inanimate things somehow come to life
Posted on 11/09/2004 11:21:22 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Uh, not quite. There's another act to that play. In 1632, after having written a book about the solar system, describing his telescopic discoveries which supported the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo was hauled before the Inquisition, threatened with torture, and forced to renounce the "heresy" of the solar system. His book was banned, and he was placed under house arrest for the last 7 years of his life.
Recently (after 3 centuries of scorn and ridicule over the Galileo affair) the Church has, however, adopted Galileo's attitude about scripture, and has decided that if science and scripture appear to conflict, they must re-examine their understanding of scripture.
I see one advantage to teaching the Biblical version of the creation, paleontology etc. All science can be eliminated from school. All that is was created from nothing by magic and is sustained by magic. There can be no controversy, and no flaws in the theory – ZAP! That’s all.
Let’s go even further!
Disease is caused by demons! Eliminate Medicine!
The stars are only tiny lights on the Heavenly Vault! Eliminate astronomy!
How can it possibly be disproved? Any “flaws” were put there by God to trap the unbelievers!
Yep.
I quit renewing my subscription to National Geographic a few decades ago. It lost its objectivity – along with Smithsonian Magazine.
inanimate things somehow come to life
Millions of fossils later not one transitional one (i.e. frog growing wings etc.) has ever been found
Ignorance is truly bliss.
SURE there is! If ya know yer Bible!
(Even better if you know THEIRS ;^)
Scratch-scratch...
HMmmm...
Should I have REALLY bought this from that e-mail place that offered me such a good deal????
Scratch-scratch-scratch...
UH... I thought our Planet started out as a big rock?
Like, the THIRD one???
["Wow, who's been filling *your* head full of nonsense?"]
Wow you can't be this close minded to think your view is the only valid one,
No, I can't, which is why I said no such thing. You really might want to work on your reading comprehension.
But there's great irony here. My comment was in response to your amazingly ignorant claim that:
Darwins theory is more of a fairy tale then sea monsters eating ships at the end of flat earth.So was it not *you* who first "could be this close minded to think your view is the only valid one"? *You* started the arrogant denunciation of views other than yours, son. You're one of the biggest hypocrites I've seen in quite some time, and that's really saying something.
Furthermore, in asking, "who's been filling *your* head full of nonsense?", I was in no way stating that my view of biological origins must be right or yours must be wrong, I was simply pointing out that you must have been very thoroughly brainwashed to think that evolutionary biology is on less firm ground than myths of sea monsters. Even if you don't agree with it, you must be monumentally ignorant to make such a claim -- evolution has 150+ years of research behind it, is being actively worked on by millions of scientists, and there are so many experiments and studies done on it that if we were to meet in any moderately well-stocked research library, I could literally bury you in research articles about it and crush you to death under their mass.
Again, feel free not to believe it, but to say that it's "more of a fairy tale" than sea monster myths, as opposed to a very well established field of science, is a statement of such gigantic ignorance and monumental hubris that it prompted me to ask, not rhetorically, just where you had acquired such a moronic notion. I'm still curious -- who has lied to you so badly?
and you have to be insulting to try and prove your point
...this from the guy who pranced in here and in his first post on this thread announces that the millions of scientists working in the field of evolution must be f***ing morons who believe in fairy tails? I repeat, you're an incredibly huge hypocrite.
If you can't take a harsh critique, don't be the first to dish them out, kid.
- are you a Democrat?
Not at all. But you sound like one -- double standards, denouncing those who disagree with you as idiots, spouting arrogant over-the-top opinions without bothering to actually know about the topic... Yup, that's the Democratic playbook all right.
Literally thousands of Biologist, Scientist and prominent researchers think Evolution is at best a highly flawed theory,
Ooh, an "argument from authority" fallacy! We haven't seen one of those in, well, over ten minutes or so.
But if there are "literally thousands", it's strange, then, that the same small handful of names keep popping up when we ask folks such as yourself to support such claims...
