| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZilentNoise" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:51:26 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
When a special centennial edition of Darwins Origin of Species was
to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
.
|
|
| User: "ZilentRook" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreementsamong scientists on evolution |
23 Jun 2007 05:43:59 PM |
|
|
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, BA, MA, BLT, PhD, MYOB, STFU wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9o4uk4-93f.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:42:47 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million
years?
Perhaps you're unaware that evolution encompasses the inclusion of random
elements, which means a prediction of that sort is effectively impossible?
If so, then your question is dishonest. If not, you should learn
something of the subject.
Kelsey,
Obviously the question is disingenuous (at best). The poster is attempting
to undermine the scientific reasoning founding evolution through the
suggestion that, since "evolutionary science" cannot make the kinds of
highly precise predictions that are regular made through, for example,
physics, then "evolution" must be false.
Wrong.
The original poster seems either
not to know or not to care that the parameters and imperatives of differing
fields within science are more amenable to strict, precise prediction than
others. Thus, the situations are sufficiently different to undermine
whatever analogy he/she was about to head towards. As you so nicely pointed
out, however, the really nastily dishonest bit is that creationism cannot
even approximally either predict or retrodict, much less wit any degree of
success but must rely upon a continuing series of increasingly complex
"miracles" to bolster their belief system.
creationism is bunk.
As has been said many times before, creationists are either ignorant, liars,
or both.
creationist? where?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 06:10:33 PM |
|
|
"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1181777735.926162.78330@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 13 Jun, 22:55, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
<trim>
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.
This is an excellent example of Jabber's habitual lying-for-god. He does
what the Watchtower Society does in their literature. They're famous for
taking things out of context for their own use.......
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil MacDouglass" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 01:44:54 AM |
|
|
the "society" is prolly the false prophet! ot the false profit! hehe!
"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1181777735.926162.78330@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 13 Jun, 22:55, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
<trim>
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.
The Creation book from which you keep copying and pasting is widely
regarded as appallingly, shockingly dishonest. One of the reasons for
this is "quote mining" such as this. Here's the full passage, in
context:
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859,
had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever
changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not
only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists
who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism. . . .
Most of the debate will centre on one key question: Does the three
billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it
marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of
rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely
accepted view - that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl - favours
the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are
putting their bets on the hare."
- James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p
88
The Creation book makes it sound as though eminent biologists question
whether evolution even happens. The full quote clearly shows that only
the mechanisms are under discussion, but there is agreement that
evolution occurs. This is a deliberate attempt at deception.
Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Quote mined again:
"Yet, for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great
unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular
biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many
believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half
the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion
polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches
certainty in scientific terms."
- Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p 12
Hitching also has no credentials as a scientist and is into dowsing
and pyramid power among other things.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Comments from Christopher Booker and Evolutionist Hitching was |
14 Jun 2007 04:49:33 AM |
|
|
A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said
this about it: It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The
only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it
was full of colossal holes. Regarding Darwins Origin of Species, he
observed: We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become
famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the
kind.
Booker also stated: A century after Darwins death, we still have not
the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution
really took placeand in recent years this has led to an extraordinary
series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open
war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of
[evolutionary] sect urging some new modification. He concluded: As to
how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and
probably never shall.
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either side. He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions, potentially one of those times in science when, quite
suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary
evidence and a new one takes its place. And Britains New Scientist
observed that an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a
growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics
have the highest intellectual credentials.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments from Christopher Booker and Evolutionist Hitching was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 06:27:54 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jun, 10:49, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said
this about it: "It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The
only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it
was full of colossal holes." Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, he
observed: "We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become
famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the
kind."
Booker also stated: "A century after Darwin's death, we still have not
the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution
really took place-and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary
series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open
war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of
[evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." He concluded: "As to
how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and
probably never shall."
This was written in 1982 by a writer, not a scientist, and he too is
talking about the mechanisms of evolution, not whether it happened.
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions, "potentially one of those times in science when, quite
suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary
evidence and a new one takes its place." And Britain's New Scientist
observed that "an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a
growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics
have the highest intellectual credentials."
And more of the same. By all means keep posting the evidence that
shows how dishonest the WTBTS can be. I'm sure you're driving more
people away every day.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
14 Jun 2007 08:11:32 PM |
|
|
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the
undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of
evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to
produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: To
suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. More than a century has
passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary,
since Darwins time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 09:48:57 AM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> skrev i melding news:8Hlci.8768$yS4.5684@trnddc04...
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity,
far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact
that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place.
Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question
arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution
have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: To suppose that the eye . . . could
have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. More than
a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwins
time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it
to be. Thus Jastrow said: The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could
have done better.
I know I'm replying to a troll from hell. But that aside, the eye problem in Darwins
days is childsplay compared to what the scientific community in cognitive science
struggles with. The complexity in how the eyes that just takes in sequences of
light is combined and processed by the brain continously, making an effortless
and beautiful combined world for us to experience, is like magic to them.. literally.
I love it, because the more science finds out, the more it leans towards creation.
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 02:10:56 PM |
|
|
"~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:dPCdnQQtvJRlO-_bRVnzvAA@telenor.com...
I know I'm replying to a troll from hell. But that aside, the eye problem
in Darwins
days is childsplay compared to what the scientific community in cognitive
science
struggles with. The complexity in how the eyes that just takes in
sequences of
light is combined and processed by the brain continously, making an
effortless
and beautiful combined world for us to experience, is like magic to them..
literally.
I love it, because the more science finds out, the more it leans towards
creation.
How so? I don't see anything causing a lean to a supernatural magical
"creation" event. What is your evidence for such an event?
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
09 Jul 2007 03:06:59 AM |
|
|
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:4672e441$0$1343$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:dPCdnQQtvJRlO-_bRVnzvAA@telenor.com...
I know I'm replying to a troll from hell. But that aside, the eye problem in Darwins
days is childsplay compared to what the scientific community in cognitive science
struggles with. The complexity in how the eyes that just takes in sequences of
light is combined and processed by the brain continously, making an effortless
and beautiful combined world for us to experience, is like magic to them.. literally.
I love it, because the more science finds out, the more it leans towards creation.
How so? I don't see anything causing a lean to a supernatural magical "creation" event. >
I don't see anything causing a lean to a supernatural magical evolution even.
What is your evidence for such an event?
S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Painius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
20 Jun 2007 01:35:53 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote...
in alt.astronomy news:8Hlci.8768$yS4.5684@trnddc04...
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts
of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to
take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual
parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element
of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought
all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate
mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: To suppose
that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree. More than a century has passed
since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwins
time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more
complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: The eye appears
to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.
Some think evolution works much like a little
baby learns to grasp things. When you go to
grasp something, your hand heads right for it,
and you grasp it. Most of us don't remember
what an arduous task this was when we first
tried to grasp things.
A babe reaches and misses, then reaches and
misses again. The babe may try several times
and then, finally, grasp the object. Each try
brings the baby closer.
We take for granted the details of evolution
where complex organs like the eye are
concerned. And this is just like how we take
for granted our present ability to grasp things
with our hands.
Eyes are very old, so we can guess that the
ability to sense our surroundings by using the
light that often bathes us was one of the top
evolutionary priorities in the more complex
beings. And eyes have therefore had a much
longer time to be perfected than some other
body parts.
Let's be careful not to take our eyes too much
for granted, nor their seemingly miraculous
evolution as extensions of the evolving brain.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Freedom! be free to see
All the stars, all Cosmos
For what it really is--
The Cosmos is Free!
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 04:06:36 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:11:32 GMT, ZilentNoise
<ZilentNoise@malinator.com> let us all know that:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the
undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of
evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to
produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: To
suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree .When it was first said that the
sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared
the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people
= the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.
Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one
complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor,
as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited,
as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal
under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex
eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary,
since Darwins time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Really? That's not what the quote says. Would you like to
re-read the quote? Oh--you should note that I put in the parts you
left out.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 05:30:46 AM |
|
|
Jabbertroll <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> strained and strained
finally something went 'plop'.
