Don't let Darwin make a monkey out of you

Crossrhythms ^ | July 16, 2007 | Steve Maltz

[FoolNoMore]

written by one man, (Moses) under the inspiration of the infallable Holy Spirit. so yes, infinitely less falable than a psuedo-science theorized by men

[FoolNoMore]

you have no reason (but circular reasoning) to believe that it was passed about by word of mouth, in fact it was not. Yet even so, in other cultures, oral histories are the normal mode of communicating past events and those that carry the histories are quite proficient at accurately retelling the story, unlike our own culture.

[FoolNoMore]

and just how many words would you find acceptable? real faith is looking at yourself in the mirror and believing that your most distant ancestor was a rock...

[FoolNoMore]

no doubt you are a follower of man made global warming for the same reason

[FoolNoMore]

very true that science is the “anti-cult” unfortunately, evolution is a belief system in itself that masquerades as science. it is evolution that is cultish, not true science.

[Coyoteman]

evolution is a belief system in itself that masquerades as science. it is evolution that is cultish, not true science.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

The theory of evolution is opposed by believers of some religions, who do anything to denigrate either the theory of evolution in particular or science in general in order to try to bolster their beliefs.

The theory of evolution follows the scientific method, as do other fields of study within science.

It is neither a cult nor a false science.

[PreciousLiberty]

‘very true that science is the “anti-cult” unfortunately, evolution is a belief system in itself that masquerades as science. it is evolution that is cultish, not true science.’

In what way does evolution diverge from the usual goals and methods of science?

Please describe the discrepancies between biological evolution and stellar evolution (note: they are not at all the same), from the standpoint of the scientific method. Or do you view the science of stellar evolution as a cult as well?

[Non-Sequitur]

no doubt you are a follower of man made global warming for the same reason

You would be wrong.

[FoolNoMore]

notice I said “cultish”, not a cult.

anyway, the descrepancies and flaws in both bio and stellar evo are vast, so if you’d like, why don’t you pick one or two of your rock solid evidences and we can talk specifically about them intead of wandering all about the place.

[FoolNoMore]

but why not? if evolution must be true since it is so popular among scientists - and why would it not be popular if it was not true - then surely man made global warming must be true for the same reason. if you do not subscribe to the global warming myth, then you realize that science is not a democracy and that the truth is valid even if it is not accepted by the majority.

How does it feel to be on the “wrong side” of science for once? i say congradulations are in order for you, a first step in becoming a true free thinker

[CHEE]

What exactly is the theory of “Intelligent Designer”?

---

Right on! I feel that using the PC term “Intelligent Designer" is simply a hedge for not using the word GOD.

I am not ashamed to use the word God. That said now I wish to see proof positive in the Theory of Evolution of a single Missing Link. Do not attempt to insult my lame intelligent by sprouting an adaption withing a species (”Finches to Finches"”.

[Non-Sequitur]

if evolution must be true since it is so popular among scientists - and why would it not be popular if it was not true - then surely man made global warming must be true for the same reason.

Is jumping to conclusions and twisting the truth the only exercise you get? I support evolution because there is a considerable body of evidence to support it. I don't support global warming because there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support that.

How does it feel to be on the “wrong side” of science for once?

Not being a follower of creation science I wouldn't know. So tell us. How does it feel?

[PreciousLiberty]

“anyway, the descrepancies and flaws in both bio and stellar evo are vast, so if you’d like, why don’t you pick one or two of your rock solid evidences and we can talk specifically about them intead of wandering all about the place.”

I wasn’t talking of any flaws in the theories themselves, but of the application of the scientific method.

As far as I can tell, it was applied in a similar fashion in each case. What’s your take?

[FoolNoMore]

From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

the problem for both types of evolution is in the testing. with the supposed billions of years involved and imperceptably slow changes supposed to be taking place, there is a real problem in testing. Of Course, Creationists have similar problems, though not due to age, but they are at least up front about their presuppositions and biases.

[FoolNoMore]

but sir, you used the “majority of scientists” card to support your arguement, i am only expecting that you would be consistant. since you are not consistant in that regard, why would you expect anyone else to be impressed by what the majority of scientists believe on another subject?

and sir, not be a follower of Prophet Gore, you are squarely on the wrong side of at least one heated scientific debate, at least as measured by the majority of scientists.

[PreciousLiberty]

“the problem for both types of evolution is in the testing. with the supposed billions of years involved and imperceptably slow changes supposed to be taking place, there is a real problem in testing. Of Course, Creationists have similar problems, though not due to age, but they are at least up front about their presuppositions and biases.”

The idea with stellar evolution is that we can see stars at all stages of development in the night sky. Using sophisticated spectral techniques scientists have learned a lot about stellar composition and processes. We’ve now constructed stellar models using quite basic physics that demonstrate most of the features of real stars. My point is that with no direct measurements or observations over the lifetime of a single real star, scientists have learned much about about stellar evolution. Their theories fit the observed ground truth pretty well, with no recourse to deus ex machina or supernatural forces required.

The theory of biological evolution mirrors that description pretty well. In fact, the biologists have one big advantage - they can actually get their hands on living organisms and DNA.

[PreciousLiberty]

‘but sir, you used the “majority of scientists” card to support your arguement, i am only expecting that you would be consistant. since you are not consistant in that regard, why would you expect anyone else to be impressed by what the majority of scientists believe on another subject?

and sir, not be a follower of Prophet Gore, you are squarely on the wrong side of at least one heated scientific debate, at least as measured by the majority of scientists.’

Sorry to jump in, but I thought I’d point out one major difference - the debate regarding global warming is a scientific one on both sides. It is not a case of one side claiming “the Intelligent Cooler is going to cool things off, don’t worry about those newfangled satellite measurements”.

The thing about global warming is to keep your eye on BOTH important questions: “Is there a global climatic warming trend?” and (assuming the answer to the first question is ‘yes’) “Is the warming trend primarily caused by man (anthropogenic)?”. I’m very curious how the environmental groups will respond if it turns out that warming is real, but not caused by humans.

[Gengis Khan]

Ok so God created everything? Is that the theory? And where is the proof?

[Coyoteman]

That said now I wish to see proof positive in the Theory of Evolution of a single Missing Link.

Science does not deal with "proof positive" but rather evidence. Nor does the term "missing link" have any real meaning. Science prefers "transitional."

This is a transitional, and it is evidence for the theory of evolution:

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Does the term 'primal soup' stir any brain cells? It was an experiment by Stanley Miller in the 1950s that claimed to produce life out of a 'soup' of chemicals placed into a container full of gases and energised with a swift bolt of electricity.

More lies from the creationist industry.

The Miller-Urey experiment produced thirteen of the amino acids necessary for life from methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water using only electrical sparks.

Ironically no one followed up on this experiment.

Timely post considering Dr. Miller died this year in May.