "proof," but taken together they fairly compel the theory. That's been the state of affairs since Darwin published Origins -- if he hadn't published someone else would have because there were dozens of people thinking along the same lines. Check out Alfred Wallace, for example.
Junior's compiled a pretty good bibliography at Ultimate Creationism vs Evolution Resource
Whutever. Newtonian gravitation requires the universe to operate under Galilean transformation; relativistic gravitation requires Lorentzian transformation. I suppose they're consistent, i.e. equivalent, in a massless universe where nothing's moving, but that sounds kind of boring to me.
For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:
I'm sorry, I must not be understanding what point you're trying to communicate here. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can I ask for more clarification?
Are you saying you believe that species who evolve to adapt to their changing environment will be sterile?
If so, I read the evidence very differntly than you do.
I disagree.
Science seeks explanations.
'Science' is just a method. You can use the scientific method to seek explanations for any kind of phenomenon.
It doesn't care about 'natural' v. 'supernatural'.
Again, if a supernatural event were to happen in front of millions of witnesses, science would not deny the event happened. There would be 'scientific evidence' of the 'supernatural' event.
Do you believe the 'fruit fly' experiment means that species do not adapt to their surroundings?
Never even glance at it anymore, it is so propagandized.
This kind of talk, specifically, is what has attracted me to this debate.
You do believe species evolve to adapt to their changing environment. You agree with Darwin.
Yet you disparage him and his theory.
I do not think you're saying what you mean to say. Your disagreement is not with Darwin. You *agree* with Darwin.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
This is a bald-faced lie on your part. NO reputable Bible scholars agree with that.
Christians believe the HOLY SPIRIT wrote all of Scripture. If you attribute Scripture to human writing, then you are not a Christian, and if your belief is correct, that the Holy Scriptures were written by men and are not accurate, then they are not "Holy", and any discussion of any religion is completely baseless and pointless.
You & I will find out on Judgement Day if your assesment of the Bible is correct. If you are right and I am wrong, then nothing in this life ultimately mattered. If I am right and you are wrong, you have much to be afraid of.
That's really too bad, if true. As a conservative, it upsets me when conservatives adopt an anti-intellectual stance. Most biologists are apolitical, and the general acceptance of evolution is as logical as the accpetance of general relativity in the physics community.
As for your "curiosity" about my intellectual wherewithal, it simply irritates. My words speak for themselves. Conversely, you want us to essentially take your word for it and, again, that won't fly here.
You think we should take the opinion of a person with no documented knowledge or experience in the field with the same seriousness as one who's spent a lifetime studying it? Do you use that logic when choosing a plumber?
There are some 300,000 identified species with new species being found daily, yet there are at best a handful of transitional forms, all controversial. Where are the myriad missing transitional forms?
If we took all of the birds in the US, for example, and did a census on numbers, we'd find huge numbers of house sparrows and dickcissels and starlings and house finches, and almost no loons, for example. There are about 1000 birds on the US list. In a sample of a thousand birds drawn randomly for the US population of all birds, it is likely that 99.9% of those species would be absent. So a loon, which seems to have some primitive characteristics in common with avian ancestors, would go undetected; while climax species like house-sparrows would be highly represented.
I'm glad you didn't tell me there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, BTW. Creationists often say this, and it's nuts.
2. Why do species sometimes exhibit great stability over millions of years, not change?
Hang on, later on you say mutations are always deleterious. If mutations are always deleterious, then of course natural selection will cause species stabilty. You can't have it both ways.
If a species is well adapted to a comparatively stable envronment, why would it evolve quickly? It will undergo genetic drift, and that's documented.
Explain the Cambrian Explosion. (If you come back with Punk Eek, I will say you and Gould are speculating.)
You'll have to tell me what you want explained.
What is the mechanism driving evolution? Just for the record, mutation is destructive and has never been shown to create new species.
Since you claim to be well-informed on this issue, I have to tell you you just told a lie. There are thousands of demonstrable favorable mutations; bacterial antibiotic resistance is an example of same, as is the development of the human immune response. The fact you yourself can develop immunity to new diseases is because of massive mutagenesis in your immune cell line during your early development. That's demonstrated beyond a doubt; go pick up any modern immunology text. If those mutations hadn't occurred, you'd be bubble boy.
Never, anywhere, anytime. Chance is a wholly unscientific, ludicrous, anti-scientific argument.
Literally millions of scientists disagree. Who gets to decide what's scientific? Thoise who do it, or kibitzers with more attitude than knowledge?
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.