| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2006 03:46:22 PM |
| Object: |
Rebutting Darwinists |
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
By Ted Byfield
I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act
consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming
dissidents who challenge their assumptions.
Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th
century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent
design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural
selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have
this in common with Galileo.
I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in
scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.
Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of
scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post
(newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of
the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves
atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of
a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.
I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed
by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists
believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe
that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of
life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" - essentially
the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps
my 10 percent was far too low.
Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island
of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing
"transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a
hitherto undetected species on its own.
But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the
I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another
through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over
millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with
transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after many
years of searching, becomes front-page news.
Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory
unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But the
evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary
complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity.
If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity.
The demand - "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"- does not disqualify the
contention that somebody was there. "Nope," says the establishment, "not
until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in
schools."
Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas
I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not
notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a
government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D. lobby
to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian
schools. Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of
inquiry." Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It
merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.
Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated the
reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific
authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and executive
vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She
said that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the McGill application
offered no evidence to support it.
The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence.
It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The
Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover
how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years
since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process
began."
The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the
current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random
variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to
suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life
on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that
exhibit intelligent behavior."
Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would
threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
16 Apr 2006 06:10:04 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0LWdnV4XfOuNMN_ZRVn-rw@giganews.com...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
By Ted Byfield
I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age
act
consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming
dissidents who challenge their assumptions.
Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th
century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent
design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about
"natural
selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have
this in common with Galileo.
When I was in high school, I saw a film about Galileo in which he was trying
to convince a couple of his contemporaries that there were moons orbiting
Jupiter. They wouldn't even look at the evidence. They claimed that they
didn't need to look at the evidence because the Bible told them everything
they needed to know.
Based upon what I have seen in this newsgroup, creationists are much like
the papacy in the time of Galileo. When we point creationists toward the
evidence, they refuse to look.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
17 Apr 2006 11:55:16 AM |
|
|
"Ross Langerak" <rlangerak@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g9A0g.8035$i41.21@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
When I was in high school, I saw a film about Galileo in which he was
trying
to convince a couple of his contemporaries that there were moons orbiting
Jupiter. They wouldn't even look at the evidence. They claimed that they
didn't need to look at the evidence because the Bible told them everything
they needed to know.
Based upon what I have seen in this newsgroup, creationists are much like
the papacy in the time of Galileo. When we point creationists toward the
evidence, they refuse to look.
[snip]
<sigh> This 19th century urban mythology always comes up. Look, much of what
you believe about the Galileo Affair is the stuff of Urban ledged invented
by the likes of Andrew White etal. For example: No one of importance thought
the world was flat when Columbus set sail. The debate with scholars was
about the size of the globe. Columbus had it wrong. It was bigger than he
thought.
Galileo had some funky hypnoses such as that quoted from the link below: "He
decided that comets must be of earthly origin: that they were vapors that
had escaped from the earth and had mounted up beyond the moon, where they
reflected sunlight back to the earth. This explanation was unworthy of
Galileo: total nonsense; as bad as any of Aristotle's conjectures."
Galileo was too arrogant for his own good.
from: http://www.ips-planetarium.org/
http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian/articles/mythofgalileo.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
20 Apr 2006 02:59:12 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ULP0g.16550$tN3.179@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Ross Langerak" <rlangerak@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g9A0g.8035$i41.21@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
When I was in high school, I saw a film about Galileo in which he was
trying
to convince a couple of his contemporaries that there were moons
orbiting
Jupiter. They wouldn't even look at the evidence. They claimed that
they
didn't need to look at the evidence because the Bible told them
everything
they needed to know.
Based upon what I have seen in this newsgroup, creationists are much
like
the papacy in the time of Galileo. When we point creationists toward
the
evidence, they refuse to look.
[snip]
<sigh> This 19th century urban mythology always comes up. Look, much of
what
you believe about the Galileo Affair is the stuff of Urban ledged invented
by the likes of Andrew White etal. For example: No one of importance
thought
the world was flat when Columbus set sail. The debate with scholars was
about the size of the globe. Columbus had it wrong. It was bigger than he
thought.
Galileo had some funky hypnoses such as that quoted from the link below:
"He
decided that comets must be of earthly origin: that they were vapors that
had escaped from the earth and had mounted up beyond the moon, where they
reflected sunlight back to the earth. This explanation was unworthy of
Galileo: total nonsense; as bad as any of Aristotle's conjectures."
Galileo was too arrogant for his own good.
My response seems to have gone missing, so here it is again:
You're speaking from the vantagepoint of 20th (now 21st) century knowledge.
I have an astronomy book published early last century that doesn't do much
better than Galileo. For someone who worked mostly on his own trying to
figure out how things up there worked, Galileo did a pretty good job. It
would be the height of arrogance to suggest that, given what was known about
nature in Galileo's time, you could have done better. And reading the link
you provided, it appears that Galileo was productive. Science usually
advances in small steps. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and
many others all contributed to our understanding of nature. If they made
mistakes along the way, well, that's why we have peer review.