This is what it smelled like:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the
undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of
evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to
produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Try finding out what the TOE is, and what it says, if you don't, you don't
have a right to quote anybody else's pontifications on it. Nobody, in any
event, has the right to paste, without attribution, somebody elses
pontifications, it is intellectual fraud, especially when you know full
well that the material being quoted has already been handed it's own *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheist are Stooges" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 12:01:13 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" <user13@heathens.Org.uk> wrote
in message news:15t42vsngl7ab$.1dzl583v18jwz$.dlg@40tude.net...
Jabbertroll <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> strained and strained
finally something went 'plop'.
This is what it smelled like:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the
undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of
evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to
produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Try finding out what the TOE is, and what it says, if you don't, you don't
have a right to quote anybody else's pontifications on it. Nobody, in any
event, has the right to paste, without attribution, somebody elses
pontifications, it is intellectual fraud, especially when you know full
well that the material being quoted has already been handed it's own *****.
You militant atheists pretty much all work from the same script.
Although viewing yourselves as "free thinkers", you all have a Party Line
you follow rather closely.
It isn't difficult to anticipate your arguments on any
given point. Most intelligent religious individuals almost always can
correctly predict what
you'll say next. Interestingly, militant atheists get much of their beliefs
about "Christianity" from liberal Christians.
They'll pejoratively label all Christians as "Fundies",
then presumptively attack liberal theological concepts
they suppose us "Fundies" subscribe to !
Nearly all militant atheists are followers of the
religion of Scientism. Their priests wear white lab
coats. Their sacramental objects are the microscope,
the telescope, and the test tube. Blasphemy is to
deny the ultimate authority of science.
But the militant atheists -the ones who have devoted
their lives to refuting Christianity- are almost like the
demons ...who believe more firmly in God's existence
than do Christians !
It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some
of the people who most solidly believe in God !
Ain't talking 'practical atheists' here ...those who don't
even think much about atheism. They're the true
atheists.
Professional atheists who've dedicated themselves
to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him.
They're the God-haters.
To which they'll invariably reply: 'How can we hate
something we don't believe in ?'.
Exactly ! It's their belief in God which drives them to
relentlessly attack Him.
Run of the mill, everyday 'practical atheists' don't
give God a second thought. They're the ones
I worry about.
Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the
innate knowledge of suppressed in their hearts.
As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in
your life that you
totally disbelieved in God. And -in fact- were driven to
work against the Lord by belief in Him !
It isn't that militant atheists don't believe God exists.
Instead: That they don't want God to exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 01:58:25 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" <user13@heathens.Org.uk> wrote
in message news:15t42vsngl7ab$.1dzl583v18jwz$.dlg@40tude.net...
Jabbertroll <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> strained and strained and pooped
out more foul smelling Watchtower BS.....
Try finding out what the TOE is, and what it says, if you don't, you don't
have a right to quote anybody else's pontifications on it. Nobody, in any
event, has the right to paste, without attribution, somebody elses
pontifications, it is intellectual fraud, especially when you know full
well that the material being quoted has already been handed it's own *****.
He wont do that because then none of you would read his messages. Most of
what he C&Ps here is from the Watchtower Societies CDs or website. This is
how he successfully gets people to read that crap and time on his timesheet
for the month.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 03:05:01 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun, 02:11, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> aka JW
Creationist Jabriol's lie-a-thon continued:
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To
suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." More than a century has
passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary,
since Darwin's time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Oh, no! Darwin admits that the structure of the human eye invalidates
his theory and abandons it!
Once again the Creation book is caught out in a lie. Actual quote in
context:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense
of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
science.
Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and
imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each
grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty
of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory."
- The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859, p 133.
Darwin does not say the eye could not have evolved, he says he can
understand that people might have trouble accepting that it did. The
evidence suggests that eyes evolved several times independently.
Apparently they're easy.
Read it and weep, JW's, this is the Watchtower Society at its finest,
lying as hard as it can. How can this be the One True Religion if it
can't tell the truth?
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 07:10:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:11:32 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed.
That last sentence is obviously wrong. The human eye has less acuity than
that of a hawk. Does that make our eyes useless? You cannot imagine how
the ability to detect light could be useful? Here's a homework
assignment for you: find someone who is "legally blind", in that their
visual acuity is less than 20/200, and ask them if it would make a
difference to them if they were totally blind, instead.
How much of a total fucking idiot do you have to be to repeat that same
old *****?
