| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2005 04:25:02 PM |
| Object: |
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there are serious
objections to Darwinism... and privately they will admit to the
objections. However, they have become reluctant to discuss them in
public (and in a public forum like the Internet they will deny them
altogether) because they fear that they will aid their critics and
unwittingly discredit their own profession. In some cases, they feel it
is better to be discreet, pretend that there is nothing wrong, or even
tell a "little white lie" in the interests of the greater good of
science. (p. 269) ...Darwinism has never had much appeal for science
outside of the English-speaking world... its ascendancy in science, in
both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its
grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology;
embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to
have doubts. (p. 277)
There is a strong streak of intellectual arrogance and intellectual
authoritarianism running through the history of Darwinism... It is seen
in the outrage and indignation with which they greet any reasoned
attempt to expose the theory to debate and to the light of real
evidence. (p. 277)
SEQUENTIAL FOSSILS. The case for Darwinism would be made convincingly
if someone were to produce a sequence of fossils from a sequence of
adjacent strata (such as ammonite species or sea urchins) showing
indisputable signs of gradual progressive change on the same basic
stock, but above the species level (as opposed to subspecific
variation). Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten
or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic
evolution -- but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple
relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere
in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion... even
the world's foremost paleontologists have failed to do so with the
whole Earth to choose from and the resources of the world's greatest
universities at their disposal. (p. 110)
HUMAN EVOLUTION. ...the evidence for humankind's own evolution is
actually nonexistent. (p. 195)
INTELLIGENCE. In the baffling new world of modern physics, scientists
find themselves observing and examining a cosmos that has become less
and less like a clockwork machine and more like an intelligence. ...it
would surely be absurd to bestow intelligent characteristics upon the
behavior of nuclear particles yet fail to accord such characteristics
to living structures. (p. 234)
NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a
rationalization after the fact. (p. 130)
MUTATIONS AND EVOLUTION. I believe that Darwinists should muster the
courage to come clean... reserving the term mutation for any change in
genetic coding... and use some other term -- perhaps "novation"
(novelty-producing mutation) -- to describe the kind of mutation they
say is potentially useful. ...Can we estimate the rate of "novation" as
opposed to the rate of mutation? Yes, we can. The rate of novation is a
number that is vanishingly small (if not actually zero). It is a number
so small that in order to account for synthetic evolution by random
mutation, one has to have an almost religious faith... (p. 158-159)
I am seriously concerned, on purely rational grounds, that generations
of school and university teachers have been led to accept speculation
as scientific theory and faulty data as scientific fact... (p. 4)
To most students, teachers, and even some scientists it will come as a
surprise to learn that recent research into the age of the Earth has
produced evidence that our planet could be much younger than had
previously been thought:
existing methods of geochronometry such as uranium-lead decay and
radiocarbon assay have been found to be deeply flawed and unreliable
the extent of genetic change by selection has been found experimentally
to be limited
bacteria can be induced in the laboratory to mutate in a direction that
is beneficial to them -- without generations of natural selection
only a catastrophist model of development can account for important
Earth structures and processes such as continental drift and most
fossil-bearing rock formations -- most of the Earth's surface in fact.
(p. 6)
RATE OF DEPOSITION. Curiously, too, no geologist seems to have checked
out the geological column dates with an electronic calculator on a
commonsense basis. ...For instance the Cretaceous period is said to
have lasted 65 million years and is 15,000 meters thick -- an average
annual rate of deposition of 0.2 millimeters. Now look at the Siluarian
period: this, too, yields an average rate of deposition of about 0.2
millimeters per year -- as does the Ordovician, the Devonian, the
Carboniferous and the rest. ...about the thickness of a human hair in a
year ...such a slow rate would be quite incapable of burying and
fossilizing entire forests, dinosaurs, or even a medium-sized tadpole.
