Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin Doubters
Human Events ^ | 12/22/2009 | Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

Posted on 12/22/2009 7:53:44 AM PST by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 next last
To: GourmetDan; SeekAndFind; GodGunsGuts
The evidence itself neither proves nor disproves anything.

You are half right. Evidence can't prove anything, but it can certainly disprove a theory.

It is the interpretation of evidence through a preferred philosophical paradigm and logical fallacy that leads you to believe you are looking at 'proof' or 'falsification'. There are only philosophical positions, not empirical ones.

I know you would certainly like to believe that wouldn't you? Tell you what, go jump off a tall building then report back to me with your evidence or falsification of gravity. If you didn't fall then you have disproved Gravity, if you do fall you have evidence supporting the theory.

Good luck. Oh and the taller the building the better : )

51 posted on 12/23/2009 8:21:50 AM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to take over the entire Health Care industry to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"You are half right. Evidence can't prove anything, but it can certainly disprove a theory."

You mean like anomalous orbital velocities of stars around the galactic center has disproved the current gravitational model? Or am I correct in that the evidence (anomalous orbital velocities) in no way disproved the theory but instead 'dark matter' was invented because of a philosophical commitment to a certain theory combined w/ fallacious logic?

"I know you would certainly like to believe that wouldn't you? Tell you what, go jump off a tall building then report back to me with your evidence or falsification of gravity. If you didn't fall then you have disproved Gravity, if you do fall you have evidence supporting the theory."

I know you would certainly like to deny that, wouldn't you? Tell you what, take a starship to a star with an anomalous orbital velocity and report back on the effects of 'dark matter' on your starship during the trip with your evidence or falsification of 'dark matter'. If you aren't affected, then you have disproved 'dark mattter'. If you are affected, you have proved it.

"Good luck. Oh and the taller the building the better : )"

Good luck. Oh and the farther the start, the better. :-)

52 posted on 12/23/2009 8:31:44 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The information and information-processing systems that run the show in cells point with a particular clarity to prior design. The DNA molecule stores instructions in the form of a four-character digital code, similar to a computer code. As we know from our repeated experience -- the basis of all scientific reasoning -- systems possessing such features always arise from minds, not material processes.

A flaw in ID thinking is the belief that the human mind is Godlike

53 posted on 12/23/2009 8:49:25 AM PST by OldNavyVet (Beliefs belong in church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You mean like anomalous orbital velocities of stars around the galactic center has disproved the current gravitational model?

It hasn't disproven anything 'yet'. It may simply be evidence that the fabric of space is growing. The pioneer anomaly may support that idea too. When I go flying that doesn't disprove the theory of Gravity.

If you aren't affected, then you have disproved 'dark mattter'. If you are affected, you have proved it.

First to test your theory you have to have a theory. What is your theory? Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see GourmetDan's theory! I can't wait to see your theory disproving gravity : )

54 posted on 12/23/2009 9:11:24 AM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to take over the entire Health Care industry to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"It hasn't disproven anything 'yet'. It may simply be evidence that the fabric of space is growing. The pioneer anomaly may support that idea too."

Exactly the point. Evidence contrary to theory is 'explained away' by conveniently-invisible, assumed 'dark matter' that is then 'identified' by the conveniently-circular appeal to the anomalous effect as evidence for the invisible evidence.

"When I go flying that doesn't disprove the theory of Gravity."

Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.

"First to test your theory you have to have a theory. What is your theory? Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see GourmetDan's theory! I can't wait to see your theory disproving gravity : )"

To be able to disprove a theory, anomalous evidence must be considered in light of scientifically observable evidence rather than 'explained away' by assumed, invisible matter that is invoked because the observations are off. Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see LeGrande's explanation for anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence. I can't wait to see your explanation proving anomalous observed orbital velocities using observable evidence. :-)

55 posted on 12/23/2009 9:53:50 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; GodGunsGuts

While GGG and I have amicable exchanges, he and I agree on next to nothing. Merry Christmas, GGG.

