Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/16/2013 11:44:20 AM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Heartlander

If Quantum Mechanics was around in Darwin’s time and if he had studied it, he would know evolution not to be gradual and that every once in a while a rare combination of mutations would lead to the quantum leap.

In quantum mechanics, an electron in your body has the possiblility (extremely unlikely possibility) of making the quantum leap and suddenly appearing on the moon.

And for the creationist, quantum mechanics is as near a proven fact as you can get, it is close to 2+2 =4. (Actually in a quantum universe 2+2 only comes vanishingly close to equalling 4 due to quantum fluctations.)

In fact, all semiconductor technology depends on quantum mechanics being true.


2 posted on 07/16/2013 11:52:43 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander; betty boop; marron; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; metmom; xzins; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; ...

Oh, Boy . . . here we go.


4 posted on 07/16/2013 12:12:29 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander
"I’m sure Darwinists will continue to throw primordial slime at Meyer and his colleagues. "

Personal attack is a confession of intellectual poverty.

5 posted on 07/16/2013 12:18:33 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

Need to read later.


7 posted on 07/16/2013 5:20:57 PM PDT by Albertafriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

-From: How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion?

15 posted on 07/17/2013 9:12:16 AM PDT by Heartlander (It's time we stopped profiling crazy ass crackers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; marron; MHGinTN; TXnMA; CottShop; metmom; xzins; GodGunsGuts; ...
The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there’s a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don’t limit themselves to materialistic causes. They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).... So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments.... Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn’t actually say anything — scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn’t mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth — not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science....

It seems to me that Neo-Darwinist theory has increasingly come under attack these days, from both inside and outside the scientific communities — largely because it does not explain what it purports to explain: the emergence of life (not to mention consciousness, mind) from lifeless, inorganic matter. It also cannot explain the emergence of the vast amount of new information it takes to account for the kind of emergent biological speciation that we observe in the historical record: A low information-source cannot spontaneously transition to a high-information source, all by itself. (IIRC, this is called Kahre's Law.) It should be clear to all objective observers that matter and/or protomatter have drastically less "algorithmic content" (i.e., information) than highly complex biological organisms. So from whence did this astronomically large increase of information that characterizes life and consciousness (mind) "come from?"

People who refuse to address such questions, preferring to swaddle themselves in their precious materialist dogma, are simply following in the footsteps of Karl Marx. After all, all inconvenient questions regarding Marx's "system" are absolutely forbidden as a matter or principle.

And then there's the famous saying of Mao Zedong: Tell a lie a hundred times, and people will think it true.

Thank God, there are still honest scientists out there....

Thanks. Heartlander, for this thought-provoking article!

16 posted on 07/17/2013 12:33:11 PM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

33 posted on 07/19/2013 10:19:45 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

“Meyer investigates the central doubt Darwin had about his own theory. “

Like any serious scientist, Darwin had his doubts, even the author of the article admits.

So most of the creationist comments are inapplicable.

Militant Creationists set up a straw argument that science deals in absolutes, rather than the best scientific explanation possible with the data available. When new data comes available that scientifically contradicts any aspect of a previous theory, then that constitutes a “lie”.

As the author points out, Darwin presented research and data and published a theoretical position - and at the same time expressed the potential pitfalls of his conclusions that he thought were relevant at the time.

That militant creationists are still arguing with Darwin, who is 150 years dead, yet they still can’t win the argument is telling, and is more a statement to their stunning insecurity and lack of Faith than it is to any failure of Darwin’s best scientific explanations at the time.

Science is science. Faith is Faith. Neither reveals all answers with certainty, but each attacks the other because of the others uncertainty.


124 posted on 07/26/2013 1:41:23 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson