![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: You are completely missing the point here, Robey. The scientific method everywhere except evolutionists is: That which is "experimentally demonstrable and repeatable" is a theory. So please tell us what experiements Einstein conducted to explain his theory of quantum physics? None...nothing in the lab, it was all brain power. Yet Einstein's work was scientific in 1905. Darwin could NOT provide traditional scientific proof. He never claimed he could, but he did assemble considerable nay overwhelming circumstantial evidence for evolution. You will not see evolution in a single creature...but you will see it between successive generations. From the end of his Beagle voyage, Darwin spent six years working on his theory before his first draft and a total of 22 years elapsed before Darwin even published ANYTHING about evolution. In 1858 he read Alfred Russel Wallace's own work on natural selection and finally published his"On the Origin of Species." Darwin wrote to persuade scientists and educated folks that evolution was a BETTER explanation of the origin of a species than creationism. To wit, natural selection was the plausible explanation. The book was a direct assault on the Genesis myth. Evolution as an origin of species fails even the evolutionist's own very low standard. Man oh man, don't know where you come up with that. Evolution is change...as permutation and combinations of alleles occur species evolve. The Westminster Dog show is proof species evolve. In fact, geological evidence proves in a hard physical way that if evolution occurs at all it must do so in a single generation. Or more logically, an already existing species replaces the previous dominant species in a locality. You sound like an adherent of Georges Cuvier or perhaps Charles Lyell uniformitarianism. Which is it, evolution is false or it occurs due to geological/geographic isolation. I guess the notion that successive generations of folks in our country are getting taller (median height) is coincidence or creation. Darwin's view of natural selection (new species evolving through chance variation and a struggle to survive) suggested that if nature was a reflection of its creator, then that creator was NOT just or loving. According to Edward J Larson BA Williams College, JD Harvard, MA & PhD U of WI (Professor of History, Professor of Law U of GA) by 1875 virtually all biologists in Europe and America adopted evolutionary views of origins. BTW I encourage you to listen/watch his course, "The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy" available here http://www.teach12.com/store/courseI...f+Controversy+ Natural selection is a valid theory, but evolution as an origin of species is a leap of faith. Uhh, not to scientists it isn't. Is Jay Gould peer reviewed? ****ing A bubba...Richard Dawkins is famous for his heated arguments with Gould in PUBLIC. Man JT, there is debate about the mechanisms (eg geographic isolation, genentic mutation, artificial selection etc) of evolution all the time. Evolution science doesn't run away from criticism. Then you can know for a fact that it takes a 1300 page band aid with very major changes in the process leading to a new species to prevent evolution as an origin of species from being demonstrably false. Gould was nothing if not a prolific writer, lots of artwork, lots of rational thought, vice your non-specific claim "geological evidence proves in a hard physical way..." You are fuzzy with the details or citation of your proof... and that's OK too. Come on JT...just cite some bible passage as your proof that evolution does not occur and be done with it. You have been blown out here Robey, but thanks for playing. JT, don't hurt yuorself as you try to pat you own back. I havn't even broken a sweat refuting your strawman argument. You posit that natural selection is a valid theory, and yet fail to grasp the BASIC notion that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is change, natural selection is a mechanism of change, ergo natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Religion and the "free exercise thereof" is essential to a mentally balanced society. From a PBS program, Closer to Truth: Will Technology Topple Religion... http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotrut...e/show_14.html Donald E. Miller [Ph.D, is a professor of religion and a social scientist] stated... "Well actually there are even more people going to church, temple or synagogue now [2004] than in the early years of this republic. We tend to romanticize the past and think, oh, back then people were so much more religious. But as a matter of fact we are probably, as measured by church attendance, three times more religious now, with about 40 percent of the population in a typical week attending a church, temple, or synagogue than if we go back 200 years." To which Michael Shermer [ Ph.D, is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and the director of the Skeptics Society] astutely observed... "…this is very interesting, conservative pundits argue that America is going to hell in a hand basket and we are…less moral than we've ever been, and we have to get America back to the Christian nation it used to be. They have it bass-ackwards, we've never been so religious, and if that's the case, is there some correlation between us being so religious and America going to hell in a hand basket?" I'd guess our european friends would say Shermer is correct. Juvat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
"W" is JFK's son and Bush revenge killed Kennedy in 1963 | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 28th 04 11:30 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |