|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Speak your peace
Science à la TF | from exfamily - Sunday, September 09, 2007
accessed 3014 times Kind of a random thread here. I was just reading something on astronomy and something came to mind which I thought was hilarious and infuriating at the same time. Namely, the Family Fun episode where some chick is talking to "Panda" (always hated Panda's voice) about the stars... you know, the one where Panda tries to count them? Anyway there were several episodes wherein they "explored" nature.
So anyway they say that scientists think stars are millions of lightyears away, and they show a "dramatization" of how scientists go about determining a star's distance.
There are two goofy-looking scientists looking through a child's telescope at a star. One guy says something to the extent of "Wow it looks very far; I say it must be X million lightyears away". Then the other scientist looks through at the star and says that it must be at least Y million lightyears away. They decide on a figure, then look sneakily at each other and then at the camera and say "Shhh..." and creep away.
So after making scientists look like a bunch of ignorant fools, they then explain the logic behind their understanding of cosmology.
I think the girl's name was Sarah - either way that's what I'll call her.
So Sarah explains to Panda (in a very patronizing tone) that because we know that God created the earth (and presumably the universe as well) only 6,000 years ago, the stars can't be more than 6,000 lightyears away; therefore the scientists are wrong.
Of course, how obvious!
I find idea that one can disprove a scientific fact using a religious belief less funny now that I write it out. It did make me laugh, but it also makes my blood boil when I think of how TF misrepresents scientific theories that conflict with their beliefs.
Especially, the theory of evolution. If you know anything about the TOE, you should find the The Big Lie letter a real laugh. All they do is create "straw men" which they then destroy - all the while ignoring (or being ignorant of) what TOE actually says and how it is proposed to work.
Then of course the related problem of the age of the universe and Earth, again misrepresenting how scientists operate, how they get their data, how they interpret it, what sort of evidence there is to support the age of the earth/universe, why the scientific community as a whole accepts the general idea, and portray scientists as being part of a conspiracy to turn people away from the Bible (by teaching evolution). |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Dissonant
Monday, September 24, 2007 - 08:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
OMG!! You people are so stupid! Everyone knows that there was no "Creation" or "Evolution", there is only a list of animals and people that Chuck Norris allows to live.
Wow, get with the times people!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Dr.GH
Monday, September 17, 2007 - 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
say, Exfamily is there any chance I could get to read a copy of the "Big Lie" letter that you mentioned?
Among other things I woul like to compare it to Ken Ham's antiscience "The Lie: Evolution."
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |  From exfamily
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 14:41
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Sure. I'd say ALL of it, but if you want some examples here ya go. I'll comment on the first few dumb things to catch my eye:
"THERE IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION! It has to be believed, therefore it's a faith, therefore it's a religion!"
First, there is evidence for evolution. Dogmatic statements like the above carry as much weight as me saying "THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!!!!111". Are we supposed to take his word for it? What about all the evidence that is offered by science for it? Where does he go about debunking that?
"It has to be believed, therefore it's a faith, therefore it's a religion!"
Something believed does not equate to a religion. I believe x will happen at work tomorrow. That doesn't make it a religion.
More pertinently, I may believe - or accept - String theory or any of its variants without it being a religion.
"SO EVOLUTION IS REALLY A RELIGION OF UNBELIEF IN GOD. And that's its whole purpose; To eliminate faith in God and to foster the false doctrine of devils that the creation created itself and God had nothing to do with it, so there doesn't need to be a God--it could have happened without Him! "
Lots of Christians accept the TOE.
"The noted evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, Thomas' grandson, declared in his sermon to the congregation, "EVOLUTION HAD NO ROOM FOR THE SUPERNATURAL."
We can paraphrase that to say "Science does not deal with the supernatural", which is indeed the case. I wonder what his point was.
"AT THE CORE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS THE BIG ASSUMPTION THAT LIFE SOMEHOW AROSE FROM NON-LIFE, that by pure CHANCE the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process -- POOF -- life created itself!"
His understanding of the core concepts of TOE is quite flawed then, because that ISN'T the core of ET. In fact, I don't believe TOE says at all how life came to exist. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember reading about that anywhere.
Abiogenesis deals with that. Evolution is what happens AFTER there is life.
"THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO GOD'S WORD..."
As I was saying, mindless drivel...
"WE NEVER HEARD YET OR THEY NEVER PROVED YET THAT ANY DOG EVER BECAME A CAT OR A CAT A DOG! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs!"
Who said there's supposed to be any cat-dogs? No, no dog became a cat and no cat became a dog. We know. No one said that would happen. Attacking a straw man here.
"Because God created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind. They may vary within their kind or specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!"
Because God said so. Gotcha!
Incidentally, Berg says they may vary "within their kind or specie", but can never "change into another". Well tell me then, what happens when you get variants who over time continue to differ more and more from the original variation. With time and perhaps isolation they may become very different, so much so that because of their attributes they may be classed a different species.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From rainy
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 03:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
That reminds me, what about those stories about scientists putting together the jaw of one kind of monkey, the skull of another, filing the teeth, soaking it in something or other, and calling it...was it Piltdown man? No, that was the one with the skull fragment and piece of femur. Well anyway, were those hoax stories true? If so, was Huxley involved?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Dr.GH
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 14:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Piltdown Hoax was actually very comlpicated. But I have totally run out of energy for today.
Richard Harter has pulled together a lot of material for the TalkOrigins web site.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
The short version is that someone faked some bones and mixed them with some real fossils. From the start there were scientists who questioned the quality of the materials presented. Shortly after they were anounced, the "fossils" were removed from display and people were denied access for further study.
After the death of Sir Arthur Smith Woodward that the fakes were again examined. They had been locked up from about 1931 or '32 until then. In 1953, scientists were able to demonstrate how the fakes had been made. Long before that they considered the Piltdown "fossils" useless because they were totally inconsistant all other discoveries.
Sir Arthur Keith was a big supporter of the legitimicy of the fakes and was seriously humiliated.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From mamma
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 04:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Piltdownman was a calculated hoax that lasted for close to the entire first half of last century - and apparantly only since it was exposed have evolutionists been trying to distance themselves from that event. It would be foolish to think that Piltdownman was not closely inspected by numerous evolutionists during it's 40 years lifetime, where it was hailed as a true intermediary. They say, We didn't do it, it was some foolish amateurs etc.
In regards to many of the other archaeological finds look here:
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch18a.htm
One interesting psychological aspect about much of this is that even though many of these old hoaxes have been discredited long ago, and namely in scientific circles, they still linger in the public consciousness - and I am told even in textbooks sometimes.
Huxley(Thomas)was involved with Haeckel's Monera and the Law of Recapitulation, but now we are back in the 1800s. You can read more about that here, a bit down on the page: http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch22.htm
If those hoax stories were true? Hmmm. True hoaxes alright. In an inflammable environment such as this there really is not much reason to believe these guys were in so-called 'good faith'. They had a long way to go and lots to try to prop up, and here a good creative imagination was priceless. (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 07:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
See, this is what I was referring to when I commented about the way hyperbole is used and an opponent's character and moral integrity is immediately called into question.
You agreed with me emphatically, and yet I don't think you really understood my point.
You seem rather quick to conclude that "numerous evolutionists" were in on this "calculated hoax". Do you really have so little faith in mankind? Must something that could have been the result of simple oversight, inadequate technology, or insufficient data be presented as a conspiracy? Must you really use words like "calculated" and "foolish" to make your point?
A caricaturization of the scientific community does not and should not in any way bolster your statements here.
Unfortunately, hoaxes of this proportion are likewise found among creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html
In addressing your main point, however, allow me to paraphrase you: "The idea that the world was flat was a calculated hoax that lasted for many millenniums - and apparently only since it was discovered to be spherical have scientists been trying to distance themselves from that idea."
Doesn't sound so immoral anymore, does it? In fact, this is precisely what is expected of honest scientists.
Science is supposed to be about what is right, not who is right. The "what is right" position is flexible. It changes as new information becomes available and amputates fondly held yet erroneous notions and ideas in favor of more accurate ones. The "who is right" position is brittle. Original notions and ideas are upheld regardless of their veracity and new information is interpreted to conform with the old.
From all of my research Creationism can far too easily be categorized as the latter. Furthermore, I find it amusing that evolutionists are chided by some creationists for, essentially, not being more dogmatic and for changing their opinions and theories over time.
True science and dogma do not mix. The honest evolutionist must admit that, while the theory of evolution appears to be the best explanation so far, new data may eventually render it obsolete and new theories must be formed.
The creationists have no such luxury. Their stories of life's origins are writ in stone and in their holy books, and new data, regardless of how seemingly contradictory, must be made to fit the original concept.
Now do you understand why I would choose the TOE over Intelligent Design even if evidence were to eventually render the theory of evolution as archaic?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exfamily
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 14:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne'er a truer word was spoken.
Might I also point out, Mamma, that scientists not only accepted it (at first), but were also the ones to discover that it was a hoax. Maybe they decided that a conspiracy involving many tens of thousands of random private citizens who in general had no sinister agenda was not the best idea.
As you may or may not know, science is self-correcting. That means that if substantial evidence is discovered that does not conform to the existing theories, the theories will be modified or replaced if need be. We don't put our fingers in our ears and chant "God dunnit". We can let go of something we thought was true, accept that we were duped, and move on. Can you?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from Dr.GH
Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 14:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I thought it might be easier to just post some stuff by itself and then we could discuss it if anyone wants to do so. Here is a short outline of the first parts of evolutionary theory.
The theory of evolution can be neatly summarized as having just a few key parts; inheritable variation within species, competition within species, natural selection, common descent. Individuals vary which will improve reproductive success for some individuals. This will accumulate across generations and result in new species.
Darwin writing in the 1840s had no idea of how variations could be inherited chemically, but he observed farmers culling herds or artificially selecting for certain traits in plants and animals. The success they had in creating new varieties of crops, which in fact has created new species, lead him to conclude that natural selection could achieve the same results. (The first ever successful genetic theory was actually published about the same time as Darwin's first big book (1849), but it is not known if he ever read it. A copy was in his library).