(p. 23)
RADIOACTIVE DATING. ...radioactive dating techniques are far less
reliable than was previously thought; the Earth could be much younger
than has been supposed by Darwinists; and nothing like the billions of
years required by evolution theory have elapsed since the Earth's
formation. (p. 30)
GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES. Most non-geologists (and perhaps even some
geologists) will be surprised to learn that observations of modern
geological processes show, however, that nowhere today are there rocks
being formed anything like those in the geological column. (p. 72)
SEDIMENTARY ROCK LAYERS. According to Berthault, "These experiments
contradict the idea of the slow build up of one layer followed by
another. The time scale is reduced from hundreds of millions of years
to one or more cataclysms producing almost instantaneous laminae."
These innocent-sounding words are the death knell of the idea that the
existence of meters of sediments is by itself evidence for a great age
for the Earth. (p. 78)
NO FOSSILS. There is one final observation that can be made about all
the sediments of the geological column in relation to present-day
processes, and it is the greatest anomaly of all. Today there are no
known fossiliferous rocks forming anywhere in the world. (p. 78)
EVAPORITES. ...perhaps the most striking example of present processes
failing to explain the past, the case of so-called "evaporites."
Extensive beds of common salt, gypsum, and anhydrite occur on most
continents... no modern sea or lake is presently forming evaporite beds
in any way comparable to these geological deposits, which are of
immense thickness and great chemical purity. ...contain no organic
remains -- no fossils... The purity of these deposits and the absence
of material derived from surrounding land point to them having come
about not through evaporation... but through precipitation from
chemically saturated waters... again it implies a catastrophic origin
and singular or rare events. ...Perhaps instead of "evaporites" we
should ...adopt the name "catastrophites"! (p. 75-76
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. The problems that have bedeviled horse
paleontology also beset every other branch of the science. Indeed, the
gaps in the fossil record are reflected in the living world where many
major animal and plant groups are high and dry with no discernible
predecessors. The development of the entire order of mammals is missing
from the fossil record, from its supposed shrewlike ancestor of the
late Cretaceous until modern times. ...In fact, more than 100 years of
further intense collecting by well-funded professional expeditions has
not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged... (p. 104,
109)
NATURAL VARIATION. The natural limit on the amount of variation that
can be induced in a species is merely the expression of the fact that
nowhere in the animal or plant kingdom is there a species that is
capable of the infinite biological plasticity demanded by evolution
theory, capable of unlimited adaptation to different environments and
different modes of life. Living organisms are systems with limited
potential for change in which variation of one characteristic reacts on
other characters, usually with unfavorable results. This finding is of
central importance because it is one that Darwinists will usually
accept, having considered the evidence, but will later on simply forget
all about when they are speaking of the Darwinian concept of variation
and natural selection. It seems to bring out the Jekyll and Hyde in
evolutionists from Darwin down to the present. (p. 137-138)
All of the above quotes are from Richard Milton's Shattering the Myths
of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1997), pp. 308.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
10 Oct 2005 07:45:20 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
Upon closer inspection, most of these people appear to be faculty
members rather than scientists from profit making businesses. I'd rather
trust people who's ideas stand up to a market test of their
practicality.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
c (velocity of light in a vacuum) = 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 03:53:19 PM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434B0B20.CC4E91F4@Hovnanian.com...
I'd rather trust people who's ideas stand up to a market test of their
practicality.
And sell out like the big oil "scientists".
Spare me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 07:28:49 AM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434B0B20.CC4E91F4@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
Upon closer inspection, most of these people appear to be
faculty
members rather than scientists from profit making
businesses. I'd rather
trust people who's ideas stand up to a market test of
their
practicality.
Oh.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
10 Oct 2005 11:13:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Nothing there to object to. Drift is a powerful force as well as
mutation and selection. And I agree that examination should be
encouraged. Now where is the list of people who think there are
serious objections? You did notice that the statement makes no claims
about any serious objections to Darwinism.
BTW, you had disappeared from an interesting discussion a few days
ago. In message 3rq7k11v066ph32oo6n8uehg4nidusi14b@4ax.com, Subject:
Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution?, Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005
15:24:28 GMT, I had written, and gotten no response from you:
[begin excerpt]
You:
Actually, design is the only reason that biological
systems can be understood.
Me:
Explain to me why bat and bird wings, which do the same thing, are so
different using design. Explain to me why sharks, seals, and penguins
are all high speed aquatic predators, but are so different internally.
