| 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: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:16:37 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Y973f.11317$wf6.2585642@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZZKdncTYmfa1GNHeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iBY2f.13845$Fc4.10969@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:0pkok1pododlnvi0vbnki9if5n8o8q0dpa@4ax.com...
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 stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.""
There is absolutely *nothing* in that case that would restrict
scientists from research regarding anything. There is nothing that the
judge could do that would restrict or not restrict scientific
research. I happen to agree that scientists should explore any
scientific evidence, even if it pointed to design. So, I ask you, what
evidence is there that could point to design? Not Behe's claim that
something could exist that could point to something. Not Dembski's
math waving that is evidence free. But scientific evidence for design.
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
The issue is that all this talk of irreducible complexity
in biological systems is just philosophical talk, not
scientific talk. Science is natural philosophy, hence
it has an inherent bias toward naturalism, because
that's all it deals with. These teleological arguments
you make are philosophical, not scientific, subject
matter.
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed, because you won't
accept any "teleological arguments" about its
existence?
The manufacturer signed it. I can trace what factory
it came from. I can call the support line if the hard
drive is spastic. That my laptop was designed and
manufactured isn't teleology; it's empirical.
An investigation into design as a
determinative element in biological systems *is*
a scientific inquiry. That's the point. Do you
perhaps see the internal contradiction of your
own statement, above?:
No. An investigation into design as a determinative
element in any system is mere hand waving, as far
as I can tell.
And why limit it to biology? This snowflake has
"apparent design" if it appears to me to have a
design, and it does appear to have a design.
But to say it must therefore have been designed
by a designer is begging the question. The patterns
of the snowflake were created by chaotic conditions.
And yet there is apparent design.
To go further, was the Mandlebrot set designed?
Its border has infinite complexity. If infinite
complexity isn't irreducible, what sort of complexity
is "irreducible"?
If we are going to look at design we may as
well look at mathematics itself. But it's still
not a scientific question.
"Science is natural philosophy, hence
it has an inherent bias toward naturalism, because
that's all it deals with. These teleological arguments
you make are philosophical, not scientific,"
Ergo, if science is natural *philosophy* it
is not scientific. Your words, your argument.
"These teleological arguments you make are
philosophical, not scientific, subject matter."
That sentence does not imply that anything
that is philosophy is not science. Merely
that your teleology is philosophy, not
science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:11:03 AM |
|
|
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:P5KdnVU1Coiaq9DeRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Y973f.11317$wf6.2585642@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZZKdncTYmfa1GNHeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iBY2f.13845$Fc4.10969@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:0pkok1pododlnvi0vbnki9if5n8o8q0dpa@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:14:09 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<5HX2f.13832$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 stimulates the advance of scientific
knowledge.""
There is absolutely *nothing* in that case that would
restrict
scientists from research regarding anything. There is
nothing that the
judge could do that would restrict or not restrict
scientific
research. I happen to agree that scientists should
explore any
scientific evidence, even if it pointed to design. So,
I ask you, what
evidence is there that could point to design? Not
Behe's claim that
something could exist that could point to something.
Not Dembski's
math waving that is evidence free. But scientific
evidence for design.
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
The issue is that all this talk of irreducible
complexity
in biological systems is just philosophical talk, not
scientific talk. Science is natural philosophy, hence
it has an inherent bias toward naturalism, because
that's all it deals with. These teleological arguments
you make are philosophical, not scientific, subject
matter.
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed, because you won't
accept any "teleological arguments" about its
existence?
The manufacturer signed it. I can trace what factory
it came from. I can call the support line if the hard
drive is spastic. That my laptop was designed and
manufactured isn't teleology; it's empirical.
Which is my original answer to the question of
what points to design: the first empirical,
the prima facie, look at biological systems.
In other words, the point of departure to
an inquiry into design is empirical, not
teleological.
An investigation into design as a
determinative element in biological systems *is*
a scientific inquiry. That's the point. Do you
perhaps see the internal contradiction of your
own statement, above?:
No. An investigation into design as a determinative
element in any system is mere hand waving, as far
as I can tell.
Well, you perhaps cannot tell very far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 02:27:27 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rAa3f.12645$wf6.2600362@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:P5KdnVU1Coiaq9DeRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Y973f.11317$wf6.2585642@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZZKdncTYmfa1GNHeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iBY2f.13845$Fc4.10969@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message news:0pkok1pododlnvi0vbnki9if5n8o8q0dpa@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:14:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <5HX2f.13832$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 stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.""
There is absolutely *nothing* in that case that would restrict
scientists from research regarding anything. There is nothing that
the
judge could do that would restrict or not restrict scientific
research. I happen to agree that scientists should explore any
scientific evidence, even if it pointed to design. So, I ask you,
what
evidence is there that could point to design? Not Behe's claim that
something could exist that could point to something. Not Dembski's
math waving that is evidence free. But scientific evidence for
design.
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
The issue is that all this talk of irreducible complexity
in biological systems is just philosophical talk, not
scientific talk. Science is natural philosophy, hence
it has an inherent bias toward naturalism, because
that's all it deals with. These teleological arguments
you make are philosophical, not scientific, subject
matter.
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed, because you won't
accept any "teleological arguments" about its
existence?
The manufacturer signed it. I can trace what factory
it came from. I can call the support line if the hard
drive is spastic. That my laptop was designed and
manufactured isn't teleology; it's empirical.
Which is my original answer to the question of
what points to design: the first empirical,
the prima facie, look at biological systems.
In other words, the point of departure to
an inquiry into design is empirical, not
teleological.
The question of whether there is such a thing
as irreducible complexity could be empirical.
Not the question of ID, however. But to
empirically determine whether there is such
a thing as irreducible complexity would indeed
require proof. When you talk about irreducible
complexity, you are making a claim about
natural selection and mutation. You are trying
to falsify Darwinism. That is a separate issue
from ID.
It would be a scientific endeavor to test Darwinism.
Testing ID is another thing entirely. To falsify
Darwinism, all you have to do is prove that you
have an instance of your so-called "irreducible
complexity" and prove it is irreducible.
It is not likely to bear fruit, however. I mentioned
the Mandlebrot set somewhere else, and that
brings us to the subject of chaos and fractals,
which display astounding complexity, indeed,
infinite complexity and they can be created by
merely iterating over a simple formula.
An investigation into design as a
determinative element in biological systems *is*
a scientific inquiry. That's the point. Do you
perhaps see the internal contradiction of your
own statement, above?:
No. An investigation into design as a determinative
element in any system is mere hand waving, as far
as I can tell.
Well, you perhaps cannot tell very far.
I can tell pretty far, here on Usenet. And if ID is
taught as science in US schools, the terrorists will
win, I'm telling you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:26:46 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Which is my original answer to the question of
what points to design: the first empirical,
the prima facie, look at biological systems.
Empirical is not the same as prima facie.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:45:48 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:38:59 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:47:12 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:45:13 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <Tl83f.11783$wf6.2589505@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
Yes, because I know what humans do (they make rocks that look like
humans), I know what humans can do, I know that humans existed at the
time and place that Mt. Rushmore was carved. I have plenty of
independent evidence for the existence of human designers/builders.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:43:50 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fafqk1tck5c4jp7jgfu2iqf0n4otmeleeq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Tl83f.11783$wf6.2589505@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
Yes, because I know what humans do
Well, then, you have an idea of how to detect design.
Now take that idea and apply it to biological
systems. Start by considering how much more
complex they are than anything designed by
humans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:47:40 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:43:50 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fafqk1tck5c4jp7jgfu2iqf0n4otmeleeq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Tl83f.11783$wf6.2589505@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
Yes, because I know what humans do
Well, then, you have an idea of how to detect design.
Now take that idea and apply it to biological
systems. Start by considering how much more
complex they are than anything designed by
humans.
They aren't.
And why isn't god designed? No, you can't special plead and
get away with it.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:04:14 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fafqk1tck5c4jp7jgfu2iqf0n4otmeleeq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Tl83f.11783$wf6.2589505@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
Yes, because I know what humans do
Also, we know the purpose for which the laptop was designed. We can
analyze the parts of the laptop to see if they were designed or
naturally occuring.
Now, take an antelope. What was the designer's purpose in making an
antelope? Was the the antelope as a whole designed, and if so, which
parts were designed, and which were naturally occurring? How did the
designer connect the parts?
Well, then, you have an idea of how to detect design.
Now take that idea and apply it to biological
systems. Start by considering how much more
complex they are than anything designed by
humans.
Colin Day
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:20:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:43:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <a3b3f.12839$wf6.2602754@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fafqk1tck5c4jp7jgfu2iqf0n4otmeleeq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Tl83f.11783$wf6.2589505@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
Yes, because I know what humans do
Well, then, you have an idea of how to detect design.
Now take that idea and apply it to biological
systems. Start by considering how much more
complex they are than anything designed by
humans.
So let me get this straight. Biological things are more complex than
human designed things, so they were designed.
--
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 |
12 Oct 2005 12:18:40 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gugqk1drjnq20ea8okqi54k1s8ig56mp0b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:43:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<a3b3f.12839$wf6.2602754@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fafqk1tck5c4jp7jgfu2iqf0n4otmeleeq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Tl83f.11783$wf6.2589505@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
Yes, because I know what humans do
Well, then, you have an idea of how to detect design.
Now take that idea and apply it to biological
systems. Start by considering how much more
complex they are than anything designed by
humans.
So let me get this straight. Biological things are more
complex than
human designed things, so they were designed.
No, but their complexity invites scientific inquiry
as to how that complexity arose, and that inquiry
is not limited to Neo-Darwinism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:46:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:18:40 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gugqk1drjnq20ea8okqi54k1s8ig56mp0b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:43:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<a3b3f.12839$wf6.2602754@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fafqk1tck5c4jp7jgfu2iqf0n4otmeleeq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:38:59 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Tl83f.11783$wf6.2589505@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:hr4qk1tnfqtms1u595qmil4kathcd7tgt6@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:00 GMT,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
So, when someone hands you a laptop computer, you
want proof that it was designed,
So, when someone gives you a rock, do you think it was
designed?
When you look at Mt. McKinley and Mt. Rushmore,
can you tell the difference?
Yes, because I know what humans do
Well, then, you have an idea of how to detect design.
Now take that idea and apply it to biological
systems. Start by considering how much more
complex they are than anything designed by
humans.
So let me get this straight. Biological things are more
complex than
human designed things, so they were designed.
No, but their complexity invites scientific inquiry
as to how that complexity arose, and that inquiry
is not limited to Neo-Darwinism.
Then do some science.
If you can't, shut the ***** up about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 10:44:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:18:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <Qzb3f.12895$wf6.2603763@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gugqk1drjnq20ea8okqi54k1s8ig56mp0b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:43:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<a3b3f.12839$wf6.2602754@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Now take that idea and apply it to biological
systems. Start by considering how much more
complex they are than anything designed by
humans.
So let me get this straight. Biological things are more
complex than
human designed things, so they were designed.
No, but their complexity invites scientific inquiry
as to how that complexity arose, and that inquiry
is not limited to Neo-Darwinism.
And when you have *evidence* for some other forces, other than
mutation, selection, and drift, then you should let us know. As long
as you have no evidence for your designers they are outside science.
--
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: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 10:59:26 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date, evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Its true that we don't have fossil records for every step of the
process, but the rates of change necessary to get from one known point
to another fit the evolutionary model.
Its like a car traveling through a tunnel. You see it go in at one end
at a certain rate. It comes out the other end at about the time you
would expect it to. Even if you can't see it during its entire trip.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student.
At least they can find Kuwait. - A. Whitney Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 07:07:09 AM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:48:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Evolution has been shown to be a fact.
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
"Fred Hoyle is often quoted as comparing the probability of
the origin of life to the probability of a tornado building a plane in
a junkyard. Hoyle's opinion was based on several mistakes and
misconceptions about both evolution and abiogenesis. These errors are
detailed in the Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of
Abiogenesis Calculations and the Evolution and Chance FAQs. Hoyle was
not only a layman and not an "authority" on the subject, but much more
importantly he was wrong and no amount of quoting his opinion on the
matter will make him right."
