Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not want to delete and edit other folks posts so I need you to please post only a snippet of copied information and provide the link.
I realize this is a complex topic and scientific data must and should be provided, but City-Data expects original material in the posts with links provided to other sources.
You are missing the point, Troop. The point is, in light of testable, verifiable evidence, the fallacy of evolution must be considered.
Scientists will never chalk it up to Intelligent design, but a new theory will have to surface because evolution simply won't stand up to the test of time.
Why, because you posted a cute little essay on cell walls? Because you quoted Michale Behe? Behe was almost thrown out of the Supreme Court hearing in Dover because he was caught lying so many times. He's a pathetic excuse for a scientist who has been caught in his own lies so many times he doesn't know when to keep them straight. If this were such groundbreaking news than I'm sure it would have brought up at the Dover trial and the ID side would have claimed an illustrious victory.
As for all the rest, it was nothing more than an argument from incredulity. You stated a lot of scientific data followed up with something like this: "Evolution does not have an explanation for this therefore a Designer must have done it."
Not only that, but you've also tried to essentially boil down eukaryotic cells and cell replication to irreducible complexity. Another "Beheism". Again, he was literally laughed out of court with his explanation for the bacterial flagellum's supposed irreducible complexity because it was so glaringly inaccurate.
I'll post it one more time but I don't know why. It's not like I expect any of you to read/watch it. I'll post the transcripts to the Dover trial, Ken Miller's video on the trial, and the NOVA special that covered the trial. All three corroborate so I don't see how you can say it was biased.
Anyway, have a Happy New Year, I'm heading out now.
On the 100th anniversary of his death a few weeks ago, Lord Kelvin received accolades fit for a Baron in Physics World.
Not surprisingly, missing from the eulogy was any acknowledgement of his strong Christian faith or his battle against the Darwinists.
He recognized the rise of Darwinism for its bad science. Accordingly, he contested the arguments of Huxley and others that the earth was millions of years old. In a well-known interchange with Huxley, he calculated mathematically that the earth and the sun could not be that old, based on his own knowledge of thermodynamics (of course the age of the sun and the Earth are still difficulties for evolution today, and his arguements are largely ignored).
Nevertheless, Lord Kelvin was respected even by “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas Huxley as a gentleman, a scholar, and a formidable opponent: he called him “the most perfect knight who ever broke a lance.” Known for his self-confidence, Kelvin held the Darwinists’ feet to the fire of scientific rigor and didn’t let them get by with mere storytelling. His students respected him for his skill at demonstrating underlying, unifying principles (rather than requiring memorization of facts), and motivating them to do their best.
On the 100th anniversary of his death a few weeks ago, Lord Kelvin received accolades fit for a Baron in Physics World.
Not surprisingly, missing from the eulogy was any acknowledgement of his strong Christian faith or his battle against the Darwinists.
He recognized the rise of Darwinism for its bad science. Accordingly, he contested the arguments of Huxley and others that the earth was millions of years old. In a well-known interchange with Huxley, he calculated mathematically that the earth and the sun could not be that old, based on his own knowledge of thermodynamics (of course the age of the sun and the Earth are still difficulties for evolution today, and his arguements are largely ignored).
Nevertheless, Lord Kelvin was respected even by “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas Huxley as a gentleman, a scholar, and a formidable opponent: he called him “the most perfect knight who ever broke a lance.” Known for his self-confidence, Kelvin held the Darwinists’ feet to the fire of scientific rigor and didn’t let them get by with mere storytelling. His students respected him for his skill at demonstrating underlying, unifying principles (rather than requiring memorization of facts), and motivating them to do their best.
Last response before I go...
Lord Kelvin also did not know about radiation. Therefore, his calculation, based on thermodynamics that the Earth was, I believe he said 20 million years old, was extremely inaccurate by no fault of his own. His calculations were correct if you disclude radioactivity in the Earth's core. That much is true. He just didn't know about radioactivity to factor it in.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032407dnmetsmuinteldesign.d1438e3.html (broken link)
Questioning Darwin is off limits even at Christian universities.
If you are shaking your head right now at the intolerance of the Darwinists to debate the scientific evidence, and the degree of hostility to the idea of critical thinking about Darwin’s views, thank God. You’re normal. Not even Darwin would condone this irrational behavior.
Campuses routinely host the most outrageous, radical views in public, sponsored by the campus: lectures by homosexual activists or radical Islamists, without a peep. You can denounce Bush as Hitler, spit on the Bible, make students act out Ramadan, wear cross-dressing clothes and use the other sex’s bathroom, and advocate euthanasia or bestiality, and reporters will yawn. But mention the letters “ID” and you will not believe the hostility.
How can the open marketplace of ideas, especially at a nominally “Christian” university, condone prior restraint of the very core concepts (design in nature) that you would think Christians believe? How can a public school, where kids’ lunch money still says “In God We Trust,” fire a teacher with a master’s degree in science for telling the truth that Darwinian evolution has clear historical linkages with Planned Parenthood and Nazi Germany?