With the rediscovery of genes in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a number of reasonable people thought that maybe random genetic variation all by itself would produce all the observable variation in life. This was not held by many people or for very long. But evolutionary theory had to merge with genetics in order for either theory to explain the natural world. J.B.S. Haldane, Ronald Fisher, and Julian Huxley (and others) writing in the late 1920s formulated the New Synthesis, or neo-Darwinist theory. This placed the “work” of evolution within populations instead of individuals, and recognized that it was the variation in genes that created individual variation and that changes in the relative frequency of genes across generations lead to the emergence of new species.
But while some things were now simpler to understand, other things were more complex. For example, Darwin was at first content that “positive” selection was all that was needed for evolution. But by observing the elaborate mating displays of birds and fish, he realized that mate selection was also very powerful. (Many conservative people didn’t like the sexual selection stuff because it advanced the position of women). Following neo-Darwinism, population biology now had to consider positive and negative selection pressure as well. These could come in either strong or weak forms and could even act at the same time on the same gene. The improved predictions from the new synthesis made the extra effort worthwhile. The first practical application of the new synthesis was in public health where medical scientists could directly use evolutionary theory to improve vaccination by selectively breeding different viruses, and later by mutating micro organisms to produce new antibiotics.
The diagnosis of genetic disease was also an important early application. This was very significant because the proper scientific understanding of evolution contradicted the Nazi “racial hygiene” programs. In fact, the Nazis held public book burnings, which included all public copies of Darwin’s books found in Germany.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Monday, September 17, 2007, 12:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's always disappointing to me when instead of an intellectual debate that sticks to the subject I find these debates and critiques (not a rebuttal, as mamma calls it) deal more with semantics, self-defense and attacks of the integrity of the opponent.
In my opinion, hyperbole and assumption of an opponent's moral/ethical conduct should never exist in a scientific debate.
That said, the thing that gets me with creationists' arguments is that their underlying assumption is that "All things are possible with God". This, then, negates any hope of falsifiability and discourages critical analysis of seemingly contradictory evidence. After all, if an Intelligent Designer is omnipotent, then anomalies and "miracles" that contradict the laws of nature should be all but expected.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From mamma
Monday, September 17, 2007, 04:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
(Let's see if it works better this time. I don't know what I did wrong.)
Evolutionary theory = common descent = descent with modifications = macro evolution. These are names that more or less describe the same thing.
'Natural selection' is the darwinian mechanism that supposedly facilitates the above. With neo-darwinism you have the assumption of positive mutations together with the natural selection mechanism. (looking a little closer, what the mechanism of natural selection really does [along with the human genome - the human gene], is to PREVENT a specie from changing. But all that and more is explained in some of the material linked to further down)
This is a big subject to get into, and cannot possibly be covered properly in a forum such as this. Neither do I have the possibility to spend hours rebutting - I might take a hike across the Sahara instead. Anyhow, it would only be as sound bites relative to what there is to find. Then again, for social engineering purposes sound bites are very effective. So I guess we will have to choose...
Therefore I recommend that all interested parties look up for themselves what is available on this topic. And there are rather voluminous resources. I naturally recommend informed choices, to know what is being said on BOTH sides. And not to be ignorant of the trickery used to promote and sell ideas, just look at TV commercials - gives you a very good idea. This IS a minefield of sophistry and semantics.
Therefore here below are some websites I have found interesting and would like to recommend. All is free downloads for personal use. I shall make no secret of where I stand. Take no offense.
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm (A good book to start with)
http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm (This is the story about radiohalos in different substances and the implications of that. Written by a nuclear physicist. There has been many tries, but on closer inspection still stands unrefuted today)
http://evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm (Rather long (total abt. 2000 pages but you can select what you find interesting first) and detailed, but very interesting. Much scientific – yes scientific - evidence FOR a young earth and creation. For people who really want to read about it. Be mindful that there are some math errors in the text - often in the conversion tables. Regrettable, but I guess as volunteers the resources are limited).
http://nwcreation.net/booksonline.html (many books, some better than others)
http://www.talkorigins.org/ (On the evolutionist side you have every evolutionists’ bible, TalkOrigins. You find everything here)
--------------------------------------
GK said:
“The theory of evolution can be neatly summarized as having just a few key parts; inheritable variation within species, competition within species, natural selection, common descent. Individuals vary which will improve reproductive success for some individuals. This will accumulate across generations and result in new species.”
‘mamma’: All very well as hypothesis - and as long as observable facts are obscured or kept at a comfortable distance.
All in effort to suggest as self-evident the bottomline - being that transmutation (changes from one species to another) takes place – which really CAN be as simple as a definition. Once a thing is approved as self-evident, no further proof is necessary cause everybody will just know. Those will be the times...
Again - to boil it down to the very basics - what is at the heart of evolutionary theory (ET) is to try to find clues that - aided and abetted by various clever marketing methods - can be construed in such a way to the public as to mean that all life on earth descended from a common fungus by an ‘imaginary warm little pond’. (darwin's words)
Mind you, the first little fungus came miraculously into life only once and as only one cell. This is known as spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis. According to ET, this is where all biological life on this planet descended from and branched out from.
Although Darwin's book was called the 'Origin of Species...' he never dealt with the problem of origin, and evolutionists today do not want to have to deal with that issue. (For the sake of convenience, evolutionists have decided to compartementalize the magic story of abiogenesis to outside evolutionary theory, because otherwise the magic required to fit all the amazing magic pieces in would be too mind boggling and hard to sell as one package.)
As usual, proof for this self evident sequence of events called 'descent with modifications' (ET) is non-existent, therefore out of necessity has to be fabricated and marketed as consumer goods, as has been repeatedly done. But when a theory has achieved status of self-evidence, any fallacious and mind warping argument can and is being used as support it, usually without problems.
F.x. there were dinosaurs, therefore ET is true. There are extinct species, therefore ET is true. Living things have parents, therefore ET is true. Bacteria can become resistant, therefore evolution is true.
Silly? yes, much beyond words. Science? NO
GK said:
“Darwin writing in the 1840s had no idea of how variations could be inherited chemically, but he observed farmers culling herds or artificially selecting for certain traits in plants and animals. The success they had in creating new varieties of crops, which in fact has created new species, lead him to conclude that natural selection could achieve the same results. (The first ever successful genetic theory was actually published about the same time as Darwin's first big book (1849), but it is not known if he ever read it. A copy was in his library).”
‘mamma’: I think it would be silly to think George Mendel's genetic findings in the 1850-60s were not known to Darwin, but they were incompatible with Darwins ideas. Still are. He was more for the Lamarckian ideas of inheriting acquired traits and properties, like f.x. big muscles.
On this issue, Darwin also knew very well about both Wallace and Edward Blyth. It is well worth to note that Darwin beyond reasonable doubt very well may have been a plagiarist, getting his ideas from both Wallace and Edward Blyth, and who may have avoided much scrutiny by acting mentally unstable. See here for some details: http://tinyurl.com/32vk8u
GK said:
“With the rediscovery of genes in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a number of reasonable people thought that maybe random genetic variation all by itself would produce all the observable variation in life. This was not held by many people or for very long. But evolutionary theory had to merge with genetics in order for either theory to explain the natural world. J.B.S. Haldane, Ronald Fisher, and Julian Huxley (and others) writing in the late 1920s formulated the New Synthesis, or neo-Darwinist theory. This placed the “work” of evolution within populations instead of individuals, and recognized that it was the variation in genes that created individual variation and that changes in the relative frequency of genes across generations lead to the emergence of new species.”
'mamma': It is very true that with neo-darwinism the required changes were conveniently relocated to mystical unknown populations on faraway isolated islands hundreds of millions of years ago, rather than in the observable individuals. Still so today. That’s how the theory goes. You understand, the move was absolutely necessary because they had dug for the bigger part of a century without finding ANYTHING in individuals.
Shall we guess that was a smart move, because it was clear that there was no basis for the notion of transmutation in the observable facts at hand (individuals). There was no useful scientific evidence that supported the idea of common descent.
GK said:
“But while some things were now simpler to understand, other things were more complex. For example, Darwin was at first content that “positive” selection was all that was needed for evolution. But by observing the elaborate mating displays of birds and fish, he realized that mate selection was also very powerful. (Many conservative people didn’t like the sexual selection stuff because it advanced the position of women). Following neo-Darwinism, population biology now had to consider positive and negative selection pressure as well. These could come in either strong or weak forms and could even act at the same time on the same gene. The improved predictions from the new synthesis made the extra effort worthwhile. The first practical application of the new synthesis was in public health where medical scientists could directly use evolutionary theory to improve vaccination by selectively breeding different viruses, and later by mutating micro organisms to produce new antibiotics.”
‘mamma’: The vaccination story and allopathic medicine in general is not indisputably neither benevolent nor scientific - being a subsidiary sidekick to evolutionary theory.
GK said:
“The diagnosis of genetic disease was also an important early application. This was very significant because the proper scientific understanding of evolution contradicted the Nazi “racial hygiene” programs. In fact, the Nazis held public book burnings, which included all public copies of Darwin’s books found in Germany. “
‘mamma’: I don’t know from where you gather your information, but you are not the first who wish to look at every biologic and scientific event through evolutionary spectacles – and actually see things.
The Nazi program was a direct result of Darwinian theory by way of Francis Galton, Darwins younger cousin. Social darwinism and the cold mechanics of eugenics was coined and effectuated, and what have you. Perhaps someone burned a book, perhaps it was for public consumption, who knows.
I think that as always with evolutionary theory, we will be forced to rely on an unknown number of assumptions, assumed implications, leaps across abysses and imaginary events. That is assumptions that are beyond scientific enquiry, mysteriously far away and long ago.
But wait and see what the good mr. GK carries to the market next time.
(At my discretion, this may just be a one time post on this issue. To the interested all relevant information is to be found elsewhere, so redundancy may be avoided.)
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Dr.GH
Monday, September 17, 2007, 11:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
“mamma: I think it would be silly to think George Mendel's genetic findings in the 1850-60s were not known to Darwin, but they were incompatible with Darwins ideas. Still are. He was more for the Lamarckian ideas of inheriting acquired traits and properties, like f.x. big muscles.”
Gregor (not “George”) Mendel read his paper, "Experiments on Plant Hybridization," at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865, and it was not in print until 1866 where it appeared in “Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn.” (Get your dates correct). This was more than six years after Darwin had published his “Origin of Species.” As can happen, most everyone thought he was wrong. Mendel’s work was not likely to have influenced Darwin at all. We do know that there was a copy of the 1866 paper in Darwin’s personal library. However, Darwin had a habit of making many notes in the margins of papers and frequently underlining passages. As I recall only the title of Mendel’s paper had been underlined. Some historians of biology think this indicated that Darwin had intended to read the paper, but might not have done so.