That being said, GGG will admittedly (he has done so often) post any critique of Darwin’s theory, as anything that assists in tearing it down is seen as a good thing.

But have no fear, were Darwin’s Beagle to be sunk by said critiques (they’ve had 150 years to do so, so it does seem unlikely to happen), GGG would immediately turn on the IDers, grinding them into fine dust for their perceived apostasy. It’s the old, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until I no longer need them.

Do I have that about right, GGG?


56 posted on 12/23/2009 10:16:38 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
We get to see LeGrande's explanation for anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence. I can't wait to see your explanation proving anomalous observed orbital velocities using observable evidence. :-)

No. I asked you for your theory explaining it. I already gave you two possibilities.

Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.

And how do you know that isn't the case with the anomalous orbital velocities?

Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything.

57 posted on 12/23/2009 11:25:59 AM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to take over the entire Health Care industry to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"No. I asked you for your theory explaining it. I already gave you two possibilities."

I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence.

"And how do you know that isn't the case with the anomalous orbital velocities?"

So, please explain how these stars are using aerodynamic properties to generate anomalous orbital velocities in space.

"Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything."

That's got to be the strongest argument you've made to date.

58 posted on 12/23/2009 12:21:28 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence.

Yes, I know that it is hard to believe that I don't have all the answers. You will just have to learn to live with a little uncertainty in your life.

Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything.

That's got to be the strongest argument you've made to date.

You seem to have a problem with living with uncertainty. Science doesn't provide certainty. I would rather live with a little uncertainty than 'know' something that isn't true.

59 posted on 12/23/2009 12:58:21 PM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to take over the entire Health Care industry to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"Yes, I know that it is hard to believe that I don't have all the answers. You will just have to learn to live with a little uncertainty in your life."

It isn't hard to believe that you don't have any answers at all. What I said was, "I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence." That you think that means it is "hard to believe that I don't have all the answers" only shows how uncertain your positions are.

"You seem to have a problem with living with uncertainty. Science doesn't provide certainty. I would rather live with a little uncertainty than 'know' something that isn't true."

You seem to have a problem with credulity. But I see that you characterize it as 'a little uncertainty' so that you can 'know' something that isn't true.

60 posted on 12/23/2009 1:06:29 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: metmom

None of which happened in my comment.

Your apparent anger seems to thwart your ability to discern the truth.


61 posted on 12/23/2009 1:15:44 PM PST by Thunder Smurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

I am bored with the current exchange. Do you have something useful to add or should we just let it rest?

A joke is only amusing the first time.


62 posted on 12/23/2009 2:21:39 PM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to take over the entire Health Care industry to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"I am bored with the current exchange. Do you have something useful to add or should we just let it rest?"

If that's your criteria, you failed it from the start.

"A joke is only amusing the first time."

Good luck w/ your cognitive dissonance.

63 posted on 12/23/2009 2:28:52 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Sad state, eh?


64 posted on 12/23/2009 4:22:16 PM PST by Thunder Smurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Didn’t offend me. As any designer of complex systems will attest they always have one or more boxes or clouds on the systems flowchart labelled something like “And a miracle happens here.” But unlike us mere human programmers, God actually pulled it off. No one knows how.


65 posted on 12/23/2009 6:05:31 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Join the TEA Party Rebellion!! May God and TEA save the Republic!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Agamemnon

Yes, and apparently being an Astrophysicist makes one an “evolutionist”.
Being ANY type of real scientist must, because creationism is antithetical to the scientific method; and creationists must lie about science out of necessity; trusting that their target audience is, as a group, the most ignorant of science and the most bereft of education.


IOW...

liberals continue to project-alot.

Gosh it’s not like this has been a dead horse re-beaten into a pulp eh?


66 posted on 12/28/2009 6:48:47 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
liberal= to disagree with tpanther/ project= a truth tpanther cannot deal with/ beat a dead horse= to bring up a fact that tpanther doesn't like
67 posted on 12/28/2009 7:05:06 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thanks for the info...

it’s nice to see there is another a-politcally correct Hillsdale college out there...as Paul Harvey says...”and that... is the rest of the story”.


