Posted on 12/20/2010 7:19:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I understand how science works and then I see how evolutionary science continues to bend and break established scientific principles wherever & whenever necessary. And all the while keeping a straight face but the arguments are laughable and more and more folks are starting to see - the emperor has no clothes.
Funny it seems for you science and religion are just whatever the majority opines it to be. Even though history shows that the majority can often be absurdly wrong esp. when their stories continue to build and build upon themselves.
You show very little understanding of the underlying science of DNA, mutations, fossilization, etc and the effects on each of these over very short time periods.
Since the word "kind" is only used in biblical sources, it is not in any sense scientific.
In science there are no "kinds."
Instead we have:
In scientific terms, all of these categories are closely related -- to the degree that plants and animals can be said to share about 50% common DNA.
Does that mean humans are nothing more than glorified vegetables?
Well, note the word "glorified" -- glorified by Whom?
By God, of course, so yes, glorified, no, not vegetables, though it does appear that humans and vegetables had some common ancestors, way, way, way back when.
BrandtMichaels: "What you need are missing links - not just one though - but millions upon millions.
Without these evolution is just wishful thinking."
Every fossil is a "missing link" -- a transitional form from what went before to what came after.
And, never fear, scientific workers are out in the fields every day, digging up yet more "missing links."
I'd say that by now, there's too many to count them all.
BrandtMichaels: "I agree in which case creation science and thousands not millions nor billions of years passes this test. And Occam’s razor applies here as well."
Thousands of years may pass your particular biblical test, but it passes no scientific tests.
Only the earth's billions of years pass all of science's tests.
BrandtMichaels: "Again you have not even scratched the surface of the counter-arguments of creation science."
Because the ones I've seen are just nonsense -- void of any serious content, so why go further?
BrandtMichaels: "What you will find is there is no 100% reliable method in science nor in any naturally occurring clocks and the vast majority support logic and reason to match the somewhat less than 10,000 years existance w/ physical proofs & man-made artifacts."
If you are looking for metaphysical certainty (i.e., a "100% reliable method"), you won't find it in science.
But some things are as certain as certain can be, and those include the decay rates of various radioactive materials.
Certainly processing rock samples requires great care, and any mistake or misunderstanding will produce faulty results.
However, these dating techniques (along with others) have been used for many decades now, and they all very consistently point to an ancient earth -- in the range of 4 billion years old.
Sure, mistakes pointing to a lesser age can happen, but they are the exceptions -- outlier data points, not the often reproduced rule.
BrandtMichaels: "Uniformitarianism simply does not apply to either the modern day observations nor any historical passage of time."
Uniformitariansim, as a strict scientific principle, was first dismissed by a scientist named Stephen J Gould in 1965.
Today it is replaced by other theories (i.e., Actualism) which better conform to observed and confirmed data.
However, there is no reliable data suggesting that radioactive materials ever decayed at rates different from that observed and confirmed today.
BrandtMichaels: "How did 3 billion coded protein sequences form the first single-celled organism?
Primordial soup, panspermia, aliens, or just some other hopeful monsters?"
First point to remember is: it didn't happen over-night.
The geological record suggests 3.5 billion years between the very first signs of life (or "pre-life") and what's called the Cambrian Explosion.
That's a lot of years, and the earth's oceans are big places for little squirmers to descend, modify, recombine and be naturally selected.
So, let's see, 3 billion years, 3 billion DNA sequences, maybe one new sequence per year appears somewhere in the vast oceans? Maybe...
Second point is: No doubt, life did not begin with 3 billion DNA sequences.
Even today, there are many life, or near-life, forms which have far less.
Indeed, much speculation supposes there was no DNA in the earliest life, possibly only RNA, or some other less formal mechanism for reproduction.
And the key point is: any primitive form which could reproduce would necessarily result in descent with modifications and therefore natural selection would reward those best adapted to their environment.
And that, of course, equals evolution -- starting with life's Day One.
You suppose wrong, except in the sense of any jihadi who confronts non-believing infidels with the choice of: convert to his particular beliefs or die.
I'm most interested to note how much you mock and scorn even the holiest of fellow Christians.