However, I am aware of at least some of the mythology that has arisen
surrounding Galileo. If you read my post, you will notice that I described
what happened in the film, not something that actually happened to Galileo.
When I read Ted Byfields article, it reminded me of the film, and I was
immediately struck by how closely the attitudes of the antagonists in the
film were mirrored by the attitudes of creationists today. Creationists are
really not interested in the evidence. They believe that they already have
the answer, and therefore, the evidence must fit what they already believe.
from: http://www.ips-planetarium.org/
http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian/articles/mythofgalileo.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
20 Apr 2006 09:56:06 AM |
|
|
"Ross Langerak" <rlangerak@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kbH1g.7034$sq5.5332@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ULP0g.16550$tN3.179@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Ross Langerak" <rlangerak@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g9A0g.8035$i41.21@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
When I was in high school, I saw a film about Galileo in which he was
trying
to convince a couple of his contemporaries that there were moons
orbiting
Jupiter. They wouldn't even look at the evidence. They claimed that
they
didn't need to look at the evidence because the Bible told them
everything
they needed to know.
Based upon what I have seen in this newsgroup, creationists are much
like
the papacy in the time of Galileo. When we point creationists toward
the
evidence, they refuse to look.
[snip]
<sigh> This 19th century urban mythology always comes up. Look, much of
what
you believe about the Galileo Affair is the stuff of Urban ledged
invented
by the likes of Andrew White etal. For example: No one of importance
thought
the world was flat when Columbus set sail. The debate with scholars was
about the size of the globe. Columbus had it wrong. It was bigger than he
thought.
Galileo had some funky hypnoses such as that quoted from the link below:
"He
decided that comets must be of earthly origin: that they were vapors that
had escaped from the earth and had mounted up beyond the moon, where they
reflected sunlight back to the earth. This explanation was unworthy of
Galileo: total nonsense; as bad as any of Aristotle's conjectures."
Galileo was too arrogant for his own good.
My response seems to have gone missing, so here it is again:
You're speaking from the vantagepoint of 20th (now 21st) century
knowledge.
I have an astronomy book published early last century that doesn't do much
better than Galileo. For someone who worked mostly on his own trying to
figure out how things up there worked, Galileo did a pretty good job. It
would be the height of arrogance to suggest that, given what was known
about
nature in Galileo's time, you could have done better. And reading the
link
you provided, it appears that Galileo was productive. Science usually
advances in small steps. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein,
and
many others all contributed to our understanding of nature. If they made
mistakes along the way, well, that's why we have peer review.
However, I am aware of at least some of the mythology that has arisen
surrounding Galileo. If you read my post, you will notice that I
described
what happened in the film, not something that actually happened to
Galileo.
When I read Ted Byfields article, it reminded me of the film, and I was
immediately struck by how closely the attitudes of the antagonists in the
film were mirrored by the attitudes of creationists today. Creationists
are
really not interested in the evidence. They believe that they already
have
the answer, and therefore, the evidence must fit what they already
believe.
from: http://www.ips-planetarium.org/
http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian/articles/mythofgalileo.html
The main culprits, besides Galileo's on personality, in the Galileo Affair
were his secular rivals that engaged the Church against him.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NRen2k5" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
19 Apr 2006 12:34:03 PM |
|
|
Ross Langerak wrote:
When I was in high school, I saw a film about Galileo in which he was trying
to convince a couple of his contemporaries that there were moons orbiting
Jupiter. They wouldn't even look at the evidence. They claimed that they
didn't need to look at the evidence because the Bible told them everything
they needed to know.
Based upon what I have seen in this newsgroup, creationists are much like
the papacy in the time of Galileo. When we point creationists toward the
evidence, they refuse to look.
Yes, you are right, there.
- NRen2k5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
19 Apr 2006 04:27:55 PM |
|
|
"NRen2k5" <nomore@email.com> wrote in message
news:Fvu1g.123751$0X5.1223835@wagner.videotron.net...
Ross Langerak wrote:
When I was in high school, I saw a film about Galileo in which he was
trying
to convince a couple of his contemporaries that there were moons orbiting
Jupiter. They wouldn't even look at the evidence. They claimed that
they
didn't need to look at the evidence because the Bible told them
everything
they needed to know.
Based upon what I have seen in this newsgroup, creationists are much like
the papacy in the time of Galileo. When we point creationists toward the
evidence, they refuse to look.
Yes, you are right, there.
http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian/articles/mythofgalileo.html
<quote> Galileo now decided that he should make another try at promulgating
the Copernican theory. He would write a book A Dialogue About the Two Chief
World Systems in which he would present the views of both Copernicus and
Ptolemy. Three characters would be involved: Salviati, the Copernican;
Sagredo, the undecided; and Simplicio, the Ptolemian. It was no accident
that the name Simplicio could also imply "simple-minded".