Meanwhile, literally *millions* of scientists work in the field of evolutionary biology and don't have such doubts. Odd that you'd ignore *their* opinion and grasp onto the fringe few that reject it, eh? You're obviously just clinging to whoever supports your ideological prejudices, whether they know what they're talking about or not. I know this because the other blatant falsehoods you spouted in your post make it very clear that you really haven't ever bothered to take a look at the evidence itself, or learn even the basics of the field, instead you have just swallowed whole the lies that some anti-evolution polemecist has spewed.
I don't ask that you come to the same conclusion that I do, but for pete's sake, you can't even get the FACTS straight.
Pssst... And by the way, over 90% of scientists in general, and over 99% of biologists support evolution. You sort of "forgot" to mention that when you were waving around your "literally thousands" of doubters, eh?
which is why it has had to be adjusted with NEO Darwinism and various other new EVOLUTIONS on this fairy tail.
Yup, straight out of the creationist pamphlets... Too bad it's not true. But just for giggles, do feel free to state for us something you believe is in "neodarwinism" that was not present in some form in Darwin's original formulation of the idea. We'll wait.
Oh yeah and Darwin himself said In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
CREATIONIST DISHONESTY ALERT
Wow, it didn't take you long to start lying by presenting something out of context, did it?
The astute reader will note that while Darwin did indeed write this sentence in a letter to Asa Gray, HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Pacothecat, why would you be so dishonest as to imply that he was? Isn't it a sin to bear false witness?
Here's the passage in context:
My dear Dr. GrayDarwin wasn't talking about evolution, he was talking about the speculations he had made IN HIS PRIOR LETTERS TO GRAY.I must thank you for your two very valuable letters. It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
-- Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, June 18, 1857
And the topic of those letters was whether disjoint species might have gotten that way via partial extinction -- NOT EVOLUTION. In fact, Darwin FIRST mentions his ideas about evolution to Gray in LATER letters, in July. Darwin's comment about "speculations, not true science" in earlier letters could not *possibly* have been referring to evolution.
Finally, it's interesting to note that this letter was written two and a half years *before* Darwin published his first book on evolution. So again, it's clear that unlike what Pacothecat would have you believe, this quote is hardly Darwin reflecting back on his life's work.
here's some more silly people with their head filled with NONSENSE.
Thanks for the warning.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman, zoologist.
If you have such a good case, why do you have to dredge up quotes from before *1930* in order to pad out your list? Hint: They didn't even know what DNA was back then.
And if this Dr. Fleischman is such a hotshot that I should care what he thinks, why is there absolutely no mention of him anywhere on the internet *except* for a handful of creationist cites passing this quote around, despite the fact that *millions* of scientific papers and works and retrospectives are searchable online?
Just how deep *are* you digging into the bottom of that barrel to scrape up a few people who agree with you?
Hell, I can show you 513 modern-day scientists NAMED STEVE alone who agree with *me*.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science
This was published OVER SEVENTY YEARS AGO (1933), you goof. The field of biology has progressed, shall we say, just a little bit since then. Is there any reason you "forgot" to tell us just how outdated this opinion was? Oh, right -- because you're grossly dishonest. And I again repeat the question about just how deep you have to go to dig up (in this case, literally, Sullivan died in 1937) someone who agrees with you.
By the way, Sullivan also labeled the notion that there might be more than just one galaxy in the Universe a mere "hypothesis".
And what does a quote about abiogenesis have to do with *evolution*? Even Darwin himself stated that his theory was consistent with the idea that the earliest forms of life had life "breathed" into them by the "Creator".
Finally, I thought you were going to present a list of *scientists* who doubted evolution. Sullivan was a writer.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
Wow, you're *REALLY* fond of quotes from the 1930's, aren't you? You're also really fond of hiding the fact of when they originated.
But the bigger point is that you're presenting Kaempffert's comment out of context. He is not denying evolution, he is simply saying that there is (in the 1930's) a huge amount yet to be learned about "the mystery of life" in general. (Remember, this was before modern biochemistry, and long before the discovery of DNA.)
