|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 377
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 377 |
What, exactly, have some prominent men of science had to say about evolution? You have made no positive case for creationism. You have only attacked science, as if there are only two possible positions and if science is wrong your opinion must be correct by default. Antelope Sniper did a most commendable job of destroying Irreducible Complexity so let�s take a look at your pasted attack on science. It would have been kind of you to provide citations but I will make do.FROM THE FIELD OF BIOLOGY Dr. Relis Brown admits: �The piecing together of the evolution story is comparable to the reconstruction of an atom-bombed metropolitan telephone exchange by a child who has only seen a few telephone receivers.�1 Apparently this is from Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. No biographical data. No other trace of Brown that I could find. But he was a prominent man of science. In this snippet he seems to be saying that evolution research is difficult because of the fragmentary nature of the data. If this quote is as ancient as the others listed here he had a point. This quote is in no way critical of evolution.Dr. G.K. Hebbert, British lepidopterist, says: �The evidence of fossils very definitely favors creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and biochemical differences.�2 Citation needed. Who is this prominent man of science? Was he a minister and and hobby lepidopterist or a biologist? When did he write this? Please let us see the entire quote in context because it looks suspiciously quote-mined.Dr. Austin Clark of the United States National Museum, says: �There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.�3 From the Quarterly Review of Biology, 1938. I suspect that he would revise his opinion if he was aware of the evidence accumulated in the 75 years since this was written.Dr. Kenneth Cooper of the University of Rochester says: �As is so often the case of writings of our modern evolutionists, natural selection as a cause is deduced from effect, and the resulting arguments and conclusions are, of course, unconvincing.�4 Citation needed. The only Dr Kenneth Cooper I could find is an MD and advocate of aerobic exercise. Since he is still living I suspect he is not the same fellow as your prominent man of science. In any case biological evolution is not a cause, it is a process.Dr. Albert Fleishmann of Erlangen University observes: �The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts.�5 Dr. A. was a Professor of Comparative Anatomy. In 1907 it was pointed out that he was the only biologist of "recognized position" who was known to have rejected evolution. This is from an essay called "Evolutionism in the Pulpit" "By an occupant of the pew". From "Herald and Presbyter," November 22, 1911, Cincinnati, OH.--(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html) The good professor also seems slightly out of date.Dr. Ambrose Fleming, past president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, plainly stated: �Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.�6 If is the the electrical engineer who died in 1945 what are his credentials in biology and why is cited as an authority on this subject?Drummond, the great English scientist, confessed: �I can live no longer on uncertainties. I am going back to my faith in the word of God.�7 Without citation I can only assume that you mean the evangelist and lecturer on natural science in the Free Church College and author of Natural Law in the Spiritual World, who died in 1897. His statement is not critical of evolution and completely irrelevant.Dr. Harold Blum in his work, Time�s Arrow and Evolution, stated: �The riddle seems to be: How, when no life existed, did substances come into being which today are absolutely essential to living systems yet which can only be formed by those systems?�8 A very good question. Scientists are working on it. Dr Blum was a medical researcher. His book was published in 1951. This a question, not a criticism of biological evolution or even relevant to biological evolution. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of living things it has nothing to do with the origin of life. The discipline dealing with the origin of life is called abiogenesis.Dr. H.J. Fuller of the University of Illinois says: �The evidence of those who would explain life�s origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously, the latter have as much justification for their belief as do the former.�9 This appears to be from a botanist who was a professor from 1932 to 1958. In a sense he is correct. But scientists do not describe abiogenesis as an accidental combination of chemical elements, that phony description is only used by creationists. This quote is completely irrelevant since biological evolution is an explanation of the diversity of living things and does not address the origin of life. Lacking a citation, I suspect that it is taken out of context.To sum up: Brown is an unknown person, of unknown vintage, whose quote is not critical of evolution. Hebbert is an unknown, of unknown vintage, whose quote looks suspiciously out of context. Clark was a biologist, but generations out of date. Flemming was an engineer, with no apparent education in biology who wrote before 1945 so is also out of date. Drummond, the great, a 19th century evangelist and lecturer, said nothing about evolution. Blum said nothing critical of or relevant to evolution. Fuller could just as well been criticizing those who think chemistry is an accidental process and said nothing about evolution. Wow. I can hardly wait for the geologists. Cheers, Wolf
One unerring mark of the love of the truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant. John Locke, 1690
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112 |
Olaf, I have not asked you about your version of Christianity. Do you believe the creation story to be a literal truth, and that the earth is less then 10k years old? First, there is only one confessional version of Christianity, and it is summed up in the Apostle's Creed, which all Christians�Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant�confess in unison. Within those parameters, there are various degrees of emphasis and various issues of interpretation. Personally, I believe the first chapters of Genesis are historical myth that defines exactly what happened though not necessarily in that exact way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 377
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 377 |