Galileo reasoned that inasmuch as Urban was an old friend and sympathetic to
science, perhaps he could be persuaded to lift the ban on Copernicism. Urban
granted Galileo six audiences-more than given to the ambassadors of most
states. They discussed the pros and cons of Copernicus. Galileo presented
his arguments, as he had done to his students and disciples many times
before.
But Urban was no ordinary intellect, swayed by clever explanations and
half-truths. He was a competent mathematician in his own right, and a patron
of the sciences. He remained unconvinced by Galileo's arguments.
Galileo then presented his "proof": The tides in the sea could only be
explained if the earth both rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun.
The reasoning was long and complex, and Galileo devoted the entire final day
of his Dialogue to it.
Urban's responded to this "proof" with these words (which he ordered be
inserted in the Dialogue): "I maintain that your explanation of the tides is
neither true nor conclusive, and that if you were asked whether God by his
infinite power and wisdom might confer the reciprocal motion of the oceans
in some other way than by making the contained vessel to move, you would say
that he could, and in many ways, some beyond the reach of our intellect".
In this, Urban was no less than prophetic! The orbiting of the earth about
the sun-Galileo's main thesis-has nothing to do with the tides. Galileo's
"proof" was wrong. The true nature of the tides was indeed "beyond the reach
of Galileo's intellect".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Freddy X" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Apr 2006 01:50:02 AM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: Yes
Scott wrote:
In this, Urban was no less than prophetic! The orbiting of the earth about
the sun-Galileo's main thesis-has nothing to do with the tides. Galileo's
"proof" was wrong. The true nature of the tides was indeed "beyond the reach
of Galileo's intellect".
Except Gaileo was closer to the truth than what Pope Urban could had
ever known.
Freddy X
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
22 Apr 2006 03:48:59 AM |
|
|
"Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote
In this, Urban was no less than prophetic! The orbiting of the earth
about
the sun-Galileo's main thesis-has nothing to do with the tides. Galileo's
"proof" was wrong. The true nature of the tides was indeed "beyond the
reach
of Galileo's intellect".
Except Gaileo was closer to the truth than what Pope Urban could had
ever known.
Urban was right on the tides.
Galileo was wrong, and then put Urban's correct objection to his theory of
the tides into the mouth of the anti-Copernican Simplicio, in his
"Dialogue".
Galileo was undiplomatic like that. As it turns out, he was right about the
heliocentric system. However not all of his arguments were right. Both
conclusion and proof are important in natural philosophy.
Urban wasn't a great scientific thinker, despite the fact that he fancied
himself as such. However he was a highly intelligent, well-educated man with
an informed position on the questions of the day. Suggestions to the
contrary are pure myth.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Apr 2006 10:26:12 AM |
|
|
"Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1145602202.113053.63820@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
X-No-Archive: Yes
Scott wrote:
In this, Urban was no less than prophetic! The orbiting of the earth
about
the sun-Galileo's main thesis-has nothing to do with the tides. Galileo's
"proof" was wrong. The true nature of the tides was indeed "beyond the
reach
of Galileo's intellect".
Except Gaileo was closer to the truth than what Pope Urban could had
ever known.
Or that Galileo could have know as based upon his own arguments. He had
Kepler's book in his position but made no use of it as defense for his
hypostasis indicating he hadn't bothered to read it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Apr 2006 11:45:38 AM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
Or that Galileo could have know as based upon his own arguments. He had
Kepler's book in his position but made no use of it as defense for his
hypostasis indicating he hadn't bothered to read it.
Galileo thought Kepler was a little daft for thinking the moon had
something to do with the tides. In this regard Galileo was dead wrong.
Galileo wilfully igorned the monthly component of tidal regularities.
The monthly regularities of the tides suggests very strongly a
connection to the moon.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Apr 2006 11:03:13 AM |
|
|
Freddy X wrote:
Except Gaileo was closer to the truth than what Pope Urban could had
ever known.
Yes. However Galileo's account of the tides was just plain wrong. The
tides were not properly explained until Newton formulated his law of
gravitation. Kepler was closer than Galileo. Kepler attributed the tides
to the influence of the moon. Galileo, in a letter, chided Kepler for
such occult "moonshine".
Ironically, Galileo did have the proof of the earth's rotation in his
hand. It was his pendulum. In 1851, Leon Focault demonstrated the
rotation of the earth by means of a pendulum with a long period swing.
As the Earth rotated beneath the pendulum the plane of the swing rotated
about the axis of the swing. This will occur anywhere not on the
equator. It was Galileo who -discovered- the pendulum, but he did not
have the physics to use it as proof of the earth's rotation.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
16 Apr 2006 07:02:35 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0LWdnV4XfOuNMN_ZRVn-rw@giganews.com...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
By Ted Byfield
< chuckle! >
I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age
act
consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming
dissidents who challenge their assumptions.