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:48:32 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:is4qk197nst0ge507velqnjj63d3demi56@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Evolution has been shown to be a fact.
If you mean that genetic adaptations have been
shown to be fact, that's true. If you mean
that the grand edifice of Evolution by natural
selection of random mutation has been shown
to be fact, that is not true.
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
"Fred Hoyle is often quoted as comparing the probability
of
the origin of life to the probability of a tornado
building a plane in
a junkyard. Hoyle's opinion was based on several mistakes
and
misconceptions about both evolution and abiogenesis. These
errors are
detailed in the Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and
Probability of
Abiogenesis Calculations and the Evolution and Chance
FAQs. Hoyle was
not only a layman and not an "authority" on the subject,
but much more
importantly he was wrong and no amount of quoting his
opinion on the
matter will make him right."
Well, there's a very high-minded opinion about Hoyle's
analogy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:46:19 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:48:32 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:is4qk197nst0ge507velqnjj63d3demi56@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Evolution has been shown to be a fact.
If you mean that genetic adaptations have been
shown to be fact, that's true. If you mean
that the grand edifice of Evolution by natural
selection of random mutation has been shown
to be fact, that is not true.
Except that it has.
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
"Fred Hoyle is often quoted as comparing the probability
of
the origin of life to the probability of a tornado
building a plane in
a junkyard. Hoyle's opinion was based on several mistakes
and
misconceptions about both evolution and abiogenesis. These
errors are
detailed in the Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and
Probability of
Abiogenesis Calculations and the Evolution and Chance
FAQs. Hoyle was
not only a layman and not an "authority" on the subject,
but much more
importantly he was wrong and no amount of quoting his
opinion on the
matter will make him right."
Well, there's a very high-minded opinion about Hoyle's
analogy.
Y'think it might be because Hoyle didn't know what he was
talking about?
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:29:29 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Evolution has been shown to be a fact.
To be completely accurate, evolution is a series of 'facts' that, in
some cases must be connected together with several alternate hypothesis.
New facts are being discovered all the time, which reinforce some of
these and cause others to be rejected.
The important point is that none of the missing pieces, currently
addressed only theoretically, require any mechanisms that various paths
of random mutation and natural selection can't account for.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated to the unrestricted propagation of worthless
information across the Internet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
13 Oct 2005 01:41:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:29:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Paul Hovnanian
P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> in <434DB879.BD3E2C96@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Evolution has been shown to be a fact.
To be completely accurate, evolution is a series of 'facts' that, in
some cases must be connected together with several alternate hypothesis.
New facts are being discovered all the time, which reinforce some of
these and cause others to be rejected.
The "fact" of evolution is the grand fact that life on Earth has
change over time, that the further back you look the more different
life looks, and that all life on Earth descends from a common
ancestral population.
The important point is that none of the missing pieces, currently
addressed only theoretically, require any mechanisms that various paths
of random mutation and natural selection can't account for.
And drift.
--
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: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:43:21 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
The windstorm only provides the 'random mutation' part of the process.
It does not incorporate a mechanism by which more successful copies
survive and propagate copies of themselves.
Before you try to pull a controlling intelligence out of your hat, such
a mechanism exists for things like crystal growth.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is like a buffet. Its not very good but there's plenty of it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 03:36:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Better than that. It's actually been observed to happen.
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
How many times does this granddaddy of flawed analogies have to be
refuted before creationists get the news?
Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. Biological replication is
an imperfect process, and that very imperfection is the fundamental
driving force behind evolution. No two individuals of any species
(except identical twins) are exactly alike genetically. There is
always some variation, both between individuals and between
generations. Environmental influences acting on those variations
produce change in the entire population over time. Given enough time,
those changes can be quite profound. Time, environment and genetic
variation can produce a shark, an elephant or a man. But a trillion
windstorms in a billion junkyards won't get you a 747.