Of course, Mendel was correct in his major genetic conclusions while Darwin was wrong about how inheritance of traits happened. It was the addition of Mendel’s genetics to Darwin’s evolutionary theory that resulted in the new synthesis, or neoDarwinism, as I have mentioned earlier. There have been two equally great improvements since that time; the discovery of DNA/RNA, and the recent discovery of HOX genes and the consequent advancement of evolutionary developmental biology.
“mamma: On this issue, Darwin also knew very well about both Wallace and Edward Blyth. It is well worth to note that Darwin beyond reasonable doubt very well may have been a plagiarist, getting his ideas from both Wallace and Edward Blyth, and who may have avoided much scrutiny by acting mentally unstable.”
“mamma” your history is a messed up as your science. First, yes Darwin was very familiar with Wallace and Blyth- he corresponded in letters with both of them. But how could Darwin have plagerized Edward Blyth, since Blyth insisted that variation within species was mere individual responce to climate or nutrition? Further, Blyth was strongly denying that these individual variations could lead to new species. Darwin could not have “plagerized” Blyth’s ideas because they were in total disagreement. Weirdly, many creationists can only fixate on the use of similar phrases while they are totally ignorant of what the authors are actually saying.
Two quotes from the writing of Blyth demonstrate this. The first is from “An Attempt to Classify the 'Varieties' of Animals with Observations on the Marked Seasonal and Other Changes Which Naturally Take Place in Various British Species, and Which Do Not Constitute Varieties” (The Magazine of Natural History Vol. 8, No. 1. January, 1835. pp.40-53.)
“The same law, therefore, which was intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can be easily converted by man into a means of raising different varieties; but it is also clear that, if man did not keep up these breeds by regulating the sexual intercourse, they would all naturally soon revert to the original type.”
The second quote more directly addresses the speciation and common descent question.
“May not, then, a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from a common parentage?
I would briefly despatch this interrogatory, as able writers have often taken the subject in hand. It is, moreover, foreign to the professed object of this paper. There are many phenomena which tend, in no small degree, to favour the supposition, and none more so than what I have termed the localising principle, which must occasion, to a great extent, what is called "breeding in and in," and, therefore, the transmission of individual peculiarities. We have seen, however, the extreme difficulties which most species have to encounter when occurring beyond the sphere of their adaptations; difficulties which must require human aid, in general, to render surmountable. But, without re-entering into the details of this subject, it will be sufficiently clear to all who consider the matter, that, were this self-adapting system to prevail to any extent, we should in vain seek for those constant and invariable distinctions which are found to obtain. ( from “Psychological Distinctions Between Man and Other Animals - Part 4 “ Edward Blyth (The Magazine of Natural History Vol. 10. 1837)”
It is obvious that creationists making these sorts of bogus arguments have rarely (if ever) read Darwin’s work. For example, in his sixth edition of “Origin of Species” he writes a “Historical Sketch” in which he acknowledged and gave due credit to two earlier scientists for the notion of Natural Selection. Dr. William Charles Wells presented a paper to the Royal Society in 1813, published in 1818, where he proposed natural selection as a feature of human development which Darwin thought was the first clearly argued example. He also credited the idea that species were not immutable to a number of prior authors (including his grandfather). But he gave special acknowledgment to Professor Grant of the University of Edinburgh (1826, 1834) and Mr. Patrick Matthew (1831). Of Matthew, Darwin wrote, “The differences of Mr. Matthew’s view from mine are not of much importance...”
Darwin is even more gracious to Wallace in his Introduction writing that he had, “... arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species.” Darwin read Wallace’s 1858 manuscript that Wallace had sent directly to Darwin. Wallace had asked Darwin for his advice and Darwin forwarded the paper to Sir Charles Lyell, and Dr. Hooker. These leading scientists of the time had already read Darwin’s manuscript on evolution written fifteen years earlier and had been nagging Darwin to publish. They now felt that Wallace deserved a share in the discovery and so at the next meeting of the Linnean Society two papers were read to the meeting by the president- the one by Wallace and one by Darwin.
“mamma’s” weird comment about “mentally unstable” should be commented on but I am left speachless.(reply to this comment) |
| | From mamma
Monday, September 17, 2007, 03:50
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Evolutionary theory = common descent = descent with modifications = macro evolution. These are names that more or less describe the same thing.
'Natural selection' is the darwinian mechanism that supposedly facilitates the above. With neo-darwinism you have the assumption of positive mutations together with the natural selection mechanism. (looking a little closer, what the mechanism of natural selection really does [along with the human genome - the human gene], is to PREVENT a specie from changing. But all that and more is explained in some of the material linked to further down)
This is a big subject to get into, and cannot possibly be covered properly in a forum such as this. Neither do I have the possibility to spend hours rebutting - I might take a hike across the Sahara instead. Anyhow, it would only be as sound bites relative to what there is to find. Then again, for social engineering purposes sound bites are very effective. So I guess we will have to choose...
Therefore I recommend that all interested parties look up for themselves what is available on this topic. And there are rather voluminous resources. I naturally recommend informed choices, to know what is being said on BOTH sides. And not to be ignorant of the trickery used to promote and sell ideas, just look at TV commercials - gives you a very good idea. This IS a minefield of sophistry and semantics.
Therefore here below are some websites I have found interesting and would like to recommend. All is free downloads for personal use. I shall make no secret of where I stand. Take no offense.
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm (A good book to start with)
http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm (This is the story about radiohalos in different substances and the implications of that. Written by a nuclear physicist. There has been many tries, but on closer inspection still stands unrefuted today)
http://evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm (Rather long (total abt. 2000 pages but you can select what you find interesting first) and detailed, but very interesting. Much scientific – yes scientific - evidence FOR a young earth and creation. For people who really want to read about it. Be mindful that there are some math errors in the text - often in the conversion tables. Regrettable, but I guess as volunteers the resources are limited).
http://nwcreation.net/booksonline.html (many books, some better than others)
http://www.talkorigins.org/ (On the evolutionist side you have every evolutionists’ bible, TalkOrigins. You find everything here)
--------------------------------------
GK said:
Mamma: All very well as hypothesis - and as long as observable facts are obscured or kept at a comfortable distance.
All in effort to suggest as self-evident the bottomline - being that transmutation (changes from one species to another) takes place – which really CAN be as simple as a definition. Once a thing is approved as self-evident, no further proof is necessary cause everybody will just know. Those will be the times...
Again - to boil it down to the very basics - what is at the heart of evolutionary theory (ET) is to try to find clues that - aided and abetted by various clever marketing methods - can be construed in such a way to the public as to mean that all life on earth descended from a common fungus by an ‘imaginary warm little pond’. (darwin's words)
Mind you, the first little fungus came miraculously into life only once and as only one cell. This is known as spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis. According to ET, this is where all biological life on this planet descended from and branched out from.
Although Darwin's book was called the 'Origin of Species...' he never dealt with the problem of origin, and evolutionists today do not want to have to deal with that issue. (For the sake of convenience, evolutionists have decided to compartementalize the magic story of abiogenesis to outside evolutionary theory, because otherwise the magic required to fit all the amazing magic pieces in would be too mind boggling and hard to sell as one package.)
As usual, proof for this self evident sequence of events called 'descent with modifications' (ET) is non-existent, therefore out of necessity has to be fabricated and marketed as consumer goods, as has been repeatedly done. But when a theory has achieved status of self-evidence, any fallacious and mind warping argument can and is being used as support it, usually without problems.
F.x. there were dinosaurs, therefore ET is true. There are extinct species, therefore ET is true. Living things have parents, therefore ET is true. Bacteria can become resistant, therefore evolution is true.
Silly? yes, much beyond words. Science? NO
GK said:
I think it would be silly to think George Mendel's genetic findings in the 1850-60s were not known to Darwin, but they were incompatible with Darwins ideas. Still are. He was more for the Lamarckian ideas of inheriting acquired traits and properties, like f.x. big muscles.
On this issue, Darwin also knew very well about both Wallace and Edward Blyth. It is well worth to note that Darwin beyond reasonable doubt very well may have been a plagiarist, getting his ideas from both Wallace and Edward Blyth, and who may have avoided much scrutiny by acting mentally unstable. See here for some details: http://tinyurl.com/32vk8u
GK said:
It is very true that with neo-darwinism the required changes were conveniently relocated to mystical unknown populations on faraway isolated islands hundreds of millions of years ago, rather than in the observable individuals. Still so today. That’s how the theory goes. You understand, the move was absolutely necessary because they had dug for the bigger part of a century without finding ANYTHING in individuals.
Shall we guess that was a smart move, because it was clear that there was no basis for the notion of transmutation in the observable facts at hand (individuals). There was no useful scientific evidence that supported the idea of common descent.
GK said:
The vaccination story and allopathic medicine in general is not indisputably neither benevolent nor scientific - being a subsidiary sidekick to evolutionary theory.
GK said
I don’t know from where you gather your information, but you are not the first who wish to look at every biological and scientific event through evolutionary spectacles – and actually imagine things.
The Nazi program was a direct result of Darwinian theory by way of Francis Galton, Darwins younger cousin. Social darwinism and the cold mechanics of eugenics was coined and effectuated, and what have you. Perhaps someone burned a book, perhaps it was for public consumption, who knows.
I think that as always with evolutionary theory, we will be forced to rely on an unknown number of assumptions, assumed implications, leaps across abysses and imaginary events. That is assumptions that are beyond scientific enquiry, mysteriously far away and long ago.
But wait and see what the good mr. GK carries to the market next time.
(At my discretion, this may just be a one time post on this issue. To the interested all relevant information is to be found elsewhere, so redundancy may be avoided.)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Scratch
Sunday, September 16, 2007, 23:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
The diagnosis of genetic disease was also an important early application. This was very significant because the proper scientific understanding of evolution contradicted the Nazi “racial hygiene” programs.
In fact, the Nazis held public book burnings, which included all public copies of Darwin’s books found in Germany.
Sorry, could you please provide a website-link or booktitle
to support your latter claim?
By the way, why do you think admired Hitler Houston Stewart
Chamberlain?Were Haeckel's books burned (Social Darwinism)?