< chuckle! >
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th
century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent
design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about
"natural
selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have
this in common with Galileo.
This is quite laughable. In a world that is largely theist it is ridiculous
to suggest that the science "establishment" is the heavy.
....
Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of
scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post
(newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of
the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves
atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility
of
a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D.
camp.
The "logic" here leaves something to be desired.
I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed
by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists
believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe
that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of
life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" -
essentially
the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So
perhaps
my 10 percent was far too low.
This would certainly confirm that the proponents of ID are peddling a deity.
Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic
island
of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing
"transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a
hitherto undetected species on its own.
< chuckle! >
What happened to the "essentially" ID position that evolution is guided by
God?
But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues
the
I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another
through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances
over
millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with
transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after
many
years of searching, becomes front-page news.
Ditto.
Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory
unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But
the
evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary
complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes
credulity.
Sure does. So why do theists use this straw man?
If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity.
The demand - "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"- does not disqualify the
contention that somebody was there. "Nope," says the establishment, "not
until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in
schools."
Theists cannot show any indication of intelligent design, so they have yet
to establish that "somebody was there".
Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas
I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not
notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a
government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D.
lobby
to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian
schools.
Baloney. The proposed study was to examine the effect of ID on the
acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada.
http://tinyurl.com/rd7fe
Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of
inquiry."
And straw men are a popular theist tactic.
Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It
merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.
Unfortunately ID is not a theory, and cannot be a theory if it's claims are
not falsifiable.
Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated
the
reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific
authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and
executive
vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She
said that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the McGill application
offered no evidence to support it.
This same "gutsy" woman later acknowledged that "the rejection of his
application shouldn't indicate they were expressing doubts about the theory
of evolution".
The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence.
It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The
Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to
discover
how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years
since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process
began."
Silly twaddle. Investigating "how it works" is not the same as disputing the
theory.
....
Regards,
Josef
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
16 Apr 2006 07:08:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Rebutting Darwinists
Since "Darwinists" do not exist, that oughtta be very easy to do.
I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act
consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming
dissidents who challenge their assumptions.
Yes, just ask Charles Darwin when he did it: "the established
authorities" even made it a criminal act in parts of the USA to teach
his dissident theory.
These days "the established authorities" (scientists) greatly reward
any "dissidents" who successfully "challenge their assumptions:" such
people are wined, dined, speeched, and honored (and some times even
given cash prizes).
The first people who comes along and refutes evolutionary theory will
be hallowed by the world's scientists as one of the greatest of
scientists who have ever lived, right up there with Einstein, Maxwell,
Newton, Darwin, Plank, Bruno, and the other greats. She or he will
receive the applause and adulations of every scientist in the
biological arenas--- fame and fortune await her or him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
17 Apr 2006 12:15:02 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145232532.756072.308700@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
Rebutting Darwinists
Since "Darwinists" do not exist, that oughtta be very easy to do.
I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age
act
consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming
dissidents who challenge their assumptions.
Yes, just ask Charles Darwin when he did it: "the established
authorities" even made it a criminal act in parts of the USA to teach
his dissident theory.
These days "the established authorities" (scientists) greatly reward
any "dissidents" who successfully "challenge their assumptions:" such
people are wined, dined, speeched, and honored (and some times even
given cash prizes).
The first people who comes along and refutes evolutionary theory will
be hallowed by the world's scientists as one of the greatest of
scientists who have ever lived, right up there with Einstein, Maxwell,
Newton, Darwin, Plank, Bruno, and the other greats. She or he will
receive the applause and adulations of every scientist in the
biological arenas--- fame and fortune await her or him.
Bruno was no scientist. He taught geometry and preached hermeticism
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
20 Apr 2006 10:27:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island
of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing
"transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a
hitherto undetected species on its own.
This is a classic: when shown two similar species, evolution-deniers
assert that they were merely created similar, but did not evolve from a
single species, or else we'd see transitional forms. When shown
something like the evolutionary tree of the horse, where there are
ample transitional forms, the argument is that that is merely one
species changing over time, not evolving into a different species. So
it becomes a matter of semantics and definition, as much as anything
else. Similar to whether the planets revolve around the sun or around
the earth; in fact, mathematically, having the planets orbit the earth
in complex epicycles or having them (including the earth) revolve
around the sun in ellipses gives identical results, the difference is
in simplicity, coherence of the underlying theory, and having it fit
seamlessly into the framework of science, rather than having a God who
has to continually patch things up.
