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

To: Right Wing Professor
Evolution has grave weaknesses that its proponents have struggled mightily to paper over or ignore from the time of Darwin forward by employing the Kiplingesque approach of "just so" myths. "Some chemicals bubbled happily in a rock crevice in on a paleolithic earthscape. An aimless bolt of lightning struck and the chemicals said, 'I got it! let's become DNA!""

Being blinded by their materialist worldview, evolutionists cannot explain the genesis of information or intelligence let alone acknowledge the all-important role that these immaterial factors play in the development of life. Wholly bereft of any argument based in science evolutionists are forced to resort to personally attacking the people who raise such important questions.

You and your fellow evolutionists are in trouble, RWP, because your theory sucks. The more honest among you (Crick, Denton, Kauffman et al) have admitted it. It has an enormous and embarrassing gap that you can only fill by pleading 1) it came from somewhere else (which merely begs the question), or that something magical happened (the Santa Fe group), or by completely ignoring it as if ignorance were a sufficient explanation.

And if you can't answer it, you'll be damned if you'll allow anyone else to try, hence these feeble screechings from your allies in the AMA and related bodies that are quite obviously attempting not to join the debate but to intimidate others into silence.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

14 posted on 12/03/2005 7:08:59 AM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: JCEccles

"Some chemicals bubbled happily in a rock crevice in on a paleolithic earthscape. An aimless bolt of lightning struck and the chemicals said, 'I got it! let's become DNA!"



It was Pasteur who indeed proved that life does not occur/evolve readily spontaneously, that it occured through infections. "Darwinists" of today are in fact more on the side of spontaneous generation cult that attacked the inventor of the vaccine himself than on the side of science.


17 posted on 12/03/2005 7:16:37 AM PST by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles

I note that you don't accept abiogenesis, which however is not part of the theory of evolution. Darwin amongst any others suggested that the first life could have been divinely inspired.

So, do you have any arguments about the Theory of Evolution?


21 posted on 12/03/2005 7:22:39 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles
Evolution has grave weaknesses that its proponents have struggled mightily to paper over or ignore from the time of Darwin forward by employing the Kiplingesque approach of "just so" myths. "Some chemicals bubbled happily in a rock crevice in on a paleolithic earthscape. An aimless bolt of lightning struck and the chemicals said, 'I got it! let's become DNA!""\

The theory of evolution does not discuss the origin of life. This has been repeated enough times that you are certain to be aware of it, and therefore the above is just an intellectually dishonest straw man.

Being blinded by their materialist worldview, evolutionists cannot explain the genesis of information or intelligence let alone acknowledge the all-important role that these immaterial factors play in the development of life. Wholly bereft of any argument based in science evolutionists are forced to resort to personally attacking the people who raise such important questions.

This is mere vapid hand-waving. It is perfectly possible to come up with scientifically defensible schemes for the genesis of information - as for intelligence, prokaryotes only have intelligence in comparison with creationists, a deplorably low standard.

\ You and your fellow evolutionists are in trouble, RWP, because your theory sucks. The more honest among you (Crick, Denton, Kauffman et al) have admitted it. It has an enormous and embarrassing gap that you can only fill by pleading 1) it came from somewhere else (which merely begs the question), or that something magical happened (the Santa Fe group), or by completely ignoring it as if ignorance were a sufficient explanation.\

You lie. Research groups all over the world are actively investigating the means by which life arose, and bridging the gap between abiogenetic origins and modern prokaryotic life forms.

And if you can't answer it, you'll be damned if you'll allow anyone else to try, hence these feeble screechings from your allies in the AMA and related bodies that are quite obviously attempting not to join the debate but to intimidate others into silence.

In the hysterical hyperbole of contemporary fundamentalist Christianity, an organization speaking out to defend the very intellectual core of what it represents is 'intimidation'. What a shame that in the last 20 years, the religious right has chosen to learn philosophy and tactics from the multiculti left, and nothing from the scientists who spend two decades fighting off multiculturalist encroachments, only to face the multicultis' tag team partner, Pat Robertson and his polydactylous cohorts.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I'm ashamed of you. I'm ashamed we both call ourselves conservatives

23 posted on 12/03/2005 7:25:47 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles
You should be ashamed of yourself.