The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS poses no obstacle to biological evolution. Your quote with comments added in red: "Of all laws of physical science none are more basic and certain than the two laws of thermodynamics.4 The first law of thermodynamics states that while energy can be converted from one form to another the total amount remains the same. The second law states that although the total amount remains unchanged, some of this energy becomes non-reversible heat energy. True in a closed system. Or to put it another way, it becomes less available for use. Thus, the amount of useful energy in the universe is always decreasing which means there is a tendency toward greater randomness. Entropy is not the same as randomness. As expressed by the great physicist, James Jeans, the universe is like a gigantic clock that was once wound up and is now running down. Evolution, on the other hand, suggests that instead of tendency toward greater randomness in the universe there is a tendency toward a higher degree of organization. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of living things and has nothing to say about the randomness or organization of the entire universe. So instead of the clock running down evolution has it winding up! This is in direct contrast to the second law of thermodynamics. Wrong! The earth is not a closed system. There is constant energy input. As Dr. Henry Morris has observed: �It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a �fact�) and the second law of thermodynamics.� It is hard to believe that a PhD engineer has such a poor understanding of thermodynamics. In responding to this some evolutionists have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the living world. However, it does, and in a very dynamic way! Such an argument shows the weakness of the evolution position. There is no possible way to reconcile evolution and the second law. Evolutionists, therefore, are remarkably silent about this problem." They aren�t silent about it at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html. Let�s see how they reply to Henry Morris.�The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible�. -- Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:
1.The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
�the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
�entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
�even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2.The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994). An inane misstatement of thermodynamics is not a problem for the ToE. Regards, Wolf
One unerring mark of the love of the truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant. John Locke, 1690
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,105 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,105 Likes: 5 |
Olaf, I have not asked you about your version of Christianity. Do you believe the creation story to be a literal truth, and that the earth is less then 10k years old? First, there is only one confessional version of Christianity, and it is summed up in the Apostle's Creed, which all Christians—Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—confess in unison. Within those parameters, there are various degrees of emphasis and various issues of interpretation. Personally, I believe the first chapters of Genesis are historical myth that defines exactly what happened though not necessarily in that exact way. Olaf, today there are over 30k different varieties of Christians in the U.S. with widely varying beliefs. As we can see from the qualification in your above statement " Confessional version of Christianity.". In addition, by subscribing to the historical myth version of Genesis, you've created distance between yourself and the YEC science denying version of Christianity. Then there is the whole question regarding the nature of Jesus. Was he a historical figure or does he exist only in spirit? Did he perform miracles, or are the miracles allegories. How about his relationship with God. (the Trinity vs. non-Trinity question etc.)? Do all Christians go to Heaven, of just those who follow the practices of that particular sect? Since each of these visions of Christianity can inform a persons world view, we can have Christians with significantly different practices, and vastly different world views. If my few questions about the tomb we can see the assertions moving from "there are not contradictions", to "we know the eye witness testimony is unreliable, and the Gospels were not written by the actual eye witnesses, and we cannot provide a direct link between the witnesses and the writers". That' a big move in the span of just a couple of question, but you willingness to make these concessions is informed by your version of Christianity.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112 |
Tell you what, good buddy, you believe what winds your clock, and I'll do the same. If you ever grow up to where you can respectfully engage others of different beliefs rather than try to piss in their face, send me a PM. Until then, you're a waste of time. Olaf, today there are over 30k different varieties of Christians in the U.S. with widely varying beliefs. As we can see from the qualification in your above statement " Confessional version of Christianity.".
In addition, by subscribing to the historical myth version of Genesis, you've created distance between yourself and the YEC science denying version of Christianity.
Then there is the whole question regarding the nature of Jesus. Was he a historical figure or does he exist only in spirit? Did he perform miracles, or are the miracles allegories. How about his relationship with God. (the Trinity vs. non-Trinity question etc.)? Do all Christians go to Heaven, of just those who follow the practices of that particular sect?
Since each of these visions of Christianity can inform a persons world view, we can have Christians with significantly different practices, and vastly different world views.
If my few questions about the tomb we can see the assertions moving from "there are not contradictions", to "we know the eye witness testimony is unreliable, and the Gospels were not written by the actual eye witnesses, and we cannot provide a direct link between the witnesses and the writers".
That' a big move in the span of just a couple of question, but you willingness to make these concessions is informed by your version of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,105 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,105 Likes: 5 |
So, saying all Christians are not the same is being disrespectful?
Help me understand that?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,980
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,980 |
He's just pissed that you called out his cut and paste job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112 |
So, saying all Christians are not the same is being disrespectful?
Help me understand that? It's my opinion that you don't wish to understand anything, that you only wish to argue and abuse, and that you need to grow up and get a life. The kind of crap going on here amounts to little more than a circle-jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 11,738
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 11,738 |
So, saying all Christians are not the same is being disrespectful?
Help me understand that? It's my opinion that you don't wish to understand anything, that you only wish to argue and abