Skip to comments.The Evolution Interpreter: Generic Transition Form Fossil Discovery Article
Posted on 04/22/2009 1:11:09 PM PDT by Liberty1970
click here to read article
And lets not even get into the failure of the headline-grabbing evolutionists to present with the same energy the critical articles within the evolutionary literature responding to these claims, or the retractions, contrary discoveries, and admissions of error that crop up in the years following each dramatic claim. Its easy for me to see why people who read the mainstream science journals superficially believe in evolution. But for those who dig deeper, the failure of evolutionary stories to hold up over time is very consistent. It should be no surprise how many anti-evolutionists explain how they became creationists or IDers after trying to corroborate some evolutionary claim. Just keep digging folks, thats all I ask of you
Getting your science information from the MSM is kind of like using CNN as your only source in your quest to understand Christianity.
Congratulations, you’ve figured it out!!
Figured this would be worth pinging you. I’m quite serious about the script-like repetitiveness of evolutionary propaganda on this subject (and the boring consistency of the fine-print admissions). Their news writers must really be in a rut.
Filling in the blanks and getting details is just that. And TToE doesn’t need “proof” or “more proof.”
Science is about following the facts. Scientific theories provide a framework for doing that.
If you don’t understand the basics of science, you really should not make threads drawing attention to that fact.
Have a blessed day!
OMG that is hilarious!
A very funny (and sadly true) post from our very own Liberty1970 :o)
One thing that has bothered me about discoveries from fossils is the level of testing to which these revelations are subject. If all the fossils to date were placed in structures with boundaries the size of the Rose Bowl, how many such structures would be filled? Let’s say 20 were filled. Now if we compress all that organic matter into crude oil, would we have enough to run my truck for a year or a decade? With so little examined evidence in relation to the total population, are the such detailed conclusions statistically responsible? Has suitable mathematical analysis ever been applied to these scientific papers? PhD candidates for psychology and sociology have to hire graduate math majors to evaluate their data so their committees can see the level of support the data provides for their conclusions. I don’t believe such a process is considered by these people.
In this case we have a historical theory (common descent by solely natural processes), not observational science, that is inconsistent with scientific evidence that tells us how evolutionary change occurs in nature. We have a lot of data from evolutionary biology and population genetics that clearly demonstrates that life is degrading (as actually observed, even if we restrict ourselves to beneficial mutations) and that significant innovation by chance mutations is out of the question.
There is plenty of evidence for stasis of life forms over time - that is clearly the dominant theme of the fossil record, though evolutionists constantly obscure that fact. And there is good evidence for smale scale diversification and speciation within types of life. But the evidence overall is that of an orchard of multiple unlinked living trees of species, not one single evolutionary tree, or a separate creation of each species.
Repeating talking points is not understanding science. Evolution is a stochastic process. And all science, by definition, is solely natural. The idea of "life is degrading" states a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying scientific principles and represents complete scientific illiteracy.
This one doesn’t even rise to one of yours, my Friend.
Have a blessed day!
So you would regard it as unscientific if someone pointed out your car is rusting? This is the philosophical corner that evolutionism is boxing itself into. Making absurd points to avoid the obvious. It is legitimate to evaluate whether a genome is evolving or devolving informationally, and denying that fact won't change how obvious it is to unbiased people.
Science is the tool God gave us to understand the natural world. Of course there is more, but that is outside the realm of science.
Indeed. Only creationists are consistently worse at reporting and interpreting science.
Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation.
Rust is the result of a chemical process. Rusting is not degrading, it is the result of corrosive elements operating on each other.
Cars are the result of and operate withing a static environment, not a stochastic one.
This is the philosophical corner that evolutionism is boxing itself into. Making absurd points to avoid the obvious. It is legitimate to evaluate whether a genome is evolving or devolving informationally, and denying that fact won't change how obvious it is to unbiased people.
"Obvious" to people who don't understand science. Asking lay people to know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory, for example, is probably going to find most do not know. Uninformed opinions, while frequently amusing, are still uninformed.
IOW: "'cause I think so" isn't really a reasoned nor informed basis for any argument.
Evolution is just one of the many ways He uses to accomplish His goals. Science is the tool by which we discover and use these rules.