Your god is ashamed of you.

47 posted on 12/03/2005 8:45:53 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles
Evolution has grave weaknesses that its proponents have struggled mightily to paper over or ignore from the time of Darwin forward

If this is so then why are those who would expose such "grave weaknesses" directing 99.99% of their effort toward pushing the debate in front of high school students, and into other such popular and political venues where there can be no possible decisive result; and only 0.01% of their effort toward making their case before the professional scientific community, for instance with original scientific research?

Don't you realize how utterly bizarre and ahistorical the behavior of antievolutionists is in this respect? No group of scientists who sincerely believed they possessed a superior new theory, or a compelling refutation of an existing theory, would ever, or have ever, behaved in this way.

A scientist pushing a new, fringe, controversial, etc, idea will seek to recruit working scientists, or at least advanced science students likely to soon begin a research career, who can help develop and advance his ideas; NOT high school students, or even college students taking intro-biology to fulfill a course requirement, who can contribute nothing!

A scientist who sincerely believes that his new ideas have real scientific merit wants other scientists in the end to notice, consider and test those ideas. Therefore such a scientist will NEVER attempt to force adoption of his ideas in secondary school and introductory curricula, knowing this can only INCREASE hostility toward them in the scientific community, as it will appear to be an attempted "end run" around the process of peer review.

52 posted on 12/03/2005 8:58:56 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles
Being blinded by their materialist worldview, evolutionists cannot explain the genesis of information or intelligence let alone acknowledge the all-important role that these immaterial factors play in the development of life.

Evolution, like all of science is incomplete. That is why we continue to work on it. But it is typical creationist ignorence to state: " blinded by their materialist worldview". The arrogance is astounding. By what omniscience do you think you can you possible state so categorically what scientists think? Can you read minds? What basis do you have other than your sheer arrogance?

Wholly bereft of any argument based in science evolutionists are forced to resort to personally attacking the people who raise such important questions.

Nonsense again. You couldn't possibly recognize science, so you can you state that evolution is bereft of it?? MOreover, we don't attack the people who raise important questions. Indeed, when ID was first proposed, it was not attacked. That was 10 years ago. But after 10 years, ID has ceased to be a working hypothesis. It is time for results. What are the results of ID?? How many published papers to document their research and investigations?? Absolutely ZERO. Nothing, Nada. So, after 10 years we correctly attack ID because it has failed. The IDers had their chance. After 10 years they have nothing to show for it. We don't attack those who raise questions. We do attack those charlatans who produce nothing in 10 years except criticism.

You and your fellow evolutionists are in trouble, RWP, because your theory sucks.

This is your educated opinion, I suppose. And your alternative??? ID, whose total contribution to science is zero??? Oh yeah, that's an improvement.

117 posted on 12/03/2005 12:03:12 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles; Right Wing Professor
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Let's see, RWP is an actual working scientist who actually produces science results and publishes them.

And you are?

But somehow he should be ashamed???

One of my favorite conservative authors is Thomas Sowell. And Dr. Sowell's central point quite often is that our society is easily divided into those who produce things of value and those who criticise them for doing it, but produce nothing. It's a fair definition of why many are conservative... we actually produce.

It's pretty clear what RWP produces in science.

It's pretty clear that you can criticize. Now, what do you produce??

118 posted on 12/03/2005 12:06:59 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles
Evolution has grave weaknesses that its proponents have struggled mightily to paper over or ignore from the time of Darwin forward by employing the Kiplingesque approach of "just so" myths. "Some chemicals bubbled happily in a rock crevice in on a paleolithic earthscape. An aimless bolt of lightning struck and the chemicals said, 'I got it! let's become DNA!""

The theory of evolution says nothing like the above. If you don't understand what evolution says, then you have no credibility when speaking on any alleged "weaknesses".
281 posted on 12/03/2005 8:24:04 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

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