I am puzzled by your claim & frankly, so far I don't believe it until I see your evidence ("In fact").Thanks!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Dr.GH
Monday, September 17, 2007, 07:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Both Darwin and Häckel's books were burned.
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (saüberung).
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)
Take a look at E. Dennert's "At the Deathbed of Darwinism" Germany 1904
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/21019
Chamberlain was an anti-Semite first and formost, a religiously motivated bias unrelated to any science. His "racialism" was derived from the writing of Arthur de Gobineau. Gobineau, a French noble and diplomat, founded 'scientific racialism' with his book Essai sur l'Inégalité des Races Humaines (An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races), which was published 1853 to 1855, before Charles Darwin published Origin of Species, and long before he published The Descent of Man. Early in the series, Vol I, chapter 11, "Les différences ethniques sont permantes" ("The ethnic differences are permanent"), Gobineau wrote that "Adam is the originator of our white species," and that creatures not part of the white race are not part of the white species. Gobineau operates with three major races (or species in his incorrect useage) of humans: the white, the black, and the yellow. The white race compriced (according Gobineau) the three major divisions of humans mentioned in Genesis 10: Semites, Japhetites, and Hamites, and de Gobineau argues against the idea that Hamites should be black. This was an echo of another religious "theory of race" popular particularly among Christian slave owners. Called "preAdamism" it argued that Blacks were not even human having been created in Genesis Day 6 before the creation of Adam.
The 1936 Nazi Party recommended reading list on human heredity, (Rassenkunde: Eine Auswahl des wichtigsten Scrifttums aus dem Gebit der Rassenkunde, Vererbungslehre, Rassenpflege und Bevölkerunspolitik) mentioned only two non-German authors: American Madison Grant's "Passing of the Great Race" (translated into German in 1925, and French Arthur Comte de Gobineau's "The Inequality of Human Races(1853-1855)." Gobineau had a strong influence on Grant's work and was very influencial with all German, American, and British racists for that matter.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Combing through
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 09:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the reply.However it's Haeckel (not Häckel) as unimportant as it may be.
May I remind you, that you made the following claim:
"In fact, the Nazis held public book burnings, which included all public copies of Darwin’s books found in Germany."
Public burnings by the Nazis yes, but including a l l the
public copies of Darwin's books found in Germany?Where did you gather that from?The links you provided, don't really support the "a l l"-issue.I find that claim pretty important (critical), don't you?I did search in the meantime myself (yet to no avail so far, as supporting your claim), as you can see from some pretty interesting links:
http://dangoldfinch.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/joachim-fest-on-hitlers-social-darwinism/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3jvwdl7tr4a4nupt/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/from_darwin_to.html
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:JhZuD0W0AhkJ:cip.uni-trier.de/
~gaier/evolutionversuskreationismus.de/AbstractAnhalt.pdf+Hitler+Darwinism+Darwin&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=de&lr=lang_de&client=opera
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:tBuwBLmYurEJ:home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--antiSemitism.pdf+Darwin+Haeckel+Nazi&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=de&client=opera
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#liste1935
following quote is taken from the link above:
5. As a rule it is recommended to retain a copy of even the nost dangerous books in the poison cabinets of the large city and university libraries, pending the coming altercation with the "Asphalt" literati and the Marxists.. 6. Technically, the cleansing should be done in stages. New acquisitions should be depended upon to fill the resulting gaps with German literature.
7. Books that are blocked from check-out can practically be divided into three groups:
Group 1 is to be destroyed (Auto da fé), e.g. Remarque
Group 2 goes into the poison cabinet (e.g. Lenin)
Group 3 contains dubious cases requiring future assessment as to whether they belong to group 1 or group 2 (e.g. Traven).
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_verbrannten_Bücher_1933
(The list doesn't include any works of Darwin and Haeckel)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_verbotener_Autoren_während_der_Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus
(no mention of Darwin and Haeckel)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bücherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Häckel
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS
http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/BibWeb/LiDat.acgi?ID=64338
(A.G.Bell and eugenics)
http://eddriscoll.com/archives/009453.php
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp#r10
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Dr.GH
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 09:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting sources. Thanks. I hope to look at them more carefully later.
Note that the works of Darwin are specifically targeted for removal from public in the 1935 directive. If a few copies were retained for "restricted" access that is not "public" access. It was the invariable practice to hold a public book burning as a sort of festival or rite of all banned books. I considered this to be common knowledge.
As a minor note, Haeckel is merely the English gloss of the German "Häckel."
Some very well researched books on the Nazi Holocaust that I strongly recommend are;
Lifton, Robert Jay,
1986 "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide." New York: Basic Books Inc.
Nicosia, Francis R., Jonathan Huener
2002 "Medicine and Medical Ethics in Nazi Germany" New York: Berghahn Books
Proctor, Robert N.
1988 "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" Boston:Harvard University Press.
Proctor's book is the best I have read, but the recent anthology by Nicosia and Huener is a good overview.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Germ-free
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 08:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
You wrote:
"As a minor note, Haeckel is merely the English gloss of the German "Häckel."
It's really a minor note & that's why there was no rush to reply to you & also I couldn't before, however things were evident to me from the beginning.
Although I am no expert in the history/etymology of words & their diacritics, diphtongs & digraphs, I happen to know for sure that you're wrong on that one, just from looking up the links & own old German dictionaries (and judging by my memory).
The following are excerpts from my links:
"Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (* 16. Februar 1834 in Potsdam; † 9. August 1919 in Jena) war ein deutscher Zoologe, Philosoph und Freidenker, der die Arbeiten von Charles Darwin in Deutschland bekannt machte und zu einer speziellen Abstammungslehre des Menschen ausbaute.
Thomas Junker1 and Uwe Hoßfeld 2
1) Fakultät für Biologie, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Sigwartstraße 20, D-72074 Tübingen, Germany
(2) Institut für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft und Technik, Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Berggasse 7, D-07745 Jena, Germany
Abstract The Synthetic Theory of Evolution (SyntheticDarwinism) was forged between 1925 and 1950.Several historians of science have pointed outthat this synthesis was a joint venture ofSoviet, German, American and Britishbiologists: A fascinating example of scientificcooperation, considering the fact that theevolutionary synthesis emerged during thedecades in which these countries were engagedin fierce political, military and ideologicalconflicts. The ideological background of itsAnglo-American representatives has beenanalyzed in the literature. We have examinedthe scientific work and ideological commitmentsof the German Darwinians during the ThirdReich. We based our analysis on four criteria:1) General attitude towards the Third Reich. 2) Membership in the NSDAP and other nationalsocialist organizations. Endorsement anddisapproval of the state ideology in 3) scientific and 4) other publications. We willmainly discuss the various authors that havecontributed to Die Evolution derOrganismen (1943), a collection thatrepresented the evolutionary synthesis inGermany. Most of the authors promoted eugenicideas, but not all of them adopted the racistinterpretation of the Third Reich. Anotherfinding is that there existed no directconnection between party membership andpromotion of the state ideology.
Rudolf von Sebottendorff
(1875-1945?), founder of the Thule Society, did list a one “Ernst Häckel” as a member
of his group, but distinguished this individual from “Ernst Haeckel, Professor in Jena.”
The Thule Society Ernst Häckel, a painter, also lived in Jena at this time. He wrote a
few letters to Ernst Haeckel, “the professor,” and these letters have been preserved in
the archives of Ernst-Haeckel Haus. The designation of the professor and zoologist
Haeckel as member of the Thule Society is, thus, a pure artefact. "
Of course you pronounce Haeckel as Häckel, but as you can see, it can lead to confusion & mix ups; probably those were not one and the same person.But it does matter, what name is written in the birth certificate & any legal papers and that's where I had to "fuss": Why write Häckel (not every keyboard renders easily the diacritics), which is the wrong way, when Haeckel is the right one & easy on most "latin" keyboards.I admit, that my links were a bit lengthy in contents & much, but you reacted then too quick.Dutch & Danish by the way don't have those typical German diacritcs.Haeckel could be an old northern German way to render the name.
As for the "Rutgers"-link:Is there any doubt, that dissenting Christians were persecuted by the Nazis?
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/non-jewishvictims.htm
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/Lucaire.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/booksnazis/Book_Reviews_Nazis_Nazi_Germany_Hitler_Fascism_Holocaust.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/content/articles/2005/01/20/holocaust_memorial_other_victims_feature.shtml
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from thatata
Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:08
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Science. What does that do? I havent read this Dawkins guy, but I feel his soul is a paltry thing. The theory of evoultion is not needed for atheism or agnosticism, unless youre a scientific bean counter. Sorry, I may be talking like an idiot, but I think this science might be just for those obssesive people who wanna count there shit draw up a chart, and sigh with educated pride and pleasure! Yeah we're so smart!
Sorry for being an idiot and mabye even pretentious, but we are foremost men, not scientists, before Reality, or "God", or Buddha, or the Mind.
And who cares!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From thatata
Thursday, September 13, 2007, 15:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well I could reply to you like an idiot and say Im not good at computers, and it would be true. But that ain't the thing, is it? Its about progress isn't it? And what is "progress" ? The tribal people lived sustainably, and so what is progress, Im not especially into protecting the environment, being that Im a careless fuck, so how... what am I saying?:
Belief in progress is a doctrine of idlers and Belgians*. It is the individual relying upon his neighbours to do his work.
There cannot be any Progress (true progress, that is to say, moral) except within the individual and by the individual himself.
But the world is composed of people who can think only in common, in the herd. Like the Societes belges.
There are also people who can only take their pleasures in a flock. The true hero takes his pleasure alone.
- Charles Baudelaire
* Im not sure why the Belgians, were taken into consideration, but thats Baudelaire.
Oh well, I feel Im making a fool of myself, so might as well do it more:
A Dandy does nothing. Can you imagine a dandy addressing the common herd, except to make game of them.
And more dribble and not mine even:
There are but three beings worthy of respect: the priest, the warrior and the poet. To know, to kill and to create.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, September 13, 2007, 22:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
You should be. I know someone once said quotation was the only serviceable substitute for wit. I don't know where the fineprint got lost, but it would have read "witless quotation is a fine substitute for ignorant speech".
Not that I lack respect for that particular opium breathing syphilis suffering modernist poet. I just think the analogy of priest and "to know" shallow, and rather contrary to Baudelaire's personal beliefs.