- I’ll repeat: most Christian churches and denominations teach “theistic evolutionism” meaning: God creates through natural processes such as evolution. -BJK
Frankly I have a huge logical conundrum w/ theistic evolution (as should anyone who is willing to examine just the short list of links on my homepage). How can both the Bible be true as well as long-ages evolution?
BTW He does describe one method of inducing micro-evolution in breeding populations in Genesis (Oh but wait, the Bible does not do science - right!? - /sarcasm).
Did Jesus not affirm Genesis 1 and 2 and numerous other OT passages?
Is God lying to us in describing how He created the Earth?
If Genesis is not literally true than where can go in the Bible to trust His Words are righteous and true?
I’m not surprised one bit that majorities in the christian religion fail to see the truth - the Bible itself attests to this.
Theistic evolution is an argument with itself. How can both be true (hint~they can’t) but we ‘christians’ who don’t want to offend the evolutionists are willing to keep trying and trying and trying and trying (see Einstein’s defintion of insanity)...
You here merely repeat the constant refrain of those who base their "scientific" beliefs on their understandings of what the Bible means.
Absent any specifics, it's a fatuous claim.
You ignore any and all science that is contrary to your long-ages evolution which makes your claims fatuous at best.
That’s OK though - at least you have plenty of company. Majority opinon is not how to solve problems nor practice science.
More fatuous nonsense, I'd say.
BrandtMichaels: "Even though history shows that the majority can often be absurdly wrong esp. when their stories continue to build and build upon themselves."
We're not talking about "majority rule" here, we're talking about science.
In science there is no "majority" -- much as our AGW fraudsters might wish for it.
But we do distinguish between "sound science" and "junk science," and there is plenty, plenty of the latter floating around.
To combat the problem of "junk science," those who seriously love science establish rules and gate-keepers intended to keep the fraudsters from claiming scientific legitimacy.
Sadly, these don't always work, and so we end up, for example, with that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) nonsense.
But there is no serious scientific suggestion that I've ever seen implying basic evolution theory is not sound science.
Of course -- out on the fringes of scientific knowledge and speculation, serious scientists themselves debate every day the meanings of this or that particular data.
So, if you go back a few decades, you can find all sorts of scientific speculation that has since proved wrong.
And, no doubt, in a few decades hense, some of what we accept today will have been proved, well, inadequate and so replaced by better explanations.
That's science. It's what science does.
BrandtMichaels: "You show very little understanding of the underlying science of DNA, mutations, fossilization, etc and the effects on each of these over very short time periods."
Many poster on Free Republic have more expertise in these areas than I do.
But I notice their expertise is treated with the same mocking and scorn as my more general knowledge.
Why do you suppose that is?
In your posts today you have been all over the map with contradictions, lies, assumptions, and half-truths and I truly think you are not even aware of it.
Simply put ~ macro evolution has never and will never be proven. But just like the GW crowd you have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. BTW GW was not a majority opinion of scientists.
I explained how neither creation nor evolution is a true scientifc discipline but you just can’t see the forest for the trees.
To combat the problem of “junk science,” those who seriously love science establish rules and gate-keepers intended to keep the fraudsters from claiming scientific legitimacy.
Here’s another question for you ~ do those rule-makers and get-keepers who seriously love science have any vested interest in evolution being accepted as the norm?
Have our educators in our esteemed universities been immune from the corruption that affects our leaders (our lawmakes and newsmakers)?
Your "conundrum" is not shared by most Christian churches.
I'd wonder if it isn't just a problem of your own creation, existing solely for the purpose of justifying in your own eyes your uniqueness verses other Christians?
Here's where I think we see the core and heart of the matter:
In the Nazi concentration camps were not just millions of Jews sent to their deaths, but also many thousands, tens of thousands, of Christians sent there because of their anti-Nazi beliefs.
Thousands of these Christians were martyred -- and some sainted because they died for their beliefs.
Amongst them were thousands of Catholic clergy (theistic evolutionists), Protestant ministers (perhaps methodological naturalists), and virtually all of Germany's Jehovah's Witnesses (no doubt biblical literalists).
And the Jehovah's Witnesses were even offered the opportunity to leave the camps, if they would just renounce their beliefs and serve the Reich.
But they refused, and most died
Now, here's my question to you, Mr. BrandtMichaels, the great believer in the inerrancy of an old-English translation, literally interpreted, of ancient Hebrew and Greek scriptures:
;-)
I'd respond that you seem to be overflowing with fatuous nonsense today... what, didn't sleep last night? Don't have a dog to kick?