Explain to me sickle cell anemia as a defense against malaria. Explain
the malaria parasite itself and its changing ability to resist
medication.
You:
It's evolutionary
biologists who cringe at the concept, but it's
essential to the study of any natural system.
Me:
Any natural system is it? Use design to explain orbits to me. Use
design to explain the distribution (both location and type) of stars
in the Universe. Use design to explain the craters on the Moon. Use
design to explain the shapes and locations of the continents and how
they have apparently changed over time. In fact, use design, other
than by humans, to explain anything in the natural world. Come on,
give me one example of design as a parsimonious predictive explanation
where humans are not involved. Just one.
[end excerpt]
You had made some interesting claims, I would like to see you back
them up.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 07:23:54 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
Drift is a powerful force as well as
mutation and selection. And I agree that examination
should be
encouraged. Now where is the list of people who think
there are
serious objections? You did notice that the statement
makes no claims
about any serious objections to Darwinism.
Ah, objecting to the core concept of evolutionary
theory isn't a serious objection?
BTW, you had disappeared from an interesting discussion a
few days
ago.
I don't disappear from discussions; I simply don't insist
on having the last word. I don't, for instance, have
any need to argue with someone about whether skepticism
regarding natural selection is in fact a serious
objection to evolutionary theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 11:19:18 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I wonder how many scientists might sign their
name to this:
"Teaching Intelligent Design as science in America's
schools will be bad for our international competitiveness."
I bet I could get more than 60.
Anyway, the argument from "irreducible complexity"
is rubbish because irreducibility what you would
essentially have to prove is that there was no
non-terminating algorithm in System X (i.e.
natural selection + mutation) that would wind up
producing End Result Y. Probabilities won't
do ***** for you, and won't be calculable anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 07:23:25 AM |
|
|
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vbKdnd19NtB1ENHeRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I wonder how many scientists might sign their
name to this:
"Teaching Intelligent Design as science in America's
schools will be bad for our international
competitiveness."
I bet I could get more than 60.
Anyway, the argument from "irreducible complexity"
is rubbish because irreducibility what you would
essentially have to prove is that there was no
non-terminating algorithm in System X (i.e.
natural selection + mutation) that would wind up
producing End Result Y. Probabilities won't
do ***** for you, and won't be calculable anyway.
As I've pointed out before, if you make that
argument, it cuts both ways, against both
natural selection and ID.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:35:13 AM |
|
|
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vbKdnd19NtB1ENHeRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I wonder how many scientists might sign their
name to this:
"Teaching Intelligent Design as science in America's
schools will be bad for our international competitiveness."
Teach ID as science in school and the terrorists win.
It's a slippery slope; pretty soon America will produce
no more technological innovation than Saudi Arabia.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 07:35:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there, I don't see anything
that looks like "serious objection". Skepticism is always a good
thing, examining evidence is what science does.
Drift is a powerful force as well as
mutation and selection. And I agree that examination
should be
encouraged. Now where is the list of people who think
there are
serious objections? You did notice that the statement
makes no claims
about any serious objections to Darwinism.
Ah, objecting to the core concept of evolutionary
theory isn't a serious objection?
There was nothing there that objected to the "core concepts" of
evolution theory. I would *add* to the list, but Kimura's Neutral
Theory has been part of evolution theory for some time now. And the
statement says "skepticism", not "serious objection".
BTW, you had disappeared from an interesting discussion a
few days
ago.
I don't disappear from discussions; I simply don't insist
on having the last word. I don't, for instance, have
any need to argue with someone about whether skepticism
regarding natural selection is in fact a serious
objection to evolutionary theory.
You do, however, see the need to snip out material without marking it.
You do, however, see the need to make unsubstantiated claims and then
refuse to support them. Failure to produce evidence and dishonest
presentations are not the way to find answers.
I will take your second refusal to support your claims as an admission
that your claims that design is "essential" to the study of any
natural system is pure nonsense. I will take your refusal to defend
any of your claims as an admission that they were empty rhetoric that
has no basis in reality.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 07:45:36 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 12:53:08 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
Why? Darwin himself thought that sexual selection might
well be of greater significance, a point he made abundantly
clear in his second book on evolutionary theory.
