+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 10946 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2015, 08:33:50 pm »
Eddie provided us this gem of erudition. I consider it a diversion from the real issue. Nevertheless, I will argue the merits:


 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

The THEORY of EVOLUTION does not meet "3)", "5)" or "6)". Key word = EVIDENCE. It's NOT THERE. I can prove it's not there. You just don't want to go there.

So, not only does the BELIEF in Evolution not qualify as a LAW in science, it's not even a THEORY according to the proper definition as you presented it!
NO EVIDENCE, NO THEORY. Science is based on EVIDENCE, not good narratives about how this, that and the other happened.

Newton, Pasteur and many other scientific greats were DEVOUT Christians.
That did NOT stop them from providing the basis for the scientific method. Are you saying they were childish people that learned their science in Sunday school? I didn't think so. Those scientists ALL went to Sunday school back in the 19th century, ya know! Somehow, that did not prevent them from doing good science, DID IT?

THEY had to fight furiously with the "KNOW IT ALL" scientific community of THEIR DAY to get the truth out. The TRUTH, along with the presented EVIDENCE, was RESISTED TOOTH AND NAIL! Pasteur wasn't talking fairy tales, now was he? But they still tried to shut him down for MOST OF HIS LIFE.

The doctor in Poland that PROVED that women got disease (causing the death of their child and sometimes the mother too!) from doctors that delivered babies after doing autopsies died in a NUT HOUSE. Lister came LATER. Spare me the stuff about how the scientific community welcomes dissent as long as evidence backs it. That is just not so. I wish it was. That's the pretense, no the reality.

IN FACT, when the science textbooks tell the TRUTH about the history of scientific inquiry, the belief in ONE GOD and ONE TRUTH is attributed to the basis of the scientific method.

The relativistic baloney that is peddled today is a DETRIMENT to the scientific method. Fun and mocking games about Gods and Goddesses shows disdain for metaphysics and caricatures the OBVIOUS fact that, if there is ONE GOD, said being doesn't DO reproduction, regardless of what reproductive mechanisms IT sets up in his created critters. But I digress. All that stuff about God this or God that is NOT the issue. You (and others  ;))always try to make it the issue. The ISSUE is the LACK OF EVIDENCE for the Theory of Evolution.

As for me, do you think the 35 college credits I have in Biology, zoology, parasitology, genetics, botany and microbiology is SUNDAY SCHOOL!!!?

That was quite a cheap shot, pal! Shame on you.   

Do you think I WANTED to buck that rigid mass of groupthink in the scientific community that puts the word "evolution" in every other article and paragraph out there? I just did the math.

They've got nothing. I cornered my profs. They've got nothing. They would get thoroughly upset  but could not counter my arguments. I told them over and over that the evolution story is not based on science. Yes, it's a nice story but it's NOT evidence based.

They claimed that BECAUSE of that theory, we left the dark ages of scientific inquiry and modern science OWES its existence to the Theory of Evolution. I KNOW you believe that.

THAT, and not natural selection or the irreducible complexity of molecular machines in cells, is what you evolutionists fear will be LOST if the theory of evolution is discredited.

You are defending a BELIEF system, not science. You think if that belief system is discredited, SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY will be discredited.  That's why you use every tool in the book to mock and discredit THE EVIDENCE that makes mincemeat out of the Theory BELIEF in Evolution. I accepted that possibility back then. It beat the hell out of magic and incantations.   :icon_mrgreen: It seemed to be CFS. 

But, after  several decades of wading through scientist publications, I have become convinced that the reverse is true. Your prized theory is a groupthink, unscientific world view holding science back. No, I am not advocating a return to magic and incantations. That's NOT what Newton or Pasteur did, is it? I admire them and respect the way they went at science. Their faith AIDED them, by their own admission, in their scientific research. They didn't say that to avoid being burned at the stake!  8)

I am advocating a rejection of the Theory of Evolution based on the FACT that there is NO EVIDENCE to support it.

I READ science, as you do. I have been doing it steadily for about 30 years. I am sick to death of seeing every damned thing they can't figure out, and other things TOTALLY unrelated as well, to be explained away as evolution this and evolution that. The most outlandish bull**** is presented in science articles AND papers WITHOUT PROOF as "scientific conjecture" with "evolution coulda done dat" attached to it. Subsequently, every tenured groupthinker that knows which side his bread is buttered on says, "AMEN, brother!".

I follow the EVIDENCE. I suggest all readers do as well. 8)

5. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
 It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernible direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article “Meanings of Evolution” by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

6. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

7. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer’s piece “Intelligent Design is not Creationism” that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director’s piece “ Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same“in Research News & Opportunities.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm