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 ...
On what basis could you declare that such a "finding" is wrong?
Truth is not something produced by a public opinion poll. It is the deep structure and order of our universe.
And it is not an "accident."
I know about hte Dendro method, and it too is flawed- certain years, the trees accumulate two rings, sometimes even three- oher years, just hte one
[[and actually leads to and buttresses such parallel studies as carbon-dating and the study of varves, which are the annual marks in sea and riverbeds.]]
Meh- not so much- only out to about 6000-10,000 years- beyond that, it’s assumptions about past events that once again plague the process of dating-
It’s interesting that all the methods only go out to that far before they start running into problems eh?
forgot to mention that hte Varves method also has it’s problems- I gave a long list of links that exposed the probklems with nearly al lthe dating methods- but hte one dating method they couldn’t refute was Match.com
I tried a computer dating system once but I got connected with a Commodore 64.
You lucky dog- them thar things is sexyyyy.
I’m so old, all I got hooked up with was an abacus
If you're expecting to be able to pin something down to say, nine o'clock on a Tuesday morning, you might run into problems.
The point is that a record, in fact several different types of records, including tree-rings, varves, ice-cores, and other methods, all point back systematically to a virtually unending time-span.
Those lake-bed sediments get compressed into sedimentary rock, which stacks up higher and higher until it isn't even at the bottom anymore! The Earth, in upheaval, moves things around, and what would have been inaccessible at the bottom of an ocean is now freely observable at the top of a mountain.
Of course, this jumbling tends to make the process somewhat akin to a jigsaw puzzle, but we like puzzles, don't we?
In any case, even a tattered and worn bit of gospel is a balm to the soul and a refreshment to the spirit.
I still have mine.
Good. Now, what do you mean by "having authority over"? Some kind of legal authority, or that natural science should be considered authoritative in scientific work?
Can you describe for me a situation that could plausibly result in that outcome? Global brainwashing or some form of insanity?
Reading their highest 20th century ideological exponent, Julian Huxley, sheds light as to why they are still miserable, and what further things they want, expect, and feel entitled to:
Religion as an Objective Problem, Julian Huxley.
It merits reading a few times, just to absorb the full picture.
Do gorillas have human souls?
There is no zoological, morphological, or molecular distinction.
You are unable to tell the difference between a man and a gorilla? Oh well. Here, have a banana.
Saul Alinsky reads like he took up where Huxley left off. And the soldiers of TOEism sure speak both Huxley/Alinsky speak.
[js1138] Utter nonsense.
Oh dear, what a dumb and embarrassing self-refutation on your part, Mr. science-talker:
exchange posted on 06/26/2007[ECO] "every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers" (Darwin), "each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio" (Darwin), "Every species produces vastly more offspring than can survive from generation to generation." (E. Mayr, 2001) "All the individuals of a population... are exposed to the adversity of the environment, and almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce." (E. Mayr, 2001)
[js1138] These are all true statements.
Humans and chimps are about 2% different in their genetic DNA and about 6% different in their genomic DNA. The 2% genetic difference is a direct measure, comparing gene to gene, your “previous claims were made with full knowledge that we weren't as ‘similar’ as they said” is total bovine excrement. The gene differences are still 2% and you can go check the sequences yourself, they are online. The 6% figure was unavailable and unknown until the respective genomes of humans and chimps were sequenced, although it was expected that it would be higher than the 2% genetic difference over the entire genome, because evolutionary scientists know that non genetic regions are more variable than genetic regions.
It stands to reason then, that chimps can construct 96% to 98% of the Notre Dame cathedral, and that chimp chess grandmasters only have a slight (2% to 4%) disadvantage against human GMs.
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.