Many suspect that in this, he was right.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 12:19:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:45:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <QtO2f.13745$Fc4.5098@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
I am skeptical about the ability of gravity alone to form elliptical
orbits. I am not as skeptical about the ability of gravity and
momentum to produce elliptical orbits. I am skeptical of the ability
of mutation and selection to produce the diversity we see, I am not as
skeptical of the ability of selection, mutation, and drift to produce
that diversity. That said, one should always keep an open mind (and
hence some skepticism), but not so open that your brain falls out
(hence no serious objection to evolution theory).
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 12:30:09 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:essnk1pi74hfdjqatau236oen5ah65aem4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:45:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<QtO2f.13745$Fc4.5098@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
I am skeptical about the ability of gravity alone to form
elliptical
orbits. I am not as skeptical about the ability of gravity
and
momentum to produce elliptical orbits. I am skeptical of
the ability
of mutation and selection to produce the diversity we see,
I am not as
skeptical of the ability of selection, mutation, and drift
to produce
that diversity.
You really don't have a point, so you should stop
pretending that you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 01:33:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:30:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <BES2f.13771$Fc4.1175@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:essnk1pi74hfdjqatau236oen5ah65aem4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:45:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<QtO2f.13745$Fc4.5098@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
I am skeptical about the ability of gravity alone to form
elliptical
orbits. I am not as skeptical about the ability of gravity
and
momentum to produce elliptical orbits. I am skeptical of
the ability
of mutation and selection to produce the diversity we see,
I am not as
skeptical of the ability of selection, mutation, and drift
to produce
that diversity.
You really don't have a point, so you should stop
pretending that you do.
That you don't understand does not make it go away. Try your usual
snip without marking, that should work better for you.
Oh, wait, you already did that.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 01:55:16 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:o91ok15hgljf4umhu5lqbbtubm2ou3num9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:30:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <BES2f.13771$Fc4.1175@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:essnk1pi74hfdjqatau236oen5ah65aem4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:45:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<QtO2f.13745$Fc4.5098@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=
download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
I am skeptical about the ability of gravity alone to form
elliptical
orbits. I am not as skeptical about the ability of gravity
and
momentum to produce elliptical orbits. I am skeptical of
the ability
of mutation and selection to produce the diversity we see,
I am not as
skeptical of the ability of selection, mutation, and drift
to produce
that diversity.
You really don't have a point, so you should stop
pretending that you do.
That you don't understand does not make it go away. Try your usual
snip without marking, that should work better for you.
Oh, wait, you already did that.
Do you always whimper like this when someone eats your lunch?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 05:44:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:55:16 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> in <EUT2f.3935$D8.1274@okepread03> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:o91ok15hgljf4umhu5lqbbtubm2ou3num9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:30:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <BES2f.13771$Fc4.1175@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:essnk1pi74hfdjqatau236oen5ah65aem4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:45:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<QtO2f.13745$Fc4.5098@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=
download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
I am skeptical about the ability of gravity alone to form
elliptical
orbits. I am not as skeptical about the ability of gravity
and
momentum to produce elliptical orbits. I am skeptical of
the ability
of mutation and selection to produce the diversity we see,
I am not as
skeptical of the ability of selection, mutation, and drift
to produce
that diversity.
You really don't have a point, so you should stop
pretending that you do.
That you don't understand does not make it go away. Try your usual
snip without marking, that should work better for you.
Oh, wait, you already did that.
Do you always whimper like this when someone eats your lunch?
When you have something useful to say and stop defending dishonest
actions then you can try to hold a discussion with adults. Then you
will learn that some people give up the behaviors that marked them
when they were 8 years old, including projecting their weaknesses upon
others.
HTH. HAND.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 05:54:10 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:30gok1pc5b921jtobpeep4sptrmqbar90n@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:55:16 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> in <EUT2f.3935$D8.1274@okepread03> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:o91ok15hgljf4umhu5lqbbtubm2ou3num9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:30:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <BES2f.13771$Fc4.1175@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:essnk1pi74hfdjqatau236oen5ah65aem4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:45:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<QtO2f.13745$Fc4.5098@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:42cnk15grhvg7ndpipma72ol66cl833hdo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:23:54 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<u9O2f.13740$Fc4.3052@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:39emk1t9rjiprnlrs6r67tld7n4erc4ebb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command
=
download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to.