Some good quotes from Baudelaire;
God is the only being who, in order to reign, doesn't even need to exist.
A priest is an immense being because he makes the crowd believe astonishing things.
It would be difficult for me not to conclude that the most perfect type of masculine beauty is Satan, as portrayed by Milton.
It is the hour to be drunken! So as not to be the martyred slaves of time, be drunk without ceasing. On wine, on poetry, or on virtue, as you wish.
As a small child, I felt in my heart two contradictory feelings, the horror of life and the ecstasy of life.
I love Wagner, but the music I prefer is that of a cat hung up by its tail outside a window and trying to stick to the panes of glass with its claws.
I think he and I could have been great friends.............At least I'm certain he would have appreciated Metal.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Friday, September 14, 2007, 03:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I like your comment, its been awhile since Ive been stung by someones higher intellect and scathing wit. And just to prove YOUR point, I will quote,"Im not witty and thats why I talk too much."
You see even the placing of this quotation is not very good, and the quote is not even very witty, and whats worse its not even a quotation but a paraphrase of a quotation.
But about that Baudelaire quotation, its a true quotation, its from his intimate journals, and I dont think he would have any problems with, saying what he did, he was full of contradictions.
Was he a Christian, a Satanist, or a realist? I tend to think he was lucid and therefore a bit twisted, he saw the need for the sacred as well as the vile, he saw the need for crime.
By the way ever read the story called "The Bad Glazier" in Baudelaires Parisian Prowler also called Paris Spleen, I like that.(reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, 01:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh well, it seems someone, found the need to give me the thumbs down. And for what? giving Oddman the benefit of the doubt? For asking questions that he seemingly cant answer? Thanks asshole!
Well, being that I havent got any answers, I will rethink. Oddman your use of quotation seems to be hypocritical, I could take it as irony(I could), but it seems to be more bragging. Thanks asshole again. So here we go:
" I just think the analogy of priest "and to know" shallow, and rather contrary to Baudelaires personal beliefs" Sure think what you want, except that he really did say that.
" I think he and I could have been good friends.................... at least Im certain he would have appreciated Heavy Metal" See, what I mean? Go right ahead and enjoy your fantasys about a dead misanthropic poet.
And thank you Odd, you have enlightened me.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Fish
Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 07:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
We are here, that’s all that matters. Why should we be so concerned how we got here? Personally, I believe we are the discarded playthings of The Old Ones, as revealed to the racist prophet H.P. Lovecraft.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/At_the_Mountains_of_Madness
"Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!"
(reply to this comment)
| from Dr.GH
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 19:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hello. I was just told about this thread about evolution.
Before I make a lot of posts, I'd like to tell you a little about my background. I am not the child of a family of god household. I do recall meeting some family members back in the 1970s at music concerts around southern California. I was a student then at the University of California, Irvine. I earned my Ph. D. from UCI in 1976. I taught at a lot of different places such as the Medical College of Georgia, and the Ottis Art Institute. I became involved with the creationism versus science debate while I was a director of a natural history museum.
I won't be able to comment until Friday afternoon, or Saturday morning because I have several obligation to attend to first. But I hope to be able to clear up some misunderstandings about both science and Christian (and earlier) scriptures.
Gary
(reply to this comment)
| From JohnnieWalker
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 23:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're not exactly welcome on here. This website is a community of those who were born and/or raised in the COG/TF. If you absolutely HAVE to have a place to spout of, feel free to do so on the NewDayNews or exFamily websites, but not here.
You're welcome to put your contacts up here in case someone is interested in contacting you on the subject. But coming on here to "clear up misunderstandings" for us on a subject not related to this website--that's just plain bad netiquette.
Thanks, but no thanks.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Thursday, September 13, 2007, 06:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
My issue is that it's bad netiquette to show up on a site you know little about and only have a cursory interest in and attempt to teach people about their misunderstandings -- particularly so on an issue that has been debated to no conclusion by those educated far more than he or anyone involved in this discussion here have been.
I, for one, would actually be interested in what he has to say, and if he wants to hang around for a while, get to know the site a little and then talk about what he knows, great. But his credential-flashing intro is, in my opinion, just a little too intrusive at this point.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Dr.GH
Friday, September 14, 2007, 09:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
The reason that I mentioned my background was merely to indicate that I have studied the sciences seriously and for many years. I mentioned two very different places that I taught to indicate that various formal institutions have reviewed me and my work and felt it was OK to have me teach.
My comment about "misunderstandings" was, I see now, easily seen as overbearing. Sorry. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, September 13, 2007, 07:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
The way I figure, this site is for its members to discusss, argue, vent and debate - if we want a scholarly opinion, we all know how to Google for it - so what I'm more interested in is why this guy is so interested in our opinions or what we think? I mean, there have got to be other forums where he can engage with a larger and more relevant population, so why pick this one? Just because of a passing interaction some 30 years ago? I'm not convinced...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from origins of religion-a lecture
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 06:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/DL.html
(reply to this comment)
| from Phoenixkidd
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 10:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't want to believe the stars are thousands of light years away! I want the probability of other life and aliens to be much closer--*Sigh*
(reply to this comment)
| from rainy
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 03:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is actually my latest obesession. Seems I'm working through things one at a time, and at the moment I'm up to science. Never gave it much thought, as a child because it was uncomfortable constantly to have how we're right and everyone else is wrong shoved down my throat, I was never very good with that. And after leaving because there was so much other stuff...social skills and finding my own morals and trying to stay alive, etc. But now, it's time for science. And realising the depth of intelligence and ethics of scientists, logically it shouldn't be a surprise, but it is all the same because of the constant brainwashing such as you've mentioned above. Incidentally, those mad scientists were two good friends of mine, great Aussie boys always up for a laugh and putting on a skit. But I hadn't thought of the effect of that clip on a little learning mind. The Family may have made some changes where it had to for legal reasons, but their just as backward as ever, and still depriving the children of education as much as ever. That's abuse that should also be illegal. It's like growing up Amish.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from DeeJay
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 01:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Besides of course the fact that assuming the earth is only 6,000 years old, light from the stars could have been travelling toward this location long before the creation of earth. Gosh the simplest things that I never even thought of when growing up.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From thatata
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 14:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, can you tell us something new? Are you so clever or you got a bunch of links, dear doctor, I know you're so clever, what you got?Mr doctor scientist what does it mean to live? Or do I offend your sensibilities? You ugly tinkler, no Im kidding, am I?(reply to this comment) |
| | from Big Sister
Monday, September 10, 2007 - 17:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
This subject reminds me of the time my family (husband, kids and I) visited my sister in TF. My sister and her kids invited us to a picnic at a state park where there was a geology exhibit and explanations of the age of the solar system and of the earth.
While my family was looking at the exhibit my ten year old daughter looked up to see my sister and her children standing in the next room, laughing and pointing at us. When they noticed us, they laughed louder. So my daughter, who knows that my sister's kids don't go to school asked me, "That's weird. Doesn't your sister know that it's rude to laugh at people? We learned that in second grade."
Later my sister explained that they laughed because they felt sorry for us because we don't know the special secrets that The Family knows.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Big Sister
Monday, September 10, 2007, 23:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
You misunderstand. My sister doesn't need help or sources of information! She has no interest in arguments, logic, or facts. After having been in the cult for all of her adult life my sister's ability to evaluate facts and think logically is pretty much gone. My sister believes what she has been told to believe. In return for accepting TF's take on creation my sister gets to be part of an elite army personally lead by Jesus. THAT is what she believes in.
Thanks for the links. Perhaps my sister will end up leaving TF to join different cult!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Monday, September 10, 2007, 20:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just for fun, read the FAQ on creation again and replace "God" with "Zeus" or "Horus" or any mythological god of your choice. Having done that, you might get an idea of an atheist's perspective on the creations story.
The level of cognitive dissonance demonstrated there is also rather amusing. They can say with ease that, "circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something" but fail to realize that they do the same thing with their magic book (The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is the Word of God).(reply to this comment) |
| | from afflick
Monday, September 10, 2007 - 14:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
The girl's name is "Crystal".
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Lemmiwinks
Monday, September 10, 2007 - 13:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think the science bashing that goes on in TF is unique to them as a group. It's widespread among most, if not all, fundamentalist Christians. When a person really understands TOE, all the pre-scientific cosmology in the Bible collapses. Once that cosmology collapses, the metaphysical rationale for salvation comes into question. The need to be saved from sin (death & decay) is directly linked by the apostle Paul to Genesis cosmology, which posits the notion of a perfect physical state of creation that fell through human action. TOE posits the notion that death and decay are part and parcel of an elegant model, i.e., adaptation and survival of the fittest. If that is the case--as seems fairly evident--then what's to save? The evolutionary system is always self-correcting. Death and decay inevitably lead to new life forms. Problem is, an egocentric human species presumes itself to be the pinnacle of a perfect created order. TOE says, probably not--you're just another successful species, like dinosaurs. And who died on the cross for them?
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel
Monday, September 10, 2007, 18:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's not science bashing, it's exploring an alternate theory. It would be a good idea to do that, seeing as how TOE as it is goes against observable science and several rules of science (ex. cell theory). If you want to believe that God created a little fish out of nothing, that turned into a tadpole and proceeded down the Evolutionary process, I can understand that. I don't agree with it, but to me it makes a lot more sense than saying that life can evolve from non-life. Do I have to be worried now that my TV is going take on a life of its own and make prank calls to my neighbors while I'm at work? Maybe life evolving from non-life might not be so bad though if my vaccum cleaner could come to life and start vaccuming the house on its own. Wood planks don't evolve into desks on their own, so why should mud, matter, gases, or anything for that matter come together on their own to form a little fish? THAT is what Evolutionists have to prove. Yeah, I can look at a museum exhibit and see the similarities between tadpoles and reptiles, or between reptiles and monkeys. What that does not show me is how something as small and miniscule as a little fish could have possibly evolved from nothing, without being formed by a creator. It just doesn't happen.
Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying "Evolution has been observed, it just hasn't been observed while it was happening." I disagree. Just because the supposed effects of Evolution have been observed does not provide proof for Dawkins' Anti-Theistic take on Evolution. (reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 12:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Dear Samuel,
It's about that time. Every six months or so you expose some area of thinking that you haven't quite thought through and the education of Samuel begins. I think the last one was your once seriously backward understanding on gays. Thankfully you came a long way on that. Now it is time to re-examine your understanding of basic scientific procedures approaches theories and conclusions. As you should be aware. Although there is a small minority of world class scientists out there who believe in God, there are none who do not accept evolution. I am aware of some Christian funded universities which will give advanced degrees and nice salaries to those who will commit their lives to arguing against it. But even the small number of world class scientists who believe in God, will tell you these people are not committed to a serious unbiased scientific exploration of the facts. They are from the outset completely invested in trying to fight the overwhelming evidence. At this point their only argument left is simply "the God of the gaps". That is to say they find an area that science has not fully explained, or found incontrovertible evidence concerning, and stake everything on it only being possible with God creating it. When this hole is filled by further research they jump to the next. Since we are likely never to attain perfect knowledge (and become God) there will always be something to point to. If you look at the gaps over time though the older arguments presented as gaps look silly, as they all do over time. Tell me Samuel would you be disappointed if evolution were proved to your mind to be true? Would it hurt your faith? If so you must be extra careful to acknowledge your bias and research with a serious effort to not allow it to affect your conclusions.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From steam
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 06:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are you seeking answers? Because the evidence would take (and does take) many books to lay out. However, just to mention an area you might not be aware of. Even though the fossil record is overwhelming in and of itself, the strongest proof is in looking at the genetic code of living creatures, and they are able to extrapolate the points of mutation and approximate time line etc. Please start with "the blind watchmaker" and then "an ancestors a tale' to get a feel for things.(reply to this comment) |
| | From mamma
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 06:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Kind of seeking answers, one might say.
Fossilrecord - the short version:
The 'overwhelming' fossilrecord is no evidence for anything to support evolutionary theory (ET), let alone proves anything to that effect.
Why do you think we have neo-darwinism, Richard Golschmidt and saltation theories and more? The answer is: No fossils to support evolutionary theory.
Look at it critically now, not through evolutionary spectacles.
If anything, and look closely now, the fossilrecord, from the Cambrian explosion and onwards, supports an instant creation.
How's that? All creatures (species) found in the fossilrecord first appear as they are today, or they are extinct species. In other words - there is NO evidence for mutational change that can support the change necessary for ET. Paleontologists know this.
The genetic code: Well, as it is it could mean two things. 1) Common ancestral mold (ET)
2) Common creator
As the situation stands, no extrapolations or other guesswork and speculations can - and I say so as from a scientic definition of science - qualify as scientific. Thus it can only be classified as a hypothesis - and furthermore - if maintained without proper scientific backing - must be further reclassified to myth and dogma.
I challenge you to look at it squarely. Forget about TF and spurious science in this context.
There has over time been much dispute about these definitions.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Dr.GH
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 16:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mamma wrote, “Fossilrecord - the short version:
The 'overwhelming' fossilrecord is no evidence for anything to support evolutionary theory (ET), let alone proves anything to that effect. Why do you think we have neo-darwinism, Richard Golschmidt and saltation theories and more? The answer is: No fossils to support evolutionary theory.”
(Neo Darwinism was the combination of population genetics and classic Darwinian theory. It had nothing to do with fossils. Saltation was the notion that massive positive mutations were common and would/should sweep through a population. It was wrong. It had little to do with fossil interpretation.)
The first thing that the discovery of fossils in the 1700s did to biblical literalism was to show that many more kinds of animals existed than had been imagined. And then it was realized that there were extinct animals that could never have lived at the same time as species alive today. Many years later as more was learned about both geology and fossils, we realized that the ancient extinct animals were organized in terms of their presence over large parts of the earth. For example, lower in the geological record there was a time with no land animals with bones. There were insects and mollusks but no boney animals. It was discovered by study of the legs and pevic bones that the dinosaurs were not reptiles, and that there was a period before the dinosaurs when the majority of all land animals were reptiles. Before that there was a long period when the majority of land animals were amphibians. Imagine a 10 foot long salamander. Even earlier there was a long time where there were no boney animals of any kind and the largest life were the giant nautiluses.
Actually there is no fossil data at all that contradicts evolutionary theory.
Mamma wrote, “If anything, and look closely now, the fossil record, from the Cambrian explosion and onwards, supports an instant creation.”
The Cambrian “explosion” took over 60 million years, and was preceeded by an even longer development of complex life recently discovered called the Ediacaran. Life in the Ediacaran was very simple by todays standards, lacking any bone and had very few hard parts of any sort. All indications point to a physical lack of disolved calcium carbonate in the oceans. Calcium carbonate is the chemical that all life today uses to make the hard mineral parts of shell or bone. Chemicals similar to our fingernails, or the external skeleton of insects did exist then but very few organism seemed to use it.
Mamma wrote, “How's that? All creatures (species) found in the fossil record first appear as they are today, or they are extinct species. In other words - there is NO evidence for mutational change that can support the change necessary for ET. Paleontologists know this.”
This is simplely not true, and No, paleontologists do not “know this.” If you were to try to assign a plant or an animal to a species you would quickly learn that there are considerable amounts of variation within species. Individuals vary according to their health, age, and geographic habitat. Consequently, paleontologists are very conservative about writing new species descriptions generally allowing for there to be a huge amount of variation. (Plus it is a pain in the neck to write up a new species description). Steve Gould took this even further and argued that the rate of evolutionary change varied within species with long periods of stability mixed with short bursts of rapid change. Some of the things he and his allies wrote in the early 1970s were merely wrong. But they are recycled by creationists to claim that there was “sudden appearance” or “no transitional fossils.” These are false statements which Gould spent years refuting.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From steam
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 07:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
The common creator does not explain the genetics. You see mutations and dead ends all over the gene's things that are starts in one direction and then cut off. You see stuff that is not active in humans but is so in other animals and vice versa. They follow trees and evolution very well, and they make no sense for a instant creation of everything separately. (reply to this comment) |
| | From mamma
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Take a good hard look. Implications, implications!!! What does the genetic thing REALLY mean?
You have to apply inductive reasoning instead of deductive. You cannot reach specific conclusions based on general directions.
The 'tree of life' hypothesis is a thought experiment with precious little meat on the bones. The only thing observable are the outer branches. There never was anything else in history.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Unfortunately I can't tell you because I wasn't there at the time! :)
The Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) It speaks of a wisdom that God destined for his glory before time began (1 Corinthians 2:7), and the glory and majesty that is due to God since before all time, and now, and forver (Jude 1:25). One interpretation is that God exists in timeless eternity, meaning he exists outside of time. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect. All things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would always have existed.
There is another interpretation is a bit more complicated, and says that God exists in multiple dimensions of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted by time as well as cause and effect. But two dimensions of time form a plane of time, and a plane of time has no beginning and no single direction. Get it? Since a plane of time has no starting point, a being that exists in at least two dimensions can travel anywhere in time and never have had a beginning.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Lemmiwinks
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whatever it is that evolutionists have to prove or disprove, at least they can set up explanatory models and test hypotheses. This is not the case with the Genesis (or any other theistic) account of creation.
The point of my post was not to argue about the validity of TOE, but to point out that once a person understands and accepts it (with or without a Creator as part of the equation) Pauline soteriology starts to fall apart. Do you intend to totally avoid the issue I raised about the relationship between the pre-scientific cosmology found in Genesis and a soteriology grounded in Aristotlian metaphysics?
Did the dinosaurs go extinct because God wasn't willing to suffer and die for them? What scientific evidence is there for the argument that homo sapiens are the omega point of all life forms?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Lemmiwinks
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 07:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here's a link to a pdf that talks about testing hypothetical models that each attempt to explain the origin of species in a common ancestor. The article presumes the reader has a basic understanding of scientific method, which involves constructing measures for observations and testing these constructs with statistical models. What's interesting about this article is that among the three competing hypotheses, it sets forth an analytic model for Intelligent Design.
awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Penny_et_al_2003.pdf (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Lemmiwinks
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 13:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mamma: seeing how you got to where you are in life as a cult leader by sleeping your way to the top, I wouldn't expect you to see much of substance in anything, least of all an article on how to do theoretical biology. One thing you're missing is that the theoretical modeling of mountains of data in evolutionary biology has been quite robust--meaning, it stands up to a lot of scruitiny and explains a lot of things that other models, such as Intelligent Design, do not.
The way science works, people put TOE models together in a logical sequence of measurements and tests, then run the math to see how well they predict or explain certain sets of conditions and outputs. After that, other scientists do a critical analysis of the study design, the math, the methods, and the findings. Science advances when peers review what other researchers have done in order to expose the flaws. This is largely what gives people who work outside of science--fundamentalist Christians, for example--all sorts of information that they think disproves a theoretical model in evolutionary biology. Advancing scientific knowledge also involves what the researcher says and does in defense of his/her study. Lots of times a researcher will correct flaws and limitations in the original study and provide even stronger evidence through subsequent studies. Scientific consensus on a proposition does not occur because someone says, "Because I said so."
The author is suggesting how an individual MIGHT do something similar to test the theory of Intelligent Design. As far as I know, no one has actually attempted to do it, because people who promote Intelligent Design are not usually scientists, or at least not researchers who do the tedious work of taking measurements and constructing mathematical models. Researchers have tested hypotheses for the two other models discussed in the paper in various ways. And yes, there are problems with the explanatory and predictive capabilities of these other models, but these problems do not disprove the theoretical model--they simply point out the limitations of the current research.
When proponents of Intelligent Design talk about their theory, they talk about how their ideas are supported by the limitations and problems that arise from testing hypotheses based in TOE. "Scientists" who promote Intelligent Design are not known to be researchers make rigorous observations, set up testable hypotheses, do the math, and then defend their work before a panel of peers. Proponents of Intelligent Design use limitations associated TOE models to "prove" their untested hypotheses about origin of species through argumentation (rhetoric). This approach is quite different than predicting or explaining a set of observations using scientific method. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From exfamily
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 15:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
What the fuck?? Have you examined any evidence at all? Here, let me point you to some:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/index.html
And perhaps you'd like to take a look at this very informative court case here. Read the proceedings, you may learn something:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
And you can see Ken Miller in this entertaining and informative lecture over on youtube. Watch it, and you WILL learn something:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Also, why are you not picking on other theories? Why evolution? Is it because you don't like its implications? Are you in a position to authoritatively comment on it?