Philosophy, while fun and within its context important, is of no value in this pursuit.
lol.. what is the BINGO game where you have to fill in all the blanks instead of just one row?
Blackout. But no need to call it out or anything. We all “win” creationist bingo when an ICR or creation-safari article gets posted.
Do you ever read the journal articles? Or do you glean all of your scientific knowledge from press releases?
William Provine, to name one famous atheist:
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist;
2) no life after death exists;
3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and
5) human free will is nonexistent. Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life 1998 Darwin Day
Then why do you use it so much.
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
May the blessings you wish upon me be visited upon your own life many times over!
All the best—GGG
==Do you ever read the journal articles? Or do you glean all of your scientific knowledge from press releases?
LOL...that’s where most Evos admit to getting their scientific updates. And I can’t say I blame them. The abstracts alone would fill up many phone books every month in just about any scientific discipline. And most of those papers are of the bean counting variety necessitated by the publish or perish mentality. Indeed, these mountains of mostly inconsequential papers that scientists can’t even begin to read is a sure sign that government science is bloated and way overfunded. It’s time to take science out of the hands of the government, and, with the exception of national defense, return it to the free market where it belongs.
“actual journal articles”
I should start laying off the bourbon.
I read many scientific papers every month. But even if there were a hundred of me, reading full time, day in and day out, we would only reach a tiny fraction of the total number of journal papers published each month. How many science journal papers do you read each month, Box?
>>Then why do you use it so much.
My posts are based on a solid understanding of science. I back up my posts with supporting information and definitions that are accepted throughout the scientific community.
And to you and your family as well, my brother in Christ.
The best to you and yours — FD2003
ps: have you ever wondered why my handle is 2003 when I joined in 2002?
Just a brain teaser :)
The battle is occurring at all levels, Boxen. And the press releases are not dreamed up by the popular level science rags themselves, they are usually based on summaries and press releases that research institutions put out to draw attention to their own research. Thus, if the press release is wrong, it is usually because the research institution got the import of their own research wrong (which usually means their own scientists got it wrong).
I’m sure writing your generic press release was fun, but it doesn’t really demonstrate anything. All press releases are structured according to a pattern. I read dozens of technology press releases every day, and could whip up a similar sample of the announcement of a new product or an acquisition with no trouble. It doesn’t mean it’s “propaganda” or that there’s nothing behind it—it just means they’re formulaic, like a business letter.
Do you really want to start that whole concept? We need only find a handful of "famous Christians" who make quotes about all manner if things.
Science is silent on whether there is a God or not. It merely says that is it impossible to put supernaturalism into scientific research.
Even if more scientists are atheists than in the non-scientific population, there are still many scientists who are Christian (or Jewish or other theistic religious followers).
Your desire to paint those who understand science as somehow less devout than yourself is egotistical and rather pathetic.
I have mentioned this before and I do so now: The Catholic Church endorses TToE as God's way to create humans. Are you saying they are all Godless Atheists?
The scientists don't write the press releases and may not even review them.
==Let’s turn the tables here for a sec. Wouldn’t you expect me to bone up on Christian doctrine before criticizing Christianity?
Speaking of which, after reading a popular-level Creation or ID article/press release, how often do you go to the original papers they are based on and read them in their entirety before commenting?
So you are saying that the research institution doesn’t even check with the scientist to make sure they understand the research they are engaged in before telling the world about it! Do you know that many and perhaps most scientists admit that they learn about the latest research from press releases and articles in the popular press? LOL!!!
Whenever I can, actually. Most of the time, though, the articles you post are either unscientific in nature (example: The ICR court case. Incidentally, I spent a good part of last night reading the court papers posted by ICR’s counsel) or based on reinterpreting third-party article without providing original research or evidence (example: Everything by Brian Thomas M.S.*).
Ok, so not always, is that correct?
No, it isn’t. If I plan on posting, I attempt to read the underlying sources first.
You said you only do that so most of the time...is that correct?
Or do you read every science paper (from start to finish) that a popular science article is based on without exception?
Rhetorical nonsense. The only one fighting a battle here is you. It’s still a strawman criticism, and as such, a fallacy.
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.