The dishonesty of your attempt to use a quote from Kaempffert as some sort of anti-evolutionary position is made clear by this letter from him:
Dear Mr. Teller : Oct. 13, 1939.Why are you so dishonest about Kaempffert's true position?Thank you for your letter of the 11th.
No one knows what the common ancestry of ape and man may be. Hence to say that man is descended from a broad-nosed ape is going too far. In the evolution of man stems have become very important.
I have no intention of twisting Darwin's teaching into something un-Darwinian. The major tenets of Darwin still hold good, though at the time he wrote his "Descent of Man" he did not have before him facts now available to comparative anatomists,
--Faithfully yours, WALDEMAR KAEMPFFERT.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation
1945... (or earlier -- that's the year Fleming died). You have to keep going *way* back, don't you? Furthermore, Fleming was an engineer, not a biologist. In any case, his quote is actually quite true, but *NOT* in any way support for your position. Fleming is simply saying that the theory of evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory, and thus obviously doesn't deal with the origin of the *INORGANIC* world, i.e. non-living things or the Universe itself. But then, no one has claimed that it does. The only people who think that evolution somehow concerns, say, the origin of the Universe, are the confused creationists, who don't understand much about the relevant fields of science.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin,
1980 -- wow, that's almost modern, compared to your other ones. But you have YET AGAIN presented a quote dishonestly out of context. You have snipped out the sentence *preceding* the lines you quote, which make entirely clear that Lipson was not speaking of evolution itself:
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation."Not very honest of you, is it? Lipson was talking about what might be the essence of "living matter" -- i.e. what separates living from nonliving things. He was NOT denying that evolution takes place among living things, as his followup article makes clear:
Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.Is there any reason you "forgot" to mention that?- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species Canadian scientist.
1956...
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery
1976... And Watson is a missionary, not a scientist.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Australian molecular biologist.
1986 -- practically present-day, compared to your other examples, and this time by an actual working scientist. Took you long enough... Unfortunately, Denton's work is deeply flawed. For example: Critique #1, Critique #2
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist,
Oops, now we're back in 1961 -- landing on the Moon still seemed like science fiction at the time. And AGAIN you mislead the reader by presenting this quote out of context. You're dishonestly trying to imply that Bonner was expressing doubt as to evolution as a whole. This is NOT the case. The lead-in sentence to the above, which you DISHONESTLY snipped, is:
The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla.Bonner is *not* saying that all evolutionary relationships are unclear, he's only saying that the evolution of INVERTEBRATES at the PHYLUM level is unclear. And he's right -- early invertebrates fossilized poorly, so few examples exist, and the phylum splits occurred so long ago (500+ million years) that many of the relevant strata exist only deep underground, or have been destroyed by half a billion years of erosion and plate techtonics. But this is NOT the same as saying that evolution on the whole is on shaky ground, as you DISHONESTLY try to imply.
-- John Tyler Bonner, reviewing Implications of Evolution by G.A. Kerkut, American Scientist, vol. 49, June 1961, p. 240
Furthermore, there has been a LOT of advancements in the reconstruction of early invertebrate evolution since 1961, thanks to modern tools like DNA analysis.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century.
That's sweet and all, but what in the f*** does this have to do with alleged scientists allegedly doubting evolution? Oh, right, nothing. Trying to pad out your list, especially by using a looooong, but irrelevant, quote?
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie
1959... And congratulations, you screwed up the attribution. The "fairy-tale" comment was actually made by Jean Rostand, not Louis Bounoure. And you've again born false witness by presenting it out of context. It's clear that he was no foe of evolution:
"Evolution may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer questions the fact of evolution."Nice try.
-- (L'Evolution des Especes [The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190).
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion of halfway species instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation
Wow, *another* grossly out-of-context quote... This was a RHETORICAL QUESTION, you moron. You "forget" to mention that after raising these questions, Darwin spent SEVERAL CHAPTERS giving the answers and showing why such impressions were not at odds with his theory.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
Wow, here's another obscure, long-dead zoologist you had to unearth from his grave to prop up, like "Weekend at Bernies", to try to make it look like there are lots and lots of modern-day biologists agreeing with you... And this one's *really* old -- he wrote this stuff in 1901...