68 posted on 12/28/2009 7:19:24 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Like I said, liberals continue to project-alot.

Your re-posting the same ole tired liberal debunked links still amounts to nothing more than re-posting the same ole tired liberal debunked links.


69 posted on 12/28/2009 9:25:27 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

You creationists crack me up : )

“For example, contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal “a biological big bang” near the beginning of the Cambrian period (520 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or “phyla” (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors.

The evidence that you are trying to use to disprove evolution, falsifies creation.

Isn’t cognitive dissonance a wonderful thing : )


That’s funny, like the incessant liberal logic that the rocks are really old because of the old fossils we find in them, and how do we know the fossils are old?

Well that’s easy, because of the really old rocks we found them in.

And the audacity with the liberal projection of cognitive dissonance, is what’s truly highly entertaining!


70 posted on 12/28/2009 9:40:54 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Thus more than 800 scientists,

Link?

71 posted on 12/28/2009 9:43:15 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Well that’s easy, because of the really old rocks we found them in

How old do you think the earth is and what is your evidence for that belief?

72 posted on 12/29/2009 6:21:27 AM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to take over the entire Health Care industry to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
There is nothing “debunked” about what I linked.

The more educated someone is, the less likely they are to be a creationist; just as the chart shows, or do I need to explain to you what the chart means?

Creationist sources play to their audience and take for granted that they know little, if anything, about science, or much of anything else.

73 posted on 12/29/2009 7:07:03 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

It’s so much easier to start from the premise of there’s very little if anything at all that you’ve linked that hasn’t thoroughly been debunked, and work from there.

As far as this case...the more a person exposes himself to liberal indoctrination centers: from k-12 public screwels to liberal professors, the more likely they are to accept without question myriad liberal fallacies including evolution.

Education has nothing to do with it. And liberal ideology can never replace a proper education.


74 posted on 12/30/2009 5:49:14 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

If you’re off by millions or billions of years,

and I’m off by tens or even hundreds of thousands of years,

who’s closer?


75 posted on 12/30/2009 9:29:02 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Your premise is flawed. Attainment of education doesn't make one a "liberal" any more than your own ignorance makes you a conservative. Ignorance is not a conservative trait, and education level is not a predictor of political ideology.
76 posted on 01/03/2010 3:54:38 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

In both monte carlo statistical analysis and genetic programming randomization is used to color in a paint-by-numbers design — the design is that which designed by designers — the random events do not create any information at all.

Genetic programming is like an example covered in a few chapters of Dawkin’s book, where he writes a BASIC program to draw stick figures, in a random progression. In that it HE THE DESIGNER who adds information — first by providing the platform on which the software runs, and second by coding the program, third by executing it, fourth by observing the output in each stage, fifth by selecting which output he likes, sixth by feeding back that selection into the system, and seventh by reiterating again and again.

Seven steps like seven days. Very parallel!


77 posted on 01/03/2010 4:36:10 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Yes, and apparently being an Astrophysicist makes one an “evolutionist”.

Being ANY type of real scientist must, because creationism is antithetical...

You are assuming that all who doubt evoloserism are literal 6000-year-old-universe creationists. That's BS.

The problem is with the basic laws of mathematics and probability, with which evolution is essentially incompatible.

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening at once (which is what you'd need), best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. For the pieces of being a flying bird to evolve piecemeal would be much harder. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools.

2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:

The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!

Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

78 posted on 01/04/2010 6:10:48 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dmz

I look forward to a world in which the debate is between myself and GGG over the actual pre-history of our world and universe, and evoloserism has been relegated to the junkyard of dead science theories where it belongs.


79 posted on 01/04/2010 6:16:53 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: bvw
In both monte carlo statistical analysis and genetic programming randomization is used to color in a paint-by-numbers design — the design is that which designed by designers — the random events do not create any information at all.

How does monte carlo statistical analysis and genetic programming perform using randomness versus not using randomness?

80 posted on 01/04/2010 6:24:17 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Are you at all familiar with either technique?


81 posted on 01/04/2010 7:18:49 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: bvw

I know enough to ask a question you don’t want to answer.


82 posted on 01/04/2010 8:25:46 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

What question is that?


83 posted on 01/04/2010 8:59:46 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: bvw
The one you haven't answered yet:
How does monte carlo statistical analysis and genetic programming perform using randomness versus not using randomness?

84 posted on 01/04/2010 9:03:37 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Re-ask that question in a way that shows you understand anything at all about either technique.


85 posted on 01/04/2010 9:04:51 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

I look forward to a world in which the debate is between myself and GGG over the actual pre-history of our world and universe

<<><><><><><<

And what is stopping you from having that debate now?


86 posted on 01/04/2010 9:16:11 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I totally agree with the author’s criticism of the methods used by evolutionists in academia. Unfortunately, he seems to think “intelligent design” is a reasonable alternative, but it is every bit as much conjecture as evolution, and despite that crowd’s protests, “intelligent design” is just a euphemism for “creation.” A “designer” is a “creator.”

I do not believe in any kind of deity, but also cannot accept any of the evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionist seem so desparate to prove there is no God, they will go to any lengths to prove their evolution—and the theist are so desparate to prove there is a God, they will go to any lengths to prove existence was designed. I cannot accept the evolutionary hypothesis because there is too little evidence, evolutionists cook the data, and they evade all the serious scientific questions, but one thing is certain, if the universe were, “designed,” the “designer” of it would be fired from any engineering company in the world.

Hank


87 posted on 01/04/2010 11:02:49 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
I cannot accept the evolutionary hypothesis because there is too little evidence, evolutionists cook the data, and they evade all the serious scientific questions

Really? Such as?

I'm genuinely mystified where you get this impression. Granted I'm not a scientist, and granted I haven't done it in quite some years, but back in the 80's and early 90's I used to regularly read scientific journals, and occasionally attend scientific conferences (a couple AAAS conventions, and several semipopular symposia).

In terms of criticizing each others' ideas, and attempting to deconstruct controversies to crucial questions, I found professional scientists in evolutionary fields quite as aggressive -- if not more so -- as those in any other.

For instance, a series of presentations I attended in human evolution -- relating to the then hot topic of the "out of Africa" hypothesis versus the theory of regional evolution with gene migration -- was astonishingly aggressive. No actual shouting or name calling, no overt ad hominems, but very direct and detailed challenges by each side to the other during Q&A.

I noted, BTW, that Q&A at scientific conventions was always at least as long as the presentation, and usually longer. So, if an hour was available, it would typically be 15 minutes for presentation and 45 for Q&A. (As a layperson who hadn't gotten a preprint and read the paper in advance, this was sometimes a bit irritating to me. But, to the extent I could follow the debates, I could see that it was worthwhile.)

Whenever I attended creationism conventions the pattern would be exactly reversed. The presentation would be 45 minutes and the Q&A, if there was one, 15 minutes.

At the scientific conventions, if a questioner seemed to zero in on a flaw or weakness in the presenter's case, it generated obvious interest in the audience. Even before the Q&A started, you could see scientists scanning the rest of the audience, smiling in anticipation if they spotted an opponent ready to challenge the speaker.

By contrast, at the several creationism conventions I attended, if someone (even a fellow "creation scientist") dared to ask an aggressive or challenging question (a rare occurence) there would be an immediate and palpable discomfort and embarrassment on the part of the audience, as though someone had farted, and done so loudly.

To be blunt, the intellectual equivalence you draw between evolutionary science and creationism strikes me as thoroughly delusional (unless you've just never been directly exposed to each?). It bears no relation to reality, at least as I have experienced it.

Further apologies for psychoanalyzing, but I frankly suspect that you find "a plague on both their houses" posture to be self satisfying or aesthetically pleasing. But if you have better reason, I'll listen.