Good. So, it's established that there are many
serious scientists who have serious questions about
the core concept of the Neo-Darwininian synthesis
(natural selection of random mutations), and you
have no objection to it. That puts you outside
of the mainstream of the defenders of evolutionary
theory.
I don't see the term "serious objection" there,
Being skeptical about "natural selection" as
the driving force of evolution is about as
serious as skepticism about evolution gets.
I am skeptical about the ability of gravity alone to form
elliptical
orbits. I am not as skeptical about the ability of gravity
and
momentum to produce elliptical orbits. I am skeptical of
the ability
of mutation and selection to produce the diversity we see,
I am not as
skeptical of the ability of selection, mutation, and drift
to produce
that diversity.
You really don't have a point, so you should stop
pretending that you do.
That you don't understand does not make it go away. Try your usual
snip without marking, that should work better for you.
Oh, wait, you already did that.
Do you always whimper like this when someone eats your lunch?
When you have something useful to say and stop defending dishonest
actions then you can try to hold a discussion with adults. Then you
will learn that some people give up the behaviors that marked them
when they were 8 years old, including projecting their weaknesses upon
others.
I'll take that as an unequivocal *yes*.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 06:09:37 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Nothing there to object to. Drift is a powerful force as well as
mutation and selection. And I agree that examination should be
encouraged. Now where is the list of people who think there are
serious objections? You did notice that the statement makes no claims
about any serious objections to Darwinism.
Good point.
Here's another thought: When asked to sign the statement declaring their
skepticism about the evidence supporting Darwinism, I wonder how many of
these people are actually willing to make the leap to support
intelligent design?
How many of these people would be willing to sign a statement requesting
examination of the evidence in support of ID?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated to the unrestricted propagation of worthless
information across the Internet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 06:14:09 PM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C4631.1B2BB162@Hovnanian.com...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:02 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...
words of truth wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too
many
mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain
viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that
there
are serious
objections to Darwinism...
Name some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
From that page:
"We are skeptical of claims of the ability of random
mutation and
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Nothing there to object to. Drift is a powerful force as
well as
mutation and selection. And I agree that examination
should be
encouraged. Now where is the list of people who think
there are
serious objections? You did notice that the statement
makes no claims
about any serious objections to Darwinism.
Good point.
It's a nonsense point.
Here's another thought: When asked to sign the statement
declaring their
skepticism about the evidence supporting Darwinism, I
wonder how many of
these people are actually willing to make the leap to
support
intelligent design?
How many of these people would be willing to sign a
statement requesting
examination of the evidence in support of ID?
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 10:48:17 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
So, now we've come down from 400 or so scientists who describe
themselves as skeptical to 85 who support the Discovery Institute's
Creationi...er, Intelligent Design.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
We may have to. The above 85 scientists only want to pursue the
evidence. That's not the same as having "serious objections to
Darwinism". Darwinism may have some holes in it, which these people want
to investigate. It isn't a fait accompli that they will plug them with
Creationis...er, Intelligent Design.
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed is n0 subsittute fo accurancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 07:11:25 AM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8781.22D108D1@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
So, now we've come down from 400 or so scientists who
describe
themselves as skeptical to 85 who support the Discovery
Institute's
Creationi...er, Intelligent Design.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
We may have to. The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the
evidence.
You already have moved the goal posts. This is what
you asked for:
"How many of these people [referring to the 400 who
had signed onto the statement of skepticism about
natural selection] would be willing to sign a
statement requesting examination of the evidence
in support of ID?"
So, now you're saying, about moving the goal
posts: "The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the evidence."
If you want to engage in rational discussion,
it's important to, first, pay attention to
what *you* are saying, and try to remember it
from one post to the next.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:49:42 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8781.22D108D1@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
So, now we've come down from 400 or so scientists who
describe
themselves as skeptical to 85 who support the Discovery
Institute's
Creationi...er, Intelligent Design.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
We may have to. The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the
evidence.
