Posted on 10/30/2009 11:01:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
What do you know about "true science"? Based upon 19th century standards Darwin was a giant. That for over 100 years there has been legitimate, and as yet unresolved debate over his observations and the causes he suggests speaks volumes. Remember, Darwin did not have the advantage of DNA research or Google searches, or a million other tools and discoveries that have happened since his death.
Baramin is the mystic coefficient that resolves all scientific conflicts of the creationist's algorithms.
Darwin wrote a preliminary 230 page essay on the theory of natural selection in 1844, Seven years before Annie Darwin died.
So really your "always thought" supports Darwin's point about the properties of the emmissions of the skull wetware being not that exceptionable.
Thanks for the ping!
Well said.
I think you mean 'plain', but yes.
"It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421)."
Darwin was trying to equate the origin of life problem with an incomplete theory of gravity. This is why we see evos constantly parroting the same argument. However, when 96% of the matter and energy of the universe is deemed 'invisible' in order for the theory of gravity to work on astronomical scales, one has to wonder if the analogy was a serendipitous indictment of evolution by Darwin's own hand.
"All your pseudoscience, misdirection, and distortion, cannot change the facts."
What fact do you think I'm trying to change?
"Baramin is a made up pseudoscientific term. Show me one creditable peer-reviewed paper on that subject."
As is the assumed, invisible, simple form that Darwin postulated. Even to this day. Using your standard, Darwin would not have been able to publish his philosophy.
I know that 'true science' deals with what is observable and testable. Billions of years of assumed history, assumed life forms and assumed processes are not 'true science'. That is philosophy.
"Remember, Darwin did not have the advantage of DNA research or Google searches, or a million other tools and discoveries that have happened since his death."
Darwin committed several logical fallacies in proposing his new 'theory' that is fundamentally-based on ancient pagan ideas. Maggots spontaneously appearing on carcasses and rats spontaneously being generated by garbage dumps were some of those ancient pagan ideas.
Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas untestable by making the organisms 'simple' and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
We can use science's term for groups of interbreeding species.
What term would you like to use?
Are you saying that Darwin wasn't angry at God for the death of his daughter or that he didn't set out to point as many people away from God as he could?
"So really your "always thought" supports Darwin's point about the properties of the emmissions of the skull wetware being not that exceptionable."
As does your post...
How about "Bullsh*t", it seems to suit the concept pretty well.
“I know that ‘true science’ deals with what is observable and testable. Billions of years of assumed history, assumed life forms and assumed processes are not ‘true science’. That is philosophy.”
—Evolution and Darwinism is based on countless present observations of biogeography, comparative anatomy, paleontology, genetics, embryology, etc.
“Darwin committed several logical fallacies in proposing his new ‘theory’ that is fundamentally-based on ancient pagan ideas. Maggots spontaneously appearing on carcasses and rats spontaneously being generated by garbage dumps were some of those ancient pagan ideas.”
—Any evidence for that claim or is that just a whopper of a fallacy of equivocation?
“Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas untestable by making the organisms ‘simple’ and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
—Darwinism isn’t in any way dependent on how life began. Which is why he never talks about it in any of his published works.
Can you name one branch of science that you do believe in that does not base much of its work on extrapolation?
“Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas untestable by making the organisms ‘simple’ and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
Nowhere in the six editions of "The Origin of Species" does Darwin ever state or suggest what the origin of life was other than frequently using the word "Creator". He was addressing the variation within life. It might be useful to actually read the book before condemning it, unless of course you think it might poison your mind with demonic thoughts and set your hand against God.
True. Sometimes thought just seems to come to us, 'out of the blue'.
whether thought is willed or unwilled presents a conundrum for Calvinists. Free will and free thinking undermine the premise of predetermination and unconditional election. How can we be free to think unthinkable thoughts and make unholy choices and yet not be responsible for the consequences and, in part, for our own salvation?
"How about "Bullsh*t", it seems to suit the concept pretty well."
So, science's term for the group of interbreeding canid species commonly called the coyote, wolve, dog and jackal would be known by the scientific term of "Bullsh*t"?
Can you provide a reference?
Unfortunately all interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent and untestable otherwise because of billions of years of assumed history, assumed life forms and assumed processes.
"—Any evidence for that claim or is that just a whopper of a fallacy of equivocation?"
Yes, see my prior posts. I have identified them.
"—Darwinism isn’t in any way dependent on how life began. Which is why he never talks about it in any of his published works."
Actually he did. He said, "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory as showing how transient such impressions are to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man namely the law of the attraction of gravity was also attacked by Leibnitz as subversive of natural and inferentially of revealed religion. A celebrated author and divine has written to me that he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
As I said, Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas (spontaneous generation of maggots from carcasses and rats from garbage) untestable by making the organisms ‘simple’ and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Are you trying to say that science is inherently based on logical fallacy and the fact that evolution is so heavily based on logical fallacy therefore makes evolution 'scientific'?
"Nowhere in the six editions of "The Origin of Species" does Darwin ever state or suggest what the origin of life was other than frequently using the word "Creator". He was addressing the variation within life."
Actually, he does. He said, "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory as showing how transient such impressions are to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man namely the law of the attraction of gravity was also attacked by Leibnitz as subversive of natural and inferentially of revealed religion. A celebrated author and divine has written to me that he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
"It might be useful to actually read the book before condemning it, unless of course you think it might poison your mind with demonic thoughts and set your hand against God."
vos meditatus vestri consultum
If you are implying that scientific extrapolation equates to logical fallacy then there is no point trying to carry on a scientific discussion with you. BTW your citation affirms my point, thank you. In it the "He" Darwin refers to is God.
Baramin is a theological, not a scientific term. Get some science education and get back to me.
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.