Which brings me elliptically to the point: I just stumbled on this. I
can't believe it's not better known. In response to the argument that
we can see micro-evolution, bacteria becoming antibiotic-resistant
etc., but have no evidence for macro-evolution, i.e. the origin of
species by evolution, here is
Observed Instances of Speciation
5.1.1 Plants
(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera
lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants.
O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a
chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this
variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P.
floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a
few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was
named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous
hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at
least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced
by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus
found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T.
dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony
near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and
T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus
has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and
western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same
study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish,
Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact
that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some
unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the
production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with
each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species.
Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of
a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be
the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G.
pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were
crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and
chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia
citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora
As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers
of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M.
citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The
chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially
doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid
hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of
species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed
that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n =
8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing
B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be
recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte
of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores
resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during
the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew
into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia.
Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was
produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to
be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N
individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W.
ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce
abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a
W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond
(Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile
sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia.
About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They
survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and
Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone
tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown
produced viable spores.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or
Polyploidy
5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira
malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a
much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co.,
Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of
chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting
sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no
self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look
very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences
in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the
species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that
conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental
abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)
Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation
between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by
seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to
identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any
plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain.
Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of
corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the
next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were
planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the
first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used.
In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were
used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings
dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4%
in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin:
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant
species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this
metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine
the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey
flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant
"Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig"
population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During
early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the
hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This
was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping
studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene
and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same
gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that
reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of
genes.
This is just a chunk of the whole page
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>, there is both a
large introduction to the concepts of speciation and species, and also
some similar observations in animals (drosophila, houseflies, etc.).
Pass it on.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Apr 2006 04:15:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
By Ted Byfield
I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act
consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming
dissidents who challenge their assumptions.
Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th
century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent
design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural
selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have
this in common with Galileo.
I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in
scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.
Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of
scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post
(newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of
the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves
atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of
a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.
Just like if you don't drive a Jaguar, there is a possibility that you
are chauffered around in a Rolls Royce, and since 99.9% of the
population of earth does not drive a Jag, we're all riding in Rolls
Royces.
I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed
by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists
believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe
that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of
life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" - essentially
the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps
my 10 percent was far too low.
It really is amazing that the EAC (WDNE) is able to so thoroughly
dominate the field that that two-thirds majority of scientists who
believe in God are effectively shut up by the remaining 1/3 of
scientists, which are 90 percent of all scientists, and those, plus the
40% of scientists who think God guided evolution, make up the total of
all scientists. No wonder ID can't make any headway.
Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island
of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing
"transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a
hitherto undetected species on its own.
buh buh buh....wha? Could someone please explain this to me? Do
those last two sentences make sense to anyone? Anyone at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
22 Apr 2006 12:13:43 PM |
|
|
Here once again. We have someone who thinks they have knowledge.
However, in reality they have a thimblefull of self-inflicted
misdirected, misinterpretated scientific data and propose to make
meaning of it.
Just because a scientist believes in God as the creater of the universe
does nothing to downgrade his commitment to science and Darwinian
evolution.
It is absolutely unbelievable how ignorant some people are. It is
absolutely unbelievable how people can go off on a dead end tangent and
never realize it.
Absolute ignorance.
If you are incapable of learning and understanding basic science, then
please please, get an understanding of history. Principly, the
Catholic Church and its role in the development of western
civilization.
Read the early works of Thomas Aquinas and Nicoli Steno. Both medivial
catholic bishops and intellectuals who established the present day
church's view and position of the evolutionary sciences at a time when
the Catholic Church invented the library system, the university system,
astronomy, geology, logical thinking, naturalism, banking, and headed
agriculture in the direction it is today.
But I think not, because you ID people are far too ignorant to read it
let alone understand it. So, to intelligently discuss is it is way out
of the question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Wayne" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
16 Apr 2006 04:32:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
Rebutting Darwinists is easy. Rebutting evolution is much harder. Straw
men are easy to burn, unlike steel armor.
By Ted Byfield
By Ted Byfield sounds like By Ted, By Field. If we don't have their
last names, then they don't count!
Of course, it also sounds like buy field! Those IDiots are always
trying to sell something.
I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act
consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming
dissidents who challenge their assumptions.
Like creationism, no doubt.
Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th
century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent
design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural
selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have
this in common with Galileo.
Then, it was religious fanatics trying to shut up a scientist. Now,
it's scientists trying to shut up religious fanatics. Which do *you*
find more sensibile?
Oh, and it's technically okay to shut up a dead theory. We killed of
creationism over a hundred years ago.
I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in
scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.
Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of
scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post
(newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of
the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves
atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of
a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.
What about Agnostics? And people who believe that evolution is viable
on its own, but a god happened to guide it? Also, what makes you think
that if you are not an atheist, you absolutely *must* believe in
creationism?