So the question arises: Could the
undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of
evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to
produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Yes. Next question?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To
suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” More than a century has
passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No.
Liar, ignorant, or deluded? I suppose you could be all three.
On the contrary,
since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Could that have anything to do with the fact that there have not been
trillions and trillions of telescope makers, refining trillions and
trillions of telescopes, over hundreds of millions of years?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that when Darwin first proposed
the theory, there had been no research into how eyes evolve?
Hearing ***** like this makes me wonder if maybe your brain isn't an
example of failed design.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 09:51:47 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> skrev i melding news:pan.2007.06.15.12.10.39.107724@nowhere.com...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:11:32 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed.
That last sentence is obviously wrong. The human eye has less acuity than
that of a hawk. Does that make our eyes useless? You cannot imagine how
the ability to detect light could be useful?
Thanks for proving the colossal fallacy in the Evolution Delusion, which is
all about how you can and cannot _imagine_ what happened.
Unless firmly replicated many times over in a lab how an eye came about ,then case closed.
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
18 Jun 2007 04:40:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:51:47 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> skrev i melding news:pan.2007.06.15.12.10.39.107724@nowhere.com...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:11:32 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed.
That last sentence is obviously wrong. The human eye has less acuity than
that of a hawk. Does that make our eyes useless? You cannot imagine how
the ability to detect light could be useful?
Thanks for proving the colossal fallacy in the Evolution Delusion, which is
all about how you can and cannot _imagine_ what happened.
Unless firmly replicated many times over in a lab how an eye came about ,then case closed.
Saba
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years. There is plenty of evidence of how eyes evolved.
Creationist sayings such as "what good is half an eye?" are so incredibly
stupid, I have to wash my hands after typing a reply, just on the outside
chance that such concentrated stupidity is contagious.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E4rFl=E4ken?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
18 Jun 2007 06:41:56 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 02:18:49 PM |
|
|
"DärFläken" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8LEdi.4473$%t6.4385@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
Jehovahs witnesses............. your point is?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
18 Jun 2007 08:53:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-13?Q?D=E4rFl=E4ken?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 04:36:34 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mennia" |
|
| Title: Fish Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 04:57:28 AM |
|
|
āThe first fish evolved. . . . To our knowledge, no ālinkā
connected this new beast to any previous form of life. The fish just
appeared, with that structure which divides all animals into higher and
lower life: the backbone.āāMarvels and Mysteries of Our Animal World,
page 25, by Jean George (a Readerās Digest book).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan-O" |
|
| Title: Re: Fish Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 05:52:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:57:28 GMT, Mennia <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
The first fish evolved. . . . To our knowledge, no link
connected this new beast to any previous form of life. The fish just
appeared, with that structure which divides all animals into higher and
lower life: the backbone.Marvels and Mysteries of Our Animal World,
page 25, by Jean George (a Readers Digest book).
Reader's Digest is well known for publishing stuff that fits their
agenda, whether it's accurate or not. That's pretty much the same way
you operate, isn't it Jabbers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mennia" |
|
| Title: On amphibians becoming reptiles |
19 Jun 2007 06:16:25 AM |
|
|
One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate
history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles
during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing.Life
Nature Library, The Reptiles, page 37.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mennia" |
|
| Title: On reptiles becoming mammals |
19 Jun 2007 06:17:56 AM |
|
|
Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we
consider the first true mammals.Life Nature Library, The Mammals, page 37.
There is no missing link [that connects] mammals and reptiles.Life
Nature Library, The Reptiles, page 41.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mennia" |
|
| Title: On Apes |
19 Jun 2007 06:20:41 AM |
|
|
For the whole Tertiary period, which involves something like 60 to
80 million years we have to read the history of primate evolution from a
few handfuls of broken bones and teeth.June 1956, Scientific American,
page 98, by Eiseley.
Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the
emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete.Life Nature
Library, The Primates, page 15
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 06:28:45 AM |
|
|
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that
it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So
there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 09:47:43 AM |
|
|
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books, and
from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to show
that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the unwary
public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it
is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So there
never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor ..
either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentPanzer" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 05:01:29 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books, and
from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to show
that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the unwary
public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it
is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So there
never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor ..
either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