Hint: Fleischmann (spelled correctly) was a fringe crackpot even in his own time. As Kellogg noted in 1907, Fleischmann seemed to be "the only biologist of recognised position … who publicly declared a disbelief in the theory of descent."
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms theories and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist
1976. And this is AGAIN taken grossly out of context -- why are you so dishonest?
Peters is expressing his view that a) evolution makes few *ECOLOGICAL* predictions (ecology was his field, he would find it more useful if it did), and b) calling evolution a "theory" is somewhat of a misnomer (again, in Peters's view), and it should perhaps be labeled in another fashion.
Peters was *NOT* expressing doubt in evolution *itself*, only in its applicability to his own field and the way evolution itself is labeled. The labeling thing was enough of a pet peeve of his that as the title of his essay makes clear, he also wished to relabel parts of his *own* field as "tautologies" instead of "theories". And as JBS Haldane observed:
"The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is something of a tautology. So are most mathematical theorems. There is no harm in stating the truth in two different ways."
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin,
You're repeating Lipson again. Trying to pad your list?
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space
1981. Hoyle is the guy who believes that life on Earth was designed by space aliens, and that insects may be as intelligent as humans. Are you sure you really want to claim him on your side?
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey,
1957... And this is *GROSSLY* out of context. Eisley's book is not a repudiation of evolution, but a wonderful examination of it. The above passage, in context, is a discussion of the difficulties of reconstructing abiogenesis -- but the author does not doubt that it occurred, contrary to your DISHONEST implication.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.
Colin Patterson has repeatedly complained about how creationists quote him out of context to try to make it appear that he doubts evolution. He does not.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
You're repeating Denton again, to pad your list.
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms
DISHONESTLY OUT OF CONTEXT again... In this *same* book, de Grasse writes:
"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution."Please explain why you dishonestly tried to present de Grasse as someone who doubts evolution...
(Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History
You're repeating Patterson again, in a dishonest attempt to pad your list. And again, he complains about creationists falsely using him for support.
"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Well, I suppose it's only fitting that you end your list with a quote from a) as far back as 1931, b) by a non-scientist (Field was a New Zealand journalist), and who was c) a conspiracy nutcase who blamed the Great Depression on the Jews. Thanks, that's a nice capper for your list.
So getting back to your earlier comment -- yes, your list does mostly consist of "some more silly people with their head filled with NONSENSE."
Also, lest you go scavenging around for more dishonest quotes that I have to explain to you, read this first: Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution . Also see: Online resources documenting antievolutionist misquotations (creationists make so many bogus quotes that it takes several websites to keep track of them all), and The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines and The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists.
If you ever want to discuss, you know, actual science and evidence, do let me know.
Oops, I meant to ping you to my previous post. Consider yourself pung.
[Thunderous applause. It rolls on ... and on ... ]
bump
Great work. I'm gonna be adding your "quote mining" links to the List-O-Links. (But for economy's sake, this is the only attribution you're gonna get.)
After examining this thread in some detail, I found your posts most impressive, especially the one I'm replying to now. Useful stuff!
My point was that if the responses are just going to be nitpicks at what I've said and unsupported opinion statements, then there's no point in me continuing to explain what I was trying to say. It has nothing to do with me being offended, but if no substantive response is received, then there's no reason for me to continue responding. If you disagree with something I've said, please feel free to respond. If you'd like me to explain or clarify something further, I'll certainly do so.
First I reposted with paragraphs so sad, cheap shot (only one of many in your post). Second you have been so brainwashed by your liberal eduction you can't see realty. Third, yet again you resort to insults when your facts are simply wrong and your tactics are just nasty. AND forth and most of all to every zealot Darwinist the debate is over the flaws of evolution, not creationism. You sources have been discredited, you repeat lies and call them truth and you are so unable to accept honest debate I can only say lets wait, science is disproving evolution more every year. Soon those who cling to it like a life line will have to pretend they knew it was silly all along. (I'm sure you will insult me more but I can only say peace be with you)
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.