But all that being said, even though that statement is usually
attributed to Hoyle, I have my doubts as to whether he ever actually
said it. Hoyle's problem was with abiogenesis, not evolution. In fact,
he believed abiogenesis to be so improbable that it couldn't possibly
have happened more than once in the history of the universe. Since he
personally observed the existence of complex organic compounds in deep
space, he assumed (without justification) that life must have
originated there, and that as these clouds of organic material drifted
through space, various planets were "seeded" with the building blocks
of life. If conditions were right, it took hold and developed. From
this assumption, Hoyle formulated his hypothesis of panspermia, an
idea which, while not as silly as 'Intelligent Design', shares its
lack of empirical support.
For my part, even though I wouldn't give either a snowball's chance in
Hell of being right, if I had to choose which idea stood the better
chance of someday being vindicated, my money would be on Hoyle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:22:06 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Better than that. It's actually been observed to happen.
Correct. I was referring to the holes in the evolutionary record. Given
the absence of evidence, one can still take the currently observable
phenomena and its rate of change and demonstrate that these gaps can
easily be bridged by similar processes.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask me about my vow of silence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
13 Oct 2005 02:25:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:22:06 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
Better than that. It's actually been observed to happen.
Correct. I was referring to the holes in the evolutionary record. Given
the absence of evidence, one can still take the currently observable
phenomena and its rate of change and demonstrate that these gaps can
easily be bridged by similar processes.
Absolutely true. But the average creationist is incapable of
extrapolation. He must have every step of the way clearly outlined
before him or he simply can't comprehend it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
13 Oct 2005 08:40:03 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:22:06 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
[snip]
Correct. I was referring to the holes in the evolutionary record. Given
the absence of evidence, one can still take the currently observable
phenomena and its rate of change and demonstrate that these gaps can
easily be bridged by similar processes.
Absolutely true. But the average creationist is incapable of
extrapolation. He must have every step of the way clearly outlined
before him or he simply can't comprehend it.
There's an analogy to that. Small children, less than a year old or so,
are incapable of tracking an object that passes behind an obstruction
and realize that it still exists and will emerge from behind it soon. By
about one year or so, they gain the ability to model parts of the world
that they cannot immediately perceive.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has
temporarily been turned off.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 07:34:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
It happened and continues to happen no matter how much lying
fundamentalists pretend otherwise.
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
I'm sure that if he meant that he would have said so, liar.
Fred Hoyle never estimated that. He had no problems with evolution -
it was abiogenesis he had a problem with.
This is one of the standard stupid falsehoods put forward by
creationists who are too stupid to understand that neither life nor
evolution happened all at once but built on what had already happened.
Hoyle was an astronomer not a biochemist. He imagined that it was so
unlikely that it only happened once. And having seen organic chemicals
in interstellar clouds (spectroscopy) he imagined that this was the
only place the building blocks of life could happen - which has been
contradicted by abiogenesis research which has shown that they happen
naturally under all sorts of different conditions.
If you were really serious, which we know you're not, you would be
ASKING on talk.origins BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.
All you are doing is demonstrating your appalling in-your-face
ignorance and stupidity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 07:38:52 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis because his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what we should
teach in the schools?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 07:42:33 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sq0qk150tsbeg3atv1kdq6iepn9juu8k77@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any
support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in
biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis because
his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific
community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no
beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what we
should
teach in the schools?
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who had
a bit of experience with biology, suggested a similar
view that life had been deposited on the Earth,
via some natural vehicle such as cosmic dust. He
was very much the snarky atheist, but he didn't
like the odds that life could have formed here
on its own on the given time frame -- it was
too complex. So he postulated a cosmic transfer
from another venue.
Hoyle, who named the "Big Bang" in objection to
it, held what was a standard view of the universe
before the Big Bang was accepted. A confirmed
atheist, he was prejudiced against the Big Bang
because it looked like a creation event.
And as an astrophysicist, Hoyle certainly had
a sense for realistic probability, wrong though
he was about the Big Bang. Hence his windstorm/
Boeing 727 characterization.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
