Posted on 03/10/2015 8:20:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The article in Science can’t be read unless you have a membership, so I suppose we have to take its conclusions on faith.
And that’s a lot easier than reading the article—like saying, “The moon ate the Sun.” is easier than explaining how an eclipse works.
Creationism>Intelligent design. Global warming>Climate change. They put this old wine in a new bottle and that is supposed to make it different.
What’s really funny are the statements: “evolution is just a
theory”. E=mc2. That’s just a theory, too.
And “evolution is a religion,”—that may be my favorite. That’s saying, “You’re just like us ...” but ignoring the fossil record, molecular biology and direct evidence of natural selection. The religion of science?
When called and asked to show their cards, they toss some old books on the table—of doubtful authorship and filled with hearsay, contradictions and demonstrable nonsense (SEE: ‘Mormonism”), and demand that you acknowledge that their faith is fact, the ‘one true religion’—even though you are handling a Torah, a Koran and Bible, and thousands of other manuscripts, all claiming to be true.
That’s the only “theory” going on here and that’s why it’s called “faith”.
Just because the Aztecs really, really believed the moon was gobbling up the Sun didn’t make it true, and today most civilized people agree that carving out the hearts of thousands of non-believers to propitiate the moon was commendable in demonstrating their faith, but otherwise a complete, savage waste of life and time.
I don't remember that enumeration: do you have a reference?
I have held the rocks and bones in my hand. Evolution is real and a fact. To argue this is ridiculous. I do believe this as I have seen and held the facts in my hands.
However, the concept of a universe that was created from nothing some billions of years ago is totally illogical. Thus as a scientist the concept of the biblical explanation for man and the universe is equally valid as one of the universe being all from nothing.
The scientist in me says the biblical explanation is not valid. The scientist in me also recognizes that either explanation is equally valid as both are totally scientifically invalid.
I just listened to a lecture in Quantum Mechanic, and this stuff blows Evolution out of the water simply because it is becoming a completely different topic than even classical physics itself on which relies current Evolution theory!
Quantum physics producing verifiable results says that all electrons have a double state that is super-imposed. On the other hand, classical physics is simply another universe in which one or the other state of the electron is chosen and frozen in materiality (state of interaction).
There is thus no way for matter as we know in its classical physical form to EVER EVOLVE! It is already all preprogramed when we jumped from the flexible small quantum world to the classical physical world!
Romans 12:1-21 is specific —1 Corinthians 1-12 also specifies “words of wisdom, words of knowledge.”
http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/%23
And they’re still fruit flies,,
The problem with evolution is that what we are seeing, is it as a result of an evolution or something else? Where is the mathematical formula to which all these datas integrate into? Can the world we see be reproduced by deriving that formula?
I know a mathematician who is working on it, but with great difficulty. But he has found two problems:
1. probability makes an evolution improbable.
2. entropy means that evolution should worsen the species, not evolve them in positive ditections
There are instances of using chaos against chaos, such as when the body produces billions of different types of antibodies in random fashion during an infection. In effect, this is a live form of adaptation against a bug.
However, my friend has said that we can only rely on chaos theory, meaning we do not need to study the details of the process, just a global chaotic differential equation with strange attractor. To this day we still cannot predict whether the solar system is stable or not, let alone can we count on evolution for being a stable process leading to stability of life, or ever finding out for sure if it is indeed stable and inherent or not.
Last but not least is quantum mechanics. This is not even physics as we know it classically. It pretty much is a completely different topic of science in and of itself, a different world altogether. Evolution, or should I say, “SCIENCE”, relies on the laws of classical physics with determined particulate like particles, and not wave particles.
Real objects only exist when each electron’s state is chosen and determined. Other than that an electron, free, in its quantumic world, so to speak, has multiple states. The classical physics world is an opinion, like a sculpture that is frozen in space time, a flash image, that has a chosen a precise state for various electrons into their “ useful” material “purpose”.
In other words, if there is a path of evolution, that path, that equation, has been chosen, and it is real. So why not another one? Of course why not.
>>I just listened to a lecture in Quantum Mechanic, and this stuff blows Evolution out of the water simply because it is becoming a completely different topic than even classical physics itself on which relies current Evolution theory!<<
Then it must also blow away Geology, chemistry and all other known sciences.
And what specifically does it decry about TToE? That quanta move backwards in time so modern forms preceded ancient ones?
Or is this just a Star Trek script where the writer scibbles in (”Tech talk here”)?
good news. i guess there are some public school biology teachers who are able to divide scientific truth from atheistic faith indoctrination.
>>And they’re still fruit flies,,<<
1) ICR — hahHAHAHAHA
2) Not the study I was referencing.
If you want to use references, use real ones.
I believe that the beginning of Genesis is a parable not literal. It teaches us good lessons. It is not a history.
>>What’s really funny are the statements: “evolution is just a
theory”. E=mc2. That’s just a theory, too.<<
The hardest thing to explain to ignorant people is that “theory” is not “a guess all grown up.” They think the sequence is “Guess>Hypothesis>Theory>Proof>Axiom”
You and I and others know this is wrong (the following is for those who might learn).
A Scientific Theory is the HIGHEST level of scientific thought. It is a concept that defines a known phenomenon and is consistent with all known scientific phenomenon.
Individual data may adjust theory towards more accuracy but it would take a massive new set of data (such as that which partially replaced Newtonian with Eisenstein) to completely replace it.
Not only that but a replacement theory must explain every last datum of its replacement.
Billions of fossils linked to geological events linked to cosmology linked to physics.
There is no replacement for TToE in the Scientific world.
The fact what I just said is too complicated for the “award for participating” generation is self-explanatory.
“Thank God you are not in immunology or medical diagnostics.”
I take it you are not able to articulate your thoughts well and use insult in frustration.
“it is the only scientific discipline attacked by religious zealots who introduce foolish notions...”
Yet, you provide another example: “...if the Earth is only 6,000 years old...”
Geology is attacked just as much by young Earth proponents.
In fact, all sorts of sciences are “attacked” by pseudoscience.
It’s interesting that evolution is the only discipline that feels threatened and where the practitioners in the field are defensive and feel compelled to respond.
Please provide this study.
I hope you realize I wasn’t saying my link was referencing your post. I was just referencing that flies have been researched for over 100 years and evolutionists are further away from being able to make their claims using flies than when they started.
And why, pray tell, would you expect them to change? To what evolutionary advantage would such a change be put? Evolutionary change doesn’t simply happen in a vacuum, it happens in a real world where organisms compete with one another in an ecosystem and not all survive. What change would you expect in 6,000 generations of fruit flies born and living in a science lab?
Absolutely correct. The people they spoke to were teachers, not biologists. This demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws with the way we teach teachers - often times, they simply don’t know enough about the subject to adequately address students’ questions. The field that’s worse than biology is math. How many people do you know that hate/can’t do/don’t understand/fear even basic math? It’s because their teachers had the same problem when they went to school. I grew up in a small college town and was lucky enough to have high school math teachers with Masters and PhDs - not in education - in math. I learned math from people that understood and liked their subject, and it gave me the foundation to study science - specifically, biology.
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.