Incidentally, evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Fact, because it does happen and can be observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Theory, because there is a theory named TOE which explains the bigger picture, assimilating the observable fact of evolution and the rest of the geologic and biologic evidence into one comprehensive theory.(reply to this comment) |
| | From mamma
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 15:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I must admit that was quite a bunch of stuff you handed me there. Since I will not be able to go through all of that, I will need to ask you to be more specific. What exactly - what crucial and decisive evidence do you have in mind?
Or let me ask another way. Point to evidence that does NOT require countless leaps of faith, not to mention a darn good imagination.
By the way, I have previously seen the Ken Miller stuff, and that does not qualify in my book. Try to be objective. KM is emotionally drawing an a priori conclusion based on homologies, or similarities. Similarities can never be /scientific/ evidence.
Yes, you are right, the ToE is designed to try to explain the observable facts. The only problem is, the explanation offered is in theory (common usage) ONLY - and it is not supported by observable facts.
That's the dilemma. ToE is a fact alright, but it is only a fact as a theory.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Alcyonian
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 20:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
When I read statements like this I wonder where the delivery of education is going wrong. Also, whether it is becoming an epidemic in some countries that proper education is not being fully delivered.
However, point by point:
1. What evidence will you accept is a more apt question. More often than not a multitude of information can be put before a person and yet that person has a mental block towards it.
2. Leap of faith in what, exactly? If it is scientific information then it will use scientific methodology, that methodology is structured in such a way that a layperson should be able to follow it.
3. Ken Miller critiques creationist information objectively. What exactly has Miller said that is emotive? Also, Miller is not the sole source, what prevents you from researching over the internet yourself?
4. Theory is not vernacular here, it is scientific in relation to ToE. To even confuse the two is an absolute faux pas in the realm of Science 101. Work out the wording, work out what you actually want and why, and you may get your answers.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 16:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
In such a case, man would then have a something more stable than the theory of evolution, and it would be pointless to continue using an outdated theory.
I think any honest scientist would welcome such proof -- which should say a lot for why no honest scientist has accepted it as such.
If absolute proof of Intelligent Design were forthcoming (e.g. aliens show us blueprints for the universe; God appears and audibly tells the world, "I did it and here's how."), I tend to think science in general would immediately embrace it and man, being the inquisitive creature that he is, would then begin studying and acquiring knowledge about his designer as an entity, the laws under which the universe was designed and what exists outside of that which was created.
So, in essence, even if Intelligent Design WERE proven beyond all doubt science would still continue hypothesizing, theorizing, and analyzing its environment.
I would also venture to say that in such a case, religion would cease to exist, since any knowledge scientifically acquired about a designer would trump any superstition and anthropomorphism. After all, if there is absolute proof of something, it doesn't require faith, which is the backbone of all religion.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exfamily
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 15:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not true. Yes, obviously a theory will make predictions that can be tested, and if the predictions are correct then that is proof for the validity of the theory. I suppose in that sense you could say that a theory can be proven, by the evidence which supports it and the correct predictions it makes.
However it is never "proven" as in "absolutely proven", because we are constantly acquiring new knowledge and sometimes the observations we make don't match the theory's predictions. And since we cannot ever do every single possible experiment to "absolutely prove" the theory, it is correct to say that no theory is proven - it is simply the best current theory that the evidence supports.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From mamma
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 15:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
You say: 'No theory can be "proven", only disproven.'
On that you are not correct.
For one thing, in evolutionary theory context (to use the setting at hand), they have their very own and privileged definitions of terms. The word 'theory' here does not mean what you and I think it means. That way they (?) can conveniently play funny word games with little ignorant you and me. Hope you get the point there.
The other thing: bringing in the focus a little on the effective dynamics, you will see that Evolutionary theory (ET) can NOT be proven a factual sequence of events - NOR can it be falsified. That property alone takes it into metaphysics, makes it a myth - or science so-called.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From mamma
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 15:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
You have well developed a habit of googling I can see. Wikipedia is edited by anyone - which of course does not disqualify it in everything in question.
Again, I am unable to find the conclusive evidence you have in mind on those websites.
If you think I am only making false claims, then there's no point in going on. I wasn't playing word games with you, but was trying to say that this area is a minefield in that respect. (reply to this comment) |
| | From exfamily
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 23:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
True, but Wiki is still a good source of information. All the same, let me find it for you somewhere else:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A918461
Look for the section called The Scientific Method and Truth.
You would do well do develop a habit of googling as well, it would save me from having to google to find links to correct you.
Incidentally, the reason I post links is because it's far easier than writing a huge post, far shorter, and the sites I link to have far more authority than I would have just typing shit out.
I'm not sure what sort of conclusive evidence you were looking for in the previous links. One was to show that a theory is never proven (for which I've now provided you a non-Wiki link), the other was to give you examples of how TOE might be disproven.
I do think you're making false claims. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing against them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Big Sister
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 00:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let's see a bit more of that quote as written on Wikipedia:
"In a December 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Dawkins stated that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Dawkins went on to say, "It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ...Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence.""
And also from Wikipedia:
"Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, secular humanist, and sceptic, and he is a supporter of the Brights movement. In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned advocacy of evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler"."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From fragiletiger
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 16:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Admittedly my grasp of the subject is limited to the discovery channel, but my understanding of biological evolution, is that their very slow changes made over time usually due to environmental influences. I could be wrong, but isn’t it happening? I remember something to the effect that this generation of Japanese are taller, due to milk having been introduced to their diet.
Wouldn’t that count as evolution?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Dr.GH
Monday, September 17, 2007, 12:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are correct, changes in nutrition quality are not immeadiate evolutionary factors. So better medical care, better food- even prenatal- are going to have effects on the way offspring look.
But, look at it from the other side- what if food quality dropped? Then the larger people would be at some disadvantage because they would need more food. They might just use their size to take food away from smaller people, but yopu have to sleep sometime.
What if the amount of food rose and fell dramatically in a cycle? We see that in many natural situations. The interesting result in evolution is that the amount of reproduction (number of offspring per female or fecundity) increases in small animals, while large animals get "small(er)." Very commonly on islands very large animals evolve into small ones. If there are no large animals some small ones can become very large.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Dr.GH
Monday, September 17, 2007, 13:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Japanese live on a series of islands. Their traditional diet was very low in fats. Milk is very high in fats. Fat in a child's diet (plus minerals) adds to growth. All cell membranes in animals are made from fat.
On the other hand, cows are very inefficient. They need a large amount of grass in order to make a small amount of milk and meat. Islands are a poor place to grow cows.
See?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From exfamily
Monday, September 10, 2007, 23:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Alternate theory? A theory must be supported by evidence, and must make observable predictions. What evidence is there for creationism/ID, and what predictions does it make? Also, is it falsifiable? How so? If not, it's not a theory.
I know of nowhere where TOE "goes against" observable science, or rules of science. If you know better, can you please cite some peer-reviewed sources?
(Incidentally, a theory is not a rule, therefore your "cell theory" non-example (since you didn't cite any example) wouldn't be breaking a "rule" of science. I also find it interesting that if the two theories do conflict (which I find doubtful, as no evidence was proffered), you seem to somehow know that the theory at fault is TOE, and not the Cell theory. Why is that? Perhaps your religious bias is showing.)
The rest of your paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This again is one of the mistakes that TF makes - and yes, other Christian fundamentalists. TOE does not say where life came from, that would be abiogenesis; all it does is tell us what happened (and happens) once life is here.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Monday, September 10, 2007, 20:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sam, Sam, Sam.
You obviously didn't read my last comment to you regarding "theory", or you wouldn't be calling this, the believer's take on ID, one. You know, what with theories needing logical self-consistency and all that jive.
And, if it's an intelligent vacuum cleaner you're after, I'd check out the Roomba. Clever little buggers they are, vacuuming the house on their own. I don't see how it's here or there as far as your argument is concerned, though. The Roomba comes with a warranty against defects. Creation, not so much. I'd like to believe, (were I a Christian, that is) that Jehovah would take a little more pride in his work than your more terrestrial sucker-seller. But hey, maybe that's just me and my unreasonably high expectations in a Deity.
I wonder if you've read Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, as he does go into rather exhaustive detail on some of the things you're unclear on. Heck, there's even a little Java program which illustrates things if you're the visual type. Sadly, I suspect that so long as you insist on reaching your conclusions before any evidence is examined, you're not going to "get" Evolution, no matter how lucidly, patiently or repeatedly explained.
Bottom line, even if Jehovah exists exactly as the Bible insists, he's a fucking jerk! Honestly, even if you just want to read just the New Testament it's plain as the nose on an elephant. What kind of father would kill his son for other people breaking rules he himself made, arbitrarily I might add? I mean, what is he, The King of The Medes and The Persians Whose Word May Not Be Changed Even By Himself? (And perhaps more importantly, would the answer to this also answer the age-old question as to whether God could microwave a burrito so hot he himself couldn't eat it? Would it just depend on what he decided first?) Seriously though, why not "For God so loved the world, that he decided to take a couple Xanax and quit obsessing over your Sushi's fin-to-scale ratio for a change"? Oh no! Someone's got to get nailed up somewhere! What a guy!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 05:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I did read your comments, Roughneck. Didn't agree with them, and I still don't. If you know something about ID not being self consistent, please let me know.
No, I have not read Dawkins' book. I lost "The God Delusion" when my computer crashed (I was only about 30% through with it) and am looking online for another copy. I think Creation Scientists and followers of Evolution have been throwing that "you insist on reaching your conclusions before any evidence is examined" back and forth at each other for far too long, and the phrase should be retired.
Now, in answer to your last paragraph, God is perfect and holy. If he allows sin in his prescence, he would not be perfect or holy. God is required to punish sin, there's no way around it. I find it humorous that people will criticize the Old Testament because of all the things God had to do to punish sin, some of which were quite bloody, and then criticize the New Testament because Jesus took the punishment for my sins. Which system is worse? Make up your mind. One way or another, God had to punish sin.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From My Opinion...
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 22:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
"God" doesn't have to "punish sin" anymore than the tooth fairy needs to collect teeth.
This is all just slave morality. Your belief system was created to control you, and it was created COMPLETELY by humans.