It could be I'm projecting. As a young man, having read a few popular, more or less (i.e. some more and some less) antievolutionary books, along with some pro-evolution, but also popular, books -- but before exposing myself extensively and directly to professional science and creationism -- I had an outlook not too much different from your own. I was sincere in this, but in retrospect I see my attitude then as smug and self-satisfying, and based in conclusions drawn without a remotely adequate examination of the evidence.

Maybe you've been less hasty and more circumspect than I was, and have a better case than I did, but I'm not seeing it at present.

88 posted on 01/04/2010 3:30:22 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: dmz; wendy1946; medved; metmom; Gumlegs
I look forward to a world in which the debate is between myself and GGG over the actual pre-history of our world and universe

<<><><><><><<

And what is stopping you from having that debate now?

My guess: That would be the fact that medved's views of pre-history are, shall we say, very "distinctive" (read, "lunatic") and detailing them under the "wendy1946" identity would be rubbing it maybe too much in the mods' faces that "wendy1946" is, in fact, the banned user "medved" returned (in drag).

Don't get me wrong. I'm opposed to banning much of the time, and would like to see bannees given a second chance most of the time, save for obvious seminar disruptors, racists and the like. But it's not my site.

89 posted on 01/04/2010 3:45:06 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

Your interesting response deserves a decent response, I think. I’ll begin here:

“Maybe you’ve been less hasty ...”

This will be my 70th year on this planet, and I’ve studied these things for all time of those 70 years that I could read and think. I’ve not been too “hasty” I think.

I’m not truly interested in debates at all, since they are really nothing more than demonstrations of one’s power of speech and rhetoric and almost never of careful objective reason. So most of your comment addresses something I’m not interested in, since most journals and conferences are to me, variations of the same. (I regard the entire “peer review thing as academic thuggery).

I’ve recently republished a paper, “Problems of the Evolutionary Hypothesis” by a friend and micro-biologist, for another friend who asked for it. If you are interested it raises some of the technical questions evolutionist perenialy evade. It is here:

http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=55

Not that it matters, because truth is truth (unless you are a post-modernsit), the author is not a theist.

I’ll not be accusing you of being, “delusional,” (the kind of thing I’ve become accustomed to from those who have no real argument), even though I do think you’ve been somewhat duped by the evolutionary academics, as so many were by the global warming academics.

Personally, I’d have no interest in the “evolutionary” fairy tale if it were nothing more than something some people believed. When it becomes a political issue, involving tax dollars that are going to be spent on education, and is being used to reinforce the vile psychological principles that let’s the most vile of people off the hook (in courts, for example), I think the evil of the evolutionary hypothesis, as it presently exists needs, to be pointed out for the fraud it is.

Hank


90 posted on 01/04/2010 4:14:07 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

You have a slight problem. Asserting the generation of a whole new animal "with new organs, a new basic plan," etc, all at once, describes creationism, not evolution.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

Ooops. More problems. Despite your arm waving (non) calculations, all those features are now known in pre-avian reptiles (dinosaurs).

For instance, as to "a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs," I posted THIS INFORMATION just a couple weeks ago:

Not only did many dinosaurs have hollow bones, for a genus described last year, there is specific evidence that these bones possessed the same special respiratory function they (otherwise uniquely) do in birds! Full article is online at the link:

Sereno PC, Martinez RN, Wilson JA, Varricchio DJ, Alcober OA, et al. (2008) Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE 3(9): e3303.

In this YouTube video you can see one of the authors holding one of the hollow bones.

The following figure from the article shows some of the pneumatopores (where the air sacs entered the bones) in the fossils from this dinosaur, which btw is named Aerosteon, Greek for "air bone":

So, we find a very specialized adaptation, otherwise utterly unique to birds, in a group of dinosaurs which were previously identified (about 150 years ago, btw) as closest to modern birds. Coincidence? For creationists, I suppose it has to be.