I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed
by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists
believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe
that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of
life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" - essentially
the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps
my 10 percent was far too low.
That's not creationism. That's theistic evolution.
Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island
of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing
"transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a
hitherto undetected species on its own.
*sighs* Typical. Once something is established as viable, the burden of
proof is on the doubters to demonstrate it is inviable. Same here; if
you want to say the Tiktaalik doesn't apply, you have give *evidence*.
Saying "Maybe" doesn't work.
But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the
I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another
through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over
millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with
transitional species. It isn't.
Only if the conditions for fossilization were always ideal. Which they
weren't.
On a sidenote, you have to define "transitional". We cannot rationally
discuss this ([sarcasm]which is exactly what you want[/sarcasm]) unless
we define it.
That's why even one possibility, after many
years of searching, becomes front-page news.
....so?
Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory
unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But the
evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary
complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity.
Essentially, you are saying, "it is really complicated, and therefore
common sense says it can't have evolved". Common sense has no place in
science. According to common sense, the world is geocentric. If we can
demonstrate that it can evolve, then screw common sense.
If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity.
The demand - "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"- does not disqualify the
contention that somebody was there.
Cells aren't footprints. The only reason we see the footprint as
artificial is that we are used to impressions shaped like a foot being
formed by human beings. If you saw a strange pattern in the ground on
an different planet, would you still say it is artificial purely
because it is complex?
"Nope," says the establishment, "not
until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in
schools."
Not until you can give more evidence than "common sense sez' so."
Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas
I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not
notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a
government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D. lobby
to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian
schools. Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of
inquiry."
As noted before, it is perfectly okay to suppress something if it can
be proved to be true. Otherwise, I say we started teaching Holocaust
denial in history. And, just to be thorough, I also demand we teach
that Hitler was a good guy.
Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It
merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.
That perfectly explains why all of the arguments revolve around
"evolution couldn't have created it, therefore there must be a
designer."
Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated the
reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific
authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and executive
vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.
Just because somebody is respected in one field doesn't mean they know
jack about another.
She said that evolution is a theory, not a fact,
That sound you hear is me banging my head on my desk.
and the McGill application offered no evidence to support it.
Assuming everything you said was perfectly true, then the McGill
application didn't need to. It wasn't trying to prove evolution, and
therefore should not have wasted paper on doing so. A quick check on
the internet manages well.
The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence.
It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The
Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover
how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth.
....and what does that have to do with evolution?
In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the
process began."
....so?
The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the
current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random
variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to
suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life
on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that
exhibit intelligent behavior."
Once you supply evidence, sure!
Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would
threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand.
J Young
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Jan 2008 11:04:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. First of all, your conception of
"Darwinists" is a fraudulent caricature. You don't
know any, you can't identify any. You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the
Darwinian theory is but one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*,
not a theory. The Darwinian theory is one explanation
for the observed fact. You cannot "rebut" an
established fact. You could, I suppose, try to dispute
that it is a fact, but you'll fail. In the long run,
ignorant superstition always fails in the contest with
science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: *Atheist Quote of the Month Nomination* ( was: Re: Rebutting Darwinists) |
21 Jan 2008 10:00:57 PM |
|
|
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:13p9k4pdg2dljc6@corp.supernews.com...
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. First of all, your conception of "Darwinists" is a fraudulent
caricature. You don't know any, you can't identify any. You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the Darwinian theory is but
one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*, not a theory. The
Darwinian theory is one explanation for the observed fact. You cannot
"rebut" an established fact. You could, I suppose, try to dispute that it
is a fact, but you'll fail.
Start of nominated part.
In the long run,
ignorant superstition always fails in the contest with science.
End of nominated part.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Coolman" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
23 Jan 2008 09:15:04 AM |
|
|
--
"Bush's economic stimulus plan will be as effective as pissing on a raging
forest
fire after an asteroid hits Earth." -Me.
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:13p9k4pdg2dljc6@corp.supernews.com...
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. First of all, your conception of "Darwinists" is a fraudulent
caricature. You don't know any, you can't identify any. You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the Darwinian theory is but
one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*, not a theory. The
Darwinian theory is one explanation for the observed fact. You cannot
"rebut" an established fact. You could, I suppose, try to dispute that it
is a fact, but you'll fail. In the long run, ignorant superstition always
fails in the contest with science.
The Bush family proves Darwin was right about worms rising up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "When Dogs Run Free" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Jan 2008 02:53:43 PM |
|
|
In article <13p9k4pdg2dljc6@corp.supernews.com>, Rudy Canoza at
pipes@thedismalscience.net says...
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. First of all, your conception of
"Darwinists" is a fraudulent caricature. You don't
know any, you can't identify any. You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the
Darwinian theory is but one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*,
not a theory. The Darwinian theory is one explanation
for the observed fact. You cannot "rebut" an
established fact. You could, I suppose, try to dispute
that it is a fact, but you'll fail. In the long run,
ignorant superstition always fails in the contest with
science.