BrandtMichaels: "Simply put ~ macro evolution has never and will never be proven.
But just like the GW crowd you have bought into it hook, line, and sinker.
BTW GW was not a majority opinion of scientists."
For all practical scientific purposes, there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution.
There is only evolution which consists of two elements: 1) descent with modification and 2) natural selection.
Both these elements are observed, confirmed and reproducible scientific facts.
And therefore basic evolution is a scientific fact.
The results of long-term evolution have also been observed in the fossil records and DNA analyses, among other places.
Whether long-term evolution equates to "macro-evolution" is, of course, strictly a matter of interpretation.
What's certain is that modern species with closest DNA matches can be found in similar fossils back to apparently common ancestors.
And, modern species with less similar DNA can often be traced back through a longer sequence of fossils to more ancient apparent common ancestors.
Point is: the line where "micro" evolution supposedly becomes "macro" evolution is a matter of scientific convenience, not biological fact.
And it certainly has nothing to do with biblical exegeses.
BrandtMichaels: "I explained how neither creation nor evolution is a true scientifc discipline but you just can’t see the forest for the trees."
If you were a serious scientist, with some recognized qualifications to make such judgments, and had published your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then and only then, I'd consider your scientific opinion of some value.
But, factually speaking, you are simply expressing your religious opinion which, however valid, has no effect on science.
No doubt you remember the history of Galileo Galilei and other scientists who got into deep trouble with the Church for disputing the Church's view of reality.
And you would like people to believe that in today's world it is science itself which has become the new "Church" and now our biblical-literalist anti-science militants are the real "scientists" trying to tear down the walls of science's "intolerance."
I will give credence to that idea when there are serious scientists (i.e., another Galileo) who take up the cause and make a case -- whatever that case might be -- in scientific terms, in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
If you say: well, that's just not allowed,
I would respond: there are many ways for scientifically valid research to be published, nor would it be necessary for any valid research to be published under the title: "This is anti-evolution propaganda".
Do the scientific research. Make the small case scientifically. Let the larger chips fall wherever they may.
Science is science and it must respond to valid scientific ideas.
But it can't respond to religious ideas. That would not be science.
The ‘goalposts’ you just erected were passed with flying colors by the GW scientists - right up until the hundreds of emails were posted on the internet from East Anglia University. Still there are some trying/hoping to resurrect it - thank God for the internet or who knows if this would not also persist for a century or two.
See creationscience.com for someone w/ credentials. Dr Walt Brown Ph.D M.I.T, an engineer who worked exstensively as an evolutionary scientist, separates what is logical and true from what can not be proven in this online book (part 1).
You can also purchase the 8th edition for around $30. The book has plenty of quotes and references to both established science and other publications (often stuff deemed not worthy of review by the powers that be).
Of course, if you knew of the bias involved in our peer-reviewed science then you would also know the powers that be will never consider his hydroplate theory (part 2) as science. Part 3 is commonly asked questions and answers as well as a $1million challenge for a creation-evolution debate.
BTW creation evolution debates slowed down then stopped completely more than 50 years ago. Why do you think that is?
Nope.
But I also know that a) Satan is the father of all lies, b) he is continually creating new lies to mislead men, and c) evolution is a lie that strikes at the very foundation of God’s special revelation to us namely Genesis ~ or how God created, where sin originated, how it affects us, and quite frankly that God revealed his solution to send himself to us as our Savior and spare us from eternal punishment ~ all of it found in the 1st book.
Interesting that you bring up Hitler. He was a big believer in evolution.
Also Jehovah’s Witness is a religous cult ~ not Biblical literalists.
hmmm ~ my uniqueness
You do know uniqueness is both Biblically and scientifically established truth ~ right?!
Reminds me of a favorite bumper sticker:
Just remember you are unique
Just like everybody else
Also I accept truth most often where the Bible and science agree. Where they differ I accept the Bible on blind faith.
B.I.B.L.E. ~ Blessed Intervention Begetting Life Everlasting
The “pope” to which you refer was not a Christian by Biblical definition: i.e. he was not one of the saved.
Thus he was not a “fellow Christian.”
.
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.