These two stories show why the majority of people in this country, who still deny that life is the product of blind natural processes, had better wake up and get involved. Has America gone down the tubes this far, that Biblical references in supplemental material from a teacher daring to question Darwin’s Supreme Authority is fired on the spot?
A century ago the McGuffey Readers in public schools openly included Bible references, Bible stories, and Biblical morals. Now, this is called “polluting” the minds of students, while abortion, homosexuality, and radical Islam and communism are openly praised. How did it come to this? What were you doing to let this happen? Not even Darwin or Voltaire or Hume would consider this a healthy situation.
Calm down, Darwinistas! Get a life. Cool your jets. Take a breath. Chill out. Get a reality check. Let’s put the best scientific evidence on the table and talk about it, OK? You’ve had your turn at the rostrum for 148 years.
Malcolan posts about the personalities of Richard Dawkins and Lord Kelvin rather than address the facts behind the theory of evolution.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
You don't seem to understand the power of the flexibility built into living things, how they reproduce, how they adapt to their environment. You also insist on trying to apply the theory of evolution to ORIGINS of life rather than to changes in successive generations of organisms.
Creationists also don't address the fact that the immense length of geologic time provides ample opportunity for a robust, flexible realm of organisms on Earth to prosper and fill almost every conceivable ecological niche provided on Earth.
The word 'blind' is also trotted out by creationists to refer to the course of evolution and other natural processes, as if this is a defect in the conception of that scientific knowledge, and as if it is incredible to them that the skies above and ground below do not still have animistic 'spirits' dancing around and that the realm of Heaven must have a Great Grandfather in the sky who oversees all of his creation. Look at the natural processes in action all around the world at every moment of the day and night. They are fully self-contained and in need of no external hand. Then look at the seemingly BLIND morality exhibited by their Judeo-Christian God. Where was that God during the Banda Aceh tsunami? Where was that God when American children are kidnapped and held as sexual slaves for decades by pedophiles? Where was that God when Christians were raping and pillaging cities from Turkey to Jerusalem in the early Middle Ages? Where was that God when the Turks systematically expunged Christianity from within the present nation of Turkey and former kingdom of Armenia? Where was that God when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. brick by brick? Where is that God when generation after generation of the poor and decrepid are born, live, and die in the streets of Calcutta and all over India, as well as in many, many other places all over the world? This is a BLIND GOD you have, but you don't want to acknowledge it. Don't talk to us as if we are children. You are the ones who have deluded yourselves with your merriment and warm feelings due to the cuteness of the lame stories in a 2000 y.o. book. These self-deluded set themselves up to tear down hundreds, even thousands, of years of scientific endeavor and very well established human knowledge so that they can proclaim the imaginary sacrifice of an itinerant spiritual teacher in Palestine whom they believe is the central figure in history. That is quite ironic.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 12-31-2007 at 11:46 AM..
Malcolan posts about the personalities of Richard Dawkins and Lord Kelvin rather than address the facts behind the theory of evolution.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
You don't seem to understand the power of the flexibility built into living things, how they reproduce, how they adapt to their environment. You also insist on trying to apply the theory of evolution to ORIGINS of life rather than to changes in successive generations of organisms.
Creationists also don't address the fact that the immense length of geologic time provides ample opportunity for a robust, flexible realm of organisms on Earth to prosper and fill almost every conceivable ecological niche provided on Earth.
The word 'blind' is also trotted out by creationists to refer to the course of evolution and other natural processes, as if this is a defect in the conception of that scientific knowledge, and as if it is incredible to them that the skies above and ground below do not still have animistic 'spirits' dancing around and that the realm of Heaven must have a Great Grandfather in the sky who oversees all of his creation. Look at the natural processes in action all around the world at every moment of the day and night. They are fully self-contained and in need of no external hand. Then look at the seemingly BLIND morality exhibited by their Judeo-Christian God. Where was that God during the Banda Aceh tsunami? Where was that God when American children are kidnapped and held as sexual slaves for decades by pedophiles? Where was that God when Christians were raping and pillaging cities from Turkey to Jerusalem in the early Middle Ages? Where was that God when the Turks systematically expunged Christianity from within the present nation of Turkey and former kingdom of Armenia? Where was that God when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. brick by brick? Where is that God when generation after generation of the poor and decrepid are born, live, and die in the streets of Calcutta and all over India, as well as in many, many other places all over the world? This is a BLIND GOD you have, but you don't want to acknowledge it. Don't talk to us as if we are children. You are the ones who have deluded yourselves with your merriment and warm feelings due to the cuteness of the lame stories in a 2000 y.o. book. These self-deluded set themselves up to tear down hundreds, even thousands, of years of scientific endeavor and very well established human knowledge so that they can proclaim the imaginary sacrifice of an itinerant spiritual teacher in Palestine whom they believe is the central figure in history. That is quite ironic.
This all depends on what is meant when using the term "evolution". If evolution refers to a species ability to adapt and change to its environment, then I'll agree that evolution is true.