You already have moved the goal posts. This is what
you asked for:
"How many of these people [referring to the 400 who
had signed onto the statement of skepticism about
natural selection] would be willing to sign a
statement requesting examination of the evidence
in support of ID?"
So, now you're saying, about moving the goal
posts: "The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the evidence."
If you want to engage in rational discussion,
it's important to, first, pay attention to
what *you* are saying, and try to remember it
from one post to the next.
I'm still waiting for something which supports your claim of "serious
objections to Darwinism".
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Just say 'No' to Windows.
-- Department of Defenestration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 09:15:58 PM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434DBD36.8EACCECD@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8781.22D108D1@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
So, now we've come down from 400 or so scientists who
describe
themselves as skeptical to 85 who support the Discovery
Institute's
Creationi...er, Intelligent Design.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
We may have to. The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the
evidence.
You already have moved the goal posts. This is what
you asked for:
"How many of these people [referring to the 400 who
had signed onto the statement of skepticism about
natural selection] would be willing to sign a
statement requesting examination of the evidence
in support of ID?"
So, now you're saying, about moving the goal
posts: "The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the evidence."
If you want to engage in rational discussion,
it's important to, first, pay attention to
what *you* are saying, and try to remember it
from one post to the next.
I'm still waiting for something which supports your claim
of "serious
objections to Darwinism".
Have you been reading this thread that you've
been, in a sense, participating in?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:04:34 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434DBD36.8EACCECD@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8781.22D108D1@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
So, now we've come down from 400 or so scientists who
describe
themselves as skeptical to 85 who support the Discovery
Institute's
Creationi...er, Intelligent Design.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
We may have to. The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the
evidence.
You already have moved the goal posts. This is what
you asked for:
"How many of these people [referring to the 400 who
had signed onto the statement of skepticism about
natural selection] would be willing to sign a
statement requesting examination of the evidence
in support of ID?"
So, now you're saying, about moving the goal
posts: "The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the evidence."
If you want to engage in rational discussion,
it's important to, first, pay attention to
what *you* are saying, and try to remember it
from one post to the next.
I'm still waiting for something which supports your claim
of "serious
objections to Darwinism".
Have you been reading this thread that you've
been, in a sense, participating in?
I'm still waiting for something which supports your claim of "serious
objections to Darwinism".
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.
-- Tom Waits
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 10:45:03 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434DBD36.8EACCECD@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8781.22D108D1@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
So, now we've come down from 400 or so scientists who
describe
themselves as skeptical to 85 who support the Discovery
Institute's
Creationi...er, Intelligent Design.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
We may have to. The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the
evidence.
You already have moved the goal posts. This is what
you asked for:
"How many of these people [referring to the 400 who
had signed onto the statement of skepticism about
natural selection] would be willing to sign a
statement requesting examination of the evidence
in support of ID?"
So, now you're saying, about moving the goal
posts: "The above 85 scientists only want to
pursue the evidence."
If you want to engage in rational discussion,
it's important to, first, pay attention to
what *you* are saying, and try to remember it
from one post to the next.
I'm still waiting for something which supports your claim
of "serious
objections to Darwinism".
Have you been reading this thread that you've
been, in a sense, participating in?
Handwaving based on ignorance does not constitute "serious objections to Darwinism".
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
13 Oct 2005 01:46:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:15:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <yrj3f.14771$Fc4.3441@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434DBD36.8EACCECD@Hovnanian.com...
[snip]
I'm still waiting for something which supports your claim
of "serious
objections to Darwinism".
Have you been reading this thread that you've
been, in a sense, participating in?
Skepticism is not an objection.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 07:07:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:14:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <5HX2f.13832$Fc4.10332@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C4631.1B2BB162@Hovnanian.com...
[snip]
Here's another thought: When asked to sign the statement
declaring their
skepticism about the evidence supporting Darwinism, I
wonder how many of
these people are actually willing to make the leap to
support
intelligent design?
How many of these people would be willing to sign a
statement requesting
examination of the evidence in support of ID?
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
What a bizarre brief:
"Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller
v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists
to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit
research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the
signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that
protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent
design stimu | | | | |
