Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
So that means that none of what he's posted was posted. From your post 488 to this thread:
That, my dear, would be a fool's errand. For the "opposition" — doctrinaire Darwinists — evidently has no case. At least not one that they have systematically presented here. At least, not so far. It's just been piles and piles of "rant" and debating "'tricks" so far....
Or is the out that his posts weren't "systematic" enough?
Does that make it untrustworthy? If not, then why not?
[[Some opinions are worth more than others.]]
True- but hteir opinions don’t constitute scientific fact hwen they go beyond the scientific evidence, which his belief in common descent certainly does.
[[I’m not aware of anyone in the ID movement who denies the evidence for common descent.]]
There are plenty- you just haven’t looked hard enough apparently.
[[But more important than who testifies is how they frame their arguments. The same argument that identifies criminals and identifies relatives in custody cases confirms common descent.]]
As I mentioned, it makes connections- this in no way implies common descent unless you are inferrign that common descent ONLY applies to individual species and not itner-species- the fingerprint linking the glass cup to the criminal only shows connection- not common descent- the DNA test that shows the son to be a father’s kin only shows connection between two like kinds- what it doesn’t show is a common descent between that boy, the father, and some gorrilla, or gecko, or hwatever you want to beleive we descended from.
Since that "blow-up," I tend not to read Ich anymore. This was a few years back, and so I have to conjure those experiences from memory. But to the best of my recollection, I can't say I understand what Ich actually thinks. Usually he would post a raft of links, and direct us to go do our homework. And then evidently, we were supposed to just magically "see the light!!!"
I just don't think that's a very useful debating technique. I want to hear from him, not from his "expert list."
The same reasonining that connects parent to child and cousins to each other also connects cousin species.
By the way, even creationists like Ken Ham accept common descent of species to the level of biological Family. That’s what’s taught at the Creation Museum.
Didn’t we once have a discussion about whether canids were descended from a single pair on Noah’s Ark?
My fowls, which well enough,
I, as before, found feeding at their trough
Their yoted wheat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thought you had gifted us with a new term -- but I don't see how it applies here:
"That quoting of Heinlein is lightweight, beyond goofy and into bizarre yote, about about as bizarre as some of your other fetishes."...
[[Yes; I’ve noticed that some of our evo correspondents like to change the subject a lot.... It almost seems a favored tactic — that, and the ad hominum attack.]]
It’s a tactic employed by chuildren who are caught in something- they try to quickly change hte subject- thinking htey are beign sneaky, and that hte grownups will forget about the central issue- when that doesn’t work, they resort to anger and name calling and blameshifting- Just got to wait it out, and htne readdress the central issue again until they fess up.
[[Nowadays, however, science is increasingly thought to be an “elite” enterprise, conducted by accredited professionals who are not in any way accountable to the public.]]
Bingo- the elitist snobbery is quite appalling really- We see it here quite often- and it’s a form of ‘quiet shouting down’ of hte opposition- when that doesn’t work, the conversation devolve into character assissinations- but in the end, their scientific ‘evidence’ is threadbare and useless for supporting hteir claims- all that puffed up huffing and snobbish elitist ‘scientific’ panting for nothing.
[[But to the best of my recollection, I can’t say I understand what Ich actually thinks. Usually he would post a raft of links, and direct us to go do our homework. And then evidently, we were supposed to just magically “see the light!!!”]]
And we WOULD go and do the ‘homework’ and we’d discover the serious flaws in the claims being made, come back and present htem, and He’d break into insults, then leave and head back to his other site where he could be corralled by likemined individuals who would pamper him and his coddle his ideological belifs and tell him everything’s ok, then he’d show up again a few months later and pull the same stunts again. Sorry- Not impressed with Ichy and the asumptive rife ‘expert links’ he pointed us to.
[[By the way, even creationists like Ken Ham accept common descent of species to the level of biological Family. That’s what’s taught at the Creation Museum.]]
Your trying to infalte MICROEvolution into something it’s not- I;’ll have to address this further later as I have to leave for a bit- but for now, suffice it to say that MICROEvolution is a FAR different issue than MACROEvolution- for which htere is no evidence to support- Behe beleives in MACROEvolution- you’re confusing hte two issues here.
Gumlegs: Perhaps one day you’ll learn the difference between “explain” and “assert.”
CottShop: I EXPLAINED to you that Amino acids do not form protiens- I explained to you that the forces needed to create amino acids would destroy the very thing it ‘created’, I also explained to you that dna can not survive on it’s own-
Simply inserting the word "explain" into a sentence doesn't make it an explanation ... or was Lincoln wrong when he said, "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one"?
You assert, you don't explain.
But we already knew that.
I'll comment on one more of your paragraphs:
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.
Pretty nifty stuff.
You're asserting that someone, somewhere has performed experiments and made observations that prove -- prove! -- the impossiblilty of something having happened sometime in the distant past.
The people running these experiments and making these observations should be famous by now because they have proved a negative!
Again, you cite "mathematical calculations of probability" but don't provide any.
Anyone claiming to use mathematics to calculate the probability of the first cell forming shouldn't be wasting his/her time with the Theory of Evolution, that person should getting rich in Las Vegas! Calculating the next roll of the dice should be child's play for someone with mathematical tools so advanced. Think of it: they're claiming to calculate the probability of rolling a six using an unknown number of dice with an unknown number of faces in an unknown number of passes.
You also make the mistake of conflating the Theory of Evolution with the beginning of life, a subject the TOE specifically excludes. For someone who "DEMANDS" accuracy ... oh, never mind.
Which when humored leads to, "You don't expect me to read all that do you? You're just spamming the thread!"
Heads you win; tails I lose.
I suppose the fact that there is disagreement over it suggests that some people consider it untrustworthy, at least in part. You subscribe to one philosophy of mathematics over another. Does that mean you consider some mathematics to be more "trustworthy" than others?
I have no problem wuth that definition, except that it doesn't really make any difference to the methodology of science. Unless you have some alternative methodology in mind. I keep asking and waiting.
Where?
Indeed. And deeply troubling, again on Bohr's view.
Niels Bohr, the father of the Copenhagen School of quantum mechanics, was a major contributor to the development of nuclear physics. He saw where that could lead: Tremendous power for good or ill, in the hands of man. (Read: the scientists.) He recognized the propensity of science to say, "If something can be done, it should be done." And that's where atom bombs and embryonic stem-cell research come from.
That's evidently why Bohr thought it so important to keep the public informed on scientific developments. A well-informed public could keep science accountable to the public good....
You keep saying this, but neither you nor anyone else has produced a sustainable argument to support the claim.
From the point of view of evolutionary theory, nearly all evolution proceeds at a micro rate.
Some observed exceptions involve polyploidy in plants, fertile hybrids in plants, and horizontal gene transfer in micro-organisms.
No. Math is math — "it is what it IS."
And it is indispensable to the acquisition of knowledge about our world, and ultimately to human well-being.
As I said, if you did not make and do not agree with that assesment, then I owe you an apology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.