Some use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes within individual species that occur over short periods of time (Evolution #1).
Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching, such as claiming that all living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor (Evolution #2), or that natural selection has the power to produce all of life’s complexity (Evolution #3).
Used one way, “evolution” isn’t controversial at all (i.e. Evolution #1); used another way, it’s hotly debated (i.e. Evolution #2 or Evolution #3). Used equivocally, “evolution” is too imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion.
When you see the word “evolution,” you should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?”
The discussion gets confusing when a Darwinist takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it supports Evolution #2 or Evolution #3. Proponents of Darwinism, including PBS, commonly pull this “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes, such as changes in the sizes of bird beaks (Evolution #1) and then over-extrapolating from such modest evidence to claim that it proves Darwin’s grander claims (Evolution #2 or Evolution #3).
Whether you realize it or not, the role of natural selection among scientists is controversial.
Darwinism dominates academia and the media despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means.
As you pointed out, Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Recent discoveries have forced scientists into taking a fresh look, leaving the dogma behind.
Indeed, over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement proclaiming their agreement that, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
The amount of misinformation in this thread is astounding. I don't care if some doctoral scientists in fields other than biology don't understand evolution. Let them submit their data to peer-reviewed journals for scrutiny. To date, I yet to hear of any that have succeeded. I would actually be happy if they did since it would advance our understanding of science and hopefully lead to more avenues of research and application. If aspects of current evolutionary theories are proven incorrect, then the theories must be updated.
The fact remains that evolution is a theory which has withstood the scrutiny of skeptical scientists for over 150 years. Theories unite facts which are discovered through repeated, empirical observations and experiments.
Most people will not be able to understand the significance of these papers unless they have a sound understanding of genetics, cell biology, and other concepts in [evolutionary] biology.
Some people incorrectly think that natural selection is the only driving force in evolution and speciation. While natural selection is perhaps the most powerful driving force behind evolution, it can be subverted by sexual selection (e.g. brightly colored peacock tails, sexual dimorphism in seals), genetic bottlenecking, and of course, statistical sampling. All of these factors play a role in evolution depending on both biotic and abiotic environmental factors.
I am especially skeptical of the creation/ID/"critical analysis" proponents' arguments since they offer no empirical data, take existing data out of proper and valid context, consistently misapply mathematical formulae and other theories to biological systems and concepts (especially the application of aspects of Claude Shannon's information theory), and most importantly, fail to make any testable and/or predictable hypotheses.
I have literally asked evolutionists on message boards, "Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?" Keep in mind, that mutations alone cannot adequately explain the phenomonan of evolution, yet they constantly try to prove it through that avenue.
They, fully believing the evolution theory as scientific fact have claimed that a bacterium, called the nylon bug here on out by me, with its adaptation to consuming nylon waste is scientific evidence of evolution. But how you ask? You may be thinking, "To me it sounds like adaptation to its enviroment", and that is exactly right. Allow me to further explain the evidence presented and therefore known about this nylon bug.
Having this bacteria being able to have waste products of nylon as their only source of carbon and nitrogen is quite remarkable but let us focus on just two species of bacteria first, Flavobacterium K172 and Pseudomonas NK87. Three enzymes are responsible for this ability in Flavobacterium K172, which are: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. The genes for these enzymes are located on three plasmids. Plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and pNAD2 and pNAD6 in Pseudomonas.
I will admit that this specific mutation is advantageous for the bacteria as it is able to use the broken down nylon as a new ‘food’ source but as far as added new functional genetic information to the gene pool, I don't think so. A frame-shift mutation being responsible for this change in the bacteria is when one base pair is deleted, so that all the bases after that one are ‘read’ differently.
Here is a simple example of how a frame-shift mutations works:
ONE FAT FOX ATE THE CAT
The frame-shift would delete the first ‘T’ to shift over the letters after the word containing the 'T', the sentence becomes:
ONE FAF OXA TET HEC AT
Indeed this example doesn't make the frame-shifted DNA read-out mean anything, but in the case of the nylon-metabolising enzyme’s it worked. In most other cases a frame-shift mutation is not a good thing and causes a disruption to the genes.
The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive changes needed because if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA it is limited to that DNA. That is why if they could produce some natural process that builds on, not scrambles the existing DNA to cause a new function they would have something. If anything I would say this is a special adaptation mechanism in play, which would be creationism, rather than evolution observed.
All we have is a fast mutating species, and after millions of generations of reproduction, it still retains the basic properties as originally described when discovered in 1889 and is still identifiable as itself. You may disagree, but I find it quite evident that the DNA genome can recombine in specific pre-programmed ways for specific purposes in relation to the enviroment. All the nylon bug displays is an example of this.
That the bacteria mutate so that they can break down nylon waste as their food sources can still fall under the creationist model until the bacteria literally become something else. Then and only then will evolution have a strong case in the realm of mutations being the mechanism for the massive changes needed. (source)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happened to free speech?