Hi Rudy,
But don't forget the Know Nothings and Yahoos sometimes win another
contest, with pitchforks and torches...
"It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has
any inherent power denied to error of prevailing against the dungeon
and the stake. History teems with instances of truth put down by
persecution." - John Stuart Mill
"For my part I would as soon be descended from [a] baboon...as from a
savage who delights to torture his enemies...treats his wives like
slaves...and is haunted by the grossest superstitions." - Charles
Darwin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Jan 2008 05:06:03 PM |
|
|
On Jan 21, 12:53=A0pm, When Dogs Run Free <w...@woof.org> wrote:
In article <13p9k4pdg2dl...@corp.supernews.com>, =A0Rudy Canoza at
pi...@thedismalscience.net says...
youngopini...@aol.com wrote:
=A0http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. =A0First of all, your conception of
"Darwinists" is a fraudulent caricature. =A0You don't
know any, you can't identify any. =A0You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the
Darwinian theory is but one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*,
not a theory. =A0The Darwinian theory is one explanation
for the observed fact. =A0You cannot "rebut" an
established fact. =A0You could, I suppose, try to dispute
that it is a fact, but you'll fail. =A0In the long run,
ignorant superstition always fails in the contest with
science.
Hi Rudy,
But don't forget the Know Nothings and Yahoos sometimes win another
contest, with pitchforks and torches...
They can win a few short-term battles, but in the end, they lose the
war.
"It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has
any inherent power denied to error of prevailing against the dungeon
and the stake. =A0History teems with instances of truth put down by
persecution." =A0- =A0John Stuart Mill
"For my part I would as soon be descended from [a] baboon...as from a
savage who delights to torture his enemies...treats his wives like
slaves...and is haunted by the grossest superstitions." =A0- =A0Charles
Darwin- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "When Dogs Run Free" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
22 Jan 2008 08:39:44 AM |
|
|
In article <ee07e45c-b57d-4ef5-9650-efecb69a36e6
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Rudy Canoza at notgenx32@yahoo.com=20
says...
On Jan 21, 12:53=A0pm, When Dogs Run Free <w...@woof.org> wrote:
In article <13p9k4pdg2dl...@corp.supernews.com>, =A0Rudy Canoza at
pi...@thedismalscience.net says...
youngopini...@aol.com wrote:
=A0http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. =A0First of all, your conception of
"Darwinists" is a fraudulent caricature. =A0You don't
know any, you can't identify any. =A0You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the
Darwinian theory is but one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*,
not a theory. =A0The Darwinian theory is one explanation
for the observed fact. =A0You cannot "rebut" an
established fact. =A0You could, I suppose, try to dispute
that it is a fact, but you'll fail. =A0In the long run,
ignorant superstition always fails in the contest with
science.
Hi Rudy,
But don't forget the Know Nothings and Yahoos sometimes win another
contest, with pitchforks and torches...
=20
They can win a few short-term battles, but in the end, they lose the
war.
=20
Tell that to the people after the burning of the library at Alexandria,=20
or the Mayans and Aztecs, or during the Dark Ages.
Knowledge is ephemeral, and can be lost.
=20
=20
"It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has
any inherent power denied to error of prevailing against the dungeon
and the stake. =A0History teems with instances of truth put down by
persecution." =A0- =A0John Stuart Mill
"For my part I would as soon be descended from [a] baboon...as from a
savage who delights to torture his enemies...treats his wives like
slaves...and is haunted by the grossest superstitions." =A0- =A0Charles
Darwin- Hide quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "never@millions" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
21 Jan 2008 11:53:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:04:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. First of all, your conception of
"Darwinists" is a fraudulent caricature. You don't
know any, you can't identify any. You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the
Darwinian theory is but one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*,
not a theory. The Darwinian theory is one explanation
for the observed fact. You cannot "rebut" an
established fact. You could, I suppose, try to dispute
that it is a fact, but you'll fail. In the long run,
ignorant superstition always fails in the contest with
science.
Anti-Darwinists (anti-evolutionists): specious arguments against
facts.
DCI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "noshellswill" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
28 Jan 2008 03:08:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:04:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. First of all, your conception of
"Darwinists" is a fraudulent caricature. You don't
know any, you can't identify any. You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the
Darwinian theory is but one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*,
not a theory. The Darwinian theory is one explanation
for the observed fact. You cannot "rebut" an
established fact. You could, I suppose, try to dispute
that it is a fact, but you'll fail. In the long run,
ignorant superstition always fails in the contest with
science.
BigY:
Better to say -- bio-evol is supported by a myriad of facts -- or suchlike.
Also, better to say ' Darwinian natural history ' ... than Darwinian
Theory. TMBK there currently exists no "scientific" evolutionary theory in
the sense THEORY is used in physical disciplines. That is,
bio-evol lacks a dynamic allowing quantitative predictions to be
calculated and compared with quantitative measurements.