91 posted on 01/04/2010 5:55:08 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
I’ve recently republished a paper, “Problems of the Evolutionary Hypothesis” by a friend and micro-biologist, for another friend who asked for it. If you are interested it raises some of the technical questions evolutionist perenialy evade. It is here:

http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=55

Oh, c'mon. You can't be serious!? That's one of the most laughably pathetic screeds I've ever read, and I've read a lot of laughably pathetic screeds.

It's mostly vague (often barely coherent, can't tell what the author is driving at, points left hanging, facts -- or factoids -- introduced with no apparent purpose) rambling (and it's a real challenge to ramble in an article that short) and when not vague it's just wrong.

I don't find a single example in that article of the "serious scientific questions" you assert evolutionists "evade". It lacks the clarity to formulate a remotely clear or specific question. Referring to a vaporous, incompetent, error filled article like that one is in itself an evasion.

You just can't mean that to have been an example of the kind of arguments that you find convincing, or even relevant?! Seriously. Are you having us on? Was that a joke? (I mean an intentional joke?)

92 posted on 01/04/2010 6:48:18 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
The light bone structure is the least of the thing you'd need before you became a flying bird. The hardest item would likely be flight feathers. Aside from that, you'd need mutations which selectively mutated the pre-existing insulation/down feathers into flight feathers on wings, fail feathers on tails, and left the down feathers alone on the rest of the proto-bird.

Which side is it which is talking about miracles??

93 posted on 01/04/2010 7:15:47 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

That ill-considered cut 'n' paste screed wasn't valid when you were medved, it wasn't valid when you were tomzz, it wasn't valid when you were jeddavis, it wasn't valid when you were varmintman, and it isn't valid now.

A definition of insanity comes to mind, Ted, and the shoe fits you.

94 posted on 01/04/2010 7:33:40 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
The hardest item would likely be flight feathers. Aside from that, you'd need mutations which selectively mutated the pre-existing insulation/down feathers into flight feathers on wings, fail feathers on tails, and left the down feathers alone on the rest of the proto-bird.

The latest research suggests that all you need to form all the feather types are a couple additions to a basic activator-inhibitor system, which already explains the formation of downy feathers. See (full text):

Molecular evidence for an activator-inhibitor mechanism in development of embryonic feather branching. PNAS August 16, 2005 vol. 102 no. 33 11734-11739

Since we have the identity of the basic activator and inhibitor, finding the additional activator and another local inhibitor -- if this theory is accurate -- shouldn't take too long. Then you'll have to move the goal posts again. (Or, more likely, just ignore it.)

95 posted on 01/04/2010 8:01:08 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Whatever you’re trying to accomplish doesn’t appear to be working, does it? Lonely over there at DC??


96 posted on 01/04/2010 8:20:36 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

“... often barely coherent, can’t tell what the author is driving at, points left hanging ...”

Don’t worry about it. Those for whom the article was written will have no problem understanding it.

Your reaction to it, by the way, is excellent evidence of the kind of “reasoned response” one always gets from evironmental and evolutionary true believers. I’d be alarmed if you had liked it. It’s reassuring that you didn’t.

Hank


97 posted on 01/05/2010 4:14:21 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; medved; jeddavis; tomzz; varmintman; Admin Moderator
When you post to people other than me you make no sense, cut & pasting the same old medved rubbish you've been trying to peddle for years.

When you post to me, it's either an attempt at an insult, something entirely extraneous to the subject of the thread, or, in a sudden burst of novelty, something already exposed as false just a few posts prior to yours in the same thread.

You also refuse to answer the question I've been asking you for months: how many times have you been banned?

98 posted on 01/05/2010 8:01:27 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Like I say, whatever you're trying to do doesn't seem to be working any more. You and your DC brethren must have convinced everybody here that you're a bunch of *******s.


99 posted on 01/05/2010 8:08:28 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

I mean, I can see the basic problem...

Have you tried Yuppie Dating sites??

100 posted on 01/05/2010 8:19:14 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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