Checking in...
Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
1) Darwin was the original gradualist. He flirted a little with catastrophism and scenarios that look a bit like punctuated equilibrium but that was mostly a later refinement by Gould and Eldridge. Darwin spent a lot of time wondering why things didn't look like an unbroken continuum everywhere. He's out of date in that regard, but you're not much ahead of him. He has the excuse that he's been dead since the 1880s.
2) The "plants first" model is just about dead, whether or not you think the first animals came out of RNA World. If you don't know that RNA World is, I wouldn't be too surprised.
You don't seriously believe that mankind has been around 2+billion years do you?
Mama (Bohr) warned us not to attempt to visualize the particle/wave phenomenon. Doing so will lead you astray.
LOL! Too late. I visualize everything. I may or may not put words to it, however.
find it interesting that some are castigating physicists for not getting their minds around "immateriality", while physicists are the only ones actually able to, because it takes math to deal with the formalisms of QM. Deep down there are no particals and no waves, only the immaterial formalism. Of ciurse, QM could be wrong, but it would be wrong at a very high level.
In my view, scientists are too quick to shy a path because "there may be dragons there." Starting with the prejudice that all explanations must be material is shortsighted. If I had my way, there would be much more emphasis on differential geometry.
balrog666: "You don't seriously believe that mankind has been around 2+billion years do you?"
Remember, this is from the guy with a 3.8 GPA who posted this charming bit:
Darwin_is_passe: "I'm not one of those people who think the earth is 6,000 years old, but I think until we have proof that the earth is 20 billion years old we shouldn't assume it."
Spelling isn't your only problem, bucko. I hope you don't work with ebola.
The folks who brought us QM and string theory do not shy away from dragons. There have never been bigger dragons in the history of thought. Someone needs another horse to ride. The shy one's been rode hard and put away wet.
I keep trying to get the inferrers of design to put their inferences to the test, but so far I don't have much luck in getting anyone to play. I'm not sure why, since the claim that we can (reliably, of course) infer design by examining things may be the only testable hypothesis yet produced by ID theory. It seems to me that if ID were to demonstrate that one could reliably - and soundly, naturally - infer design in any arbitrary object or structure, it would do a great deal for ID in terms of promoting its acceptance as valid science. You'd think they'd be jumping at the chance to demonstrate such claims.
But perhaps Diamond just hasn't checked back in yet - hopefully he (she?) will take me up on my offer.
Of course there's not.
Even prominent evolutionists have admitted this.
A theory in science NEVER becomes a “law” no matter how much evidence is accumulated.
If it did I'd make vaccines on a hunch and give them to millions of people, and then if I found out later that it wasn't protective people would sue my ass off.
Ever hear of rotating “cocktails” for aids patients as the virus keeps mutating?
And even so, it was still a finch! It didn't become a lizard.
Evolution does not claim this.
The fact is radiological dating is an inexact science at best. I'm not one of those people who think the earth is 6,000 years old, but I think until we have proof that the earth is 20 billion years old we shouldn't assume it.
The evidence points to the entire universe younger than 20 billion years. It also points to our own earth's age at being near 4.66 billion years.
You may want to take a basic astronomy, geology, and physics course or two before posting such drivel.
Indeed, quantum mechanics and string theory was a bold move into the mysterious.
Years ago, the implication of a Big Bang (a beginning of time) was such a "dragons be there" issue that even Einstein kluged a cosmological constant to avoid it. Of course, later he withdrew that idea.
But even today, to avoid the implication of a beginning we are offered an assortment of multi-universe theories. I don’t object to the theories – except the ones that base the alternate universes on the physical laws of this one. It’s presumptuous per se and doesn’t resolve the anthropic principle. It is also ideology, the necessary conclusion of metaphysical naturalism.
There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe “fine-tuned” for our existence.
Checking in...
Would any of these quotes happen to be in context?
Sure, here's the context:
"Only and idiot would assert there is no fossil evidence for evolution."
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.