No one has ever been appointed by God to tell others what to do. Every person in history who claimed to have "God's secret info" was either a liar or a lunatic.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 21:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I feel this conversation taking a turn for the surreal, yet somehow I can't help indulging. :P
Firstly, I'm honestly curious as to when your oxymoronically named "Christian Scientists" have had the opportunity to use that phrase towards the honest variety, as not making conclusions until the evidence is in is, uh the SCIENTIFIC method and all.
Apparently you lot don't get the fact that in actual science, very few things are ever 100% proven. If new evidence is discovered, honest (that is, usually not Christian) scientists re-evaluate their theories, no matter how rock-solid they may feel personally about them. Questioning, reasoning, critical thinking and examination in depth are all encouraged, hell, required and expected. Contrast this with Religion, Christianity in particular, which punishes the above traits with extreme sanction and instead (merely) demands olympian-league mental backflipping and logic so circular you could hula-hoop with it.
But you know what the real screamer is? You guys really don't even seem to get how you're looking at the question of the question wrong. You approach "science" strictly in terms of "let's find out how God did this" and still wonder why some people think you're asking entirely the wrong things. But tell you what, explain "God" to me in nonmagical terms and I'll revisit my opinion about Intelligent Design, particularly by anyone perfect and/or holy.
Speaking of God being perfect and holy, whyever would you believe that anyway? Because this book you were raised to believe was true told you this was so in the first couple chapters? C'mon. Jehovah, as written in the Bible and by any reasonable standard of behaviour, is obsessive and petty, violent and bloodthirsty in the extreme. If God really was perfect, he couldn't or at least wouldn't have deliberately created an imperfect creation, and you don't have to look far to see where he could have done a better job there. What God's done, according to the Bible anyway, is set up a giant lego set, designated the guys with the black helmets the bad guys, the guys with the white helmets the good guys and decreed that he HAD to punish the black helmets for being as he made them. Pretty damn childish. I'm now bracing myself for the usual prattle about "free will"; please spare me, OK? If God HAS to punish sin, it's because he enjoys the punishing. If he didn't want to *have to* punish sin, a "perfect" and "holy" deity would just *poof* abolish humankind's ability to sin. My guess is that he's just got an itchy smackin' hand and it wouldn't matter how well you behaved, you'd be over Uncle I-Am's knee one way or the other, sin-wise. I'm sure most of us know at least one real-life sadist like this from our childhoods, I know I do.
But you know what? Regarding which Testamental "system" is worse, I really don't have to "make up my mind" as there's no contradiction in the view that Jehovah is profoundly fucked-up in both Testaments.
In closing, I think The Blind Watchmaker is a better place for you to start on Dawkins than The God Delusion. JM2c.(reply to this comment) |
| | From mamma
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 05:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
A couple of points.
Depending on what the particular 'theory' is, scientists usually do not re-evaluate their theory in the face of new evidence. With some things (evidence and observations)are - believe it or not - made to fit in the theory. Other times evidence is treated as something as nice as 'anomalies' never to leave the room thereafter.
You say '...explain "God" to me in nonmagical terms and I'll revisit my opinion about Intelligent Design, particularly by anyone perfect and/or holy.'
You may not realize it, but evolutionary theory is essentially one long scenery of magic events. Think implications now... Is that science? Yes it is very much so - according to some - even if it is never observed or tested. As such, it is beyond falsification.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 19:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yo, mamma! Your first sentence: the ones who don't have jumped the shark right into dogma-town. You did of course notice that I used the adjective "honest" when referring to scientists who re-evaluate their theories when new evidence arises, did you not? But hey, by all means just read the words you want to, and reply accordingly, it's much more fun this way.
And no, no, bloody NO (!), evolutionary theory isn't merely one long series of magical events as you seem to think. There may be things that aren't as yet understood fully, yes, but at least questions are being asked, rather than simply defaulting to the (quite stupid) assumption that Because It Is Written (by people with an agenda, no less), It Must Be So. You see, the one attitude is is consistent with Reason, the other is not. Shame you can't tell which is which, "Mamma".
Oh, and I'm going to have to second the above poster who opined that your nickname is creepy. It is.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 20:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
So Samuel just to get that straight, punishment removes sin? I ask because once Jesus took on all that sin was the punishment what made him clean again? Washed in his own blood of the lamb? Or else Jesus could never again be in Gods presence. But on the other hand Jesus is a major part of God and took upon him the sins of the whole world so holy God did a lot more than have it in his presence he became sin, to remove sin so he would no longer have to be offended by sin because he is so holy. Well I need to read something less upside down inside out. I think I will try Alice in Wonderland.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 05:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
AARRGH! Okay, I thought you would know this stuff, as I did. The Family isn't exactly the best place to learn the Bible or Theology. Anyway, before sin could be forgiven, there had to be a sin offering. Usually this was a lamb. In fact, each year the high priest would sacrifice one lamb for the sins of the nation as a whole. The lamb was without sin, of course, but the sin of the nation, or the sin of the person who offered it, was being forgiven through that offering. This is in essense what Jesus was doing.
Jesus didn't actually sin, but through sacrifice he took away the sins of the world, just like the lambs offered by the high priest took away the sins of the nation.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 06:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
AARRGH! Of course I know the little story. You are forgetting the bible says "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us". Which is what I was referring to. In addition if he did not really take on our sin but merely "ransomed" the sin. Then there is no reason to say suffering is the only way to do it. Maybe he could have offered (Pause, finger to mouth) a few BILLION DOLLARS. I mean really a week of suffering pays for all sins of all eternity? Hell a great many saints have and would be willing to make that kind of deal, those selfless souls. Why am I entering the world of insanity to try to point out the logical errors in a make believe realm? It's like people watching a superhero movie pointing out that "that guy would never react like that" and ignoring the guy flying around as if that were not the bigger issue with reality. Stupid stupid stupid.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Wolf
Monday, September 10, 2007 - 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
The principle of parallax (which tells us the distance to the stars) can be understood by any kid with half a brain. But clearly Berg and his potheads smoked their brains away long before the "revolution" began.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From StringTheory-ex-member
Friday, November 09, 2007, 21:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know what I find so interesting is the fact that no matter how smart the person agueing even a modified version of TOE (for instance Evolution happened but God was at the source of it as cause) that person will not be able to realize by definition, that by even by using the scientific manner in any specific instance they are still contributing ultimately in a significant way to the demise of the older and more primitive emotional intelligence based collective psychological construct known as faith that underlies the very real proof systems of religions worldwide and thus are actually participating themselves in the destruction (yay) of all religion through evolutionary mechanisms. Religion and Science do contradict one another when religious law does not control science, this is inevitable because science is founded on the agnostic stricture of thought (which has VERY good basis in the higher functions of intelligence) which takes "god(s)" out of the picture to a pretty large extent. However when religious law controls science the two work in good harmony (all mental dogmatic filters considered) and their is little social outcry about the whole matter (presuming you are dealing with a nation that accepts this as a whole). The core of the matter is that the older and more primitive proof system known as faith, which is based primarily in the "heart" (the limbic region's more primitive logic) and served to comfort people psycho socially in a very real and semi humane way back when people's lifespans could be quite short (worldwide), is now becoming less necessary and indeed much harder to sustain when people have more tools to perform the experiments of science itself (which rely on higher brain functioning and develop it) and come to the conclusions of the experiments on their own by repeating them or seeing them reasonably and logically following from experiments they themselves have done/repeated.
Knowledge truely is power, but the difference between scientists and religious people in essence is how that power is used ethically. True scientists vew information as essentially truly free whereas the religious view it as property belonging to their god(s) and this "conviction" is proportionate to their scale of general belief (libertine, liberal, moderate, conservative, trad, cultist). This primitive form of intellectual property (cause that is what it is), has it's basis in various sin concepts or kharma concepts or w/e you want to call it. Hence in many religions you have the most obvious form of it, occult knowledge/blasphemy and the resulting social phenomena known as taboo, (which more widely comes from the general concepts of sin/kharma/divinely disapproved bad behavior). Soooo ethically speaking a scientist should find it unethical for himself to keep from a student scientist evidence that disproves even his own hypothesis or theory, whereas a religious person such as a minister or priest will often times not feel compelled to show/discuss theology that has been shown within any form of scripture to positively debunk his own understanding of a particular doctrine because it is far more complicated to the minister, (his convictions about the doctrine, the good it has done, how he thinks god(s) has moved in his life as a result of it and how many people this understanding of this particular doctrine has truly and humanely helped, the implicit "fuzziness" and room to move about as long as you avoid outright heresy), all of whose equivalents do not amount to a hill of beans to a scientist such as a physicist who in finding a better explanation for the phenomenon he is discussing in question with his student, (supposing he has scientist balls and is willing to swallow his pride), will chuck out even a whole lifetime of his theories and hypotheses in favor of the impersonal impartial advancement of science which will as a result (hopefully) be able to benefit ALL PEOPLE, (even international people who are not of that regions predominant religious persuasion).
To a true scientist information is an impartial tool for the good of the species and those species under our "care" whether it is the information conatined in this sentence or the information contained in the atoms that comprise your phonebook or the information that comprises Love.
With a religious person it is quite different. (reply to this comment) |
| | From StringTheory-ex-member
Friday, November 09, 2007, 21:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
With a true scientist/agnostic the balance in life is more towards intellectual honesty (which demands the use of the "traditionally undertood" intelligence faculty), whereas with the believer in religious faith or spirituality of any sort, (so far), the balance has always been to the more emotionally meaningful side of things (even at the cost of intellectual honesty). For example, in the Bible the old testament God commands genocide on numerous occasions from the Israeli people. Now a believer would look at this and automatically find a symbolic understanding of God here which would restore his comfort zone/balance emotionally rather than being intellectually honest and coming to the detached conclusion that the old testament version of god comes across as genocidal.
When it comes to these differences I will merely quote the Oracle from The Matrix. "It's a pickle no doubt about it". :)(reply to this comment) |
| | From StringTheory-ex-member
Friday, November 09, 2007, 22:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's a good thing that religious people of all sorts and faiths cannot get the big picture of my first post because if they could then they would be able to put up some real resistance, (the likes of which I won't suggest here).
By the time they realize that faith and the scientific method are at odds with each other, either science will have conquered or will be close to it and they won't care nearly as much.
That is of course supposing that none of the fanatics out their get their hands on thermonuclear weapons and blow everyone off the map in the name of some god(s) because they feel the subconscious need to fulfill their own apocalyptic armeggedon scenarios of their religion.(reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]