Note: population-biology allows quantitative work, but it's
"a-causal" ... physics would call that work "kinematics" and the
difference between the two reflects ignorance ( or ignoring ) of physical
mechanisms. Sort of like what Kepler did in astronomy.
Also note: lots of patterned data, and lots of explanations do NOT
constitute a scientific theory. That sort of thing is also done in
literature and social disciplines. It's good-faith work and may reveal
true things, but it is NOT science. History is another example of such
efforts ... (ex) Napoleon did what/when/where/why/how. It's
important to know this, but it's history not science, even if chemical
analysis is used in it's pursuit.
So assigning the name <natural history> to the current state of Darwinian
scholarship does not damn-by-faint-praise, but accurately reflects its
current behavior.
Lets be clear what it would take to have an "evolutionary science".
Pick an organism and environs. Given as input specified sequences of DNA
base_pairs ( say, marking a structural protein ) and given specified
'fitness landscapes' w.r.t. some behavioral trait , a scientific theory
will produce as output transition matrices predicting organism
reproductive success for each DNA sequence.
Yep, very demanding. Quantitative input, quantitative output. Science is
like that. No of-course biol-evol can't do that now. Worse than
observational astronomy before Kepler and Newton. Of course one trivially
dismisses the IDers as NOT EVEN WRONG w.r.t. science efforts. Unless you
want to posit ARCTURIAN LIFEPODS ... and I do not.
Course there are other options. If one wishes to "do science" w.r.t.
the development of life the disciplines of microbiology, genetics,
molecular biology or biochemistry ( add many others ...) are available.
And yep, I'll take Aristotles' definition of 'soul'. The primary act (
read- existence) of a physical body potentially alive. St. Thomas found it
useful and so do I.
nss
******
.
|
|
|
| User: "never@millions" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
28 Jan 2008 07:07:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:08:39 -0500, noshellswill
<noshellswill@gmail.com> wrote:
CLIPPED
And yep, I'll take Aristotles' definition of 'soul'. The primary act (
read- existence) of a physical body potentially alive. St. Thomas found it
useful and so do I.
nss
******
Therefore, since you agree with Aristotle and St. Thomas, you're right
up there with the best of today's scientists of today?
DCI
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BAM" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
22 Jan 2008 06:02:39 AM |
|
|
What you Darwinists never acknowledge though is that when Darwin wrote his
Origina of teh Species he believed in God. He referred to the Creator, with
a capital C, throughout.
Some people think of Darwin on one side, and Creationism on the other. But
Darwin believed both.
BAM
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:13p9k4pdg2dljc6@corp.supernews.com...
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49749
Rebutting Darwinists
You can't. First of all, your conception of "Darwinists" is a fraudulent
caricature. You don't know any, you can't identify any. You don't know
anything about theories of evolution, of which the Darwinian theory is but
one (albeit the dominant paradigm.)
Secondly, biological evolution of species is a *FACT*, not a theory. The
Darwinian theory is one explanation for the observed fact. You cannot
"rebut" an established fact. You could, I suppose, try to dispute that it
is a fact, but you'll fail. In the long run, ignorant superstition always
fails in the contest with science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
22 Jan 2008 09:40:37 AM |
|
|
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HWklj.71036$rc2.62358@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
What you Darwinists never acknowledge though is that when Darwin wrote his
Origina of teh Species he believed in God. He referred to the Creator,
with a capital C, throughout.
Some people think of Darwin on one side, and Creationism on the other. But
Darwin believed both.
BAM
And he kept them separate. Evolution is based on science and reason while
creationism is based on faith. Science fails to be science when faith is
interjected.
However I am open to creationism. One only has to find a T-Rex fossil next
to one of a bunny rabbit and I am a convert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BAM" |
|
| Title: Re: Rebutting Darwinists |
22 Jan 2008 09:05:13 PM |
|
|
"grinder@o-yoohoo.edu" <nobody@yoohoo.org> wrote in message
news:13pc3jij8ebcuc9@corp.supernews.com...
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HWklj.71036$rc2.62358@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
What you Darwinists never acknowledge though is that when Darwin wrote
his Origina of teh Species he believed in God. He referred to the
Creator, with a capital C, throughout.
Some people think of Darwin on one side, and Creationism on the other.
But Darwin believed both.
BAM
And he kept them separate. Evolution is based on science and reason while
creationism is based on faith. Science fails to be science when faith is
interjected.
However I am open to creationism. One only has to find a T-Rex fossil
next to one of a bunny rabbit and I am a convert.
One can believe in both as Darwin did.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
Not as well known is the fact that human tracks have also been found, not
only in the same formation, but on the same bedding plane and in some cases
overlapping the dinosaur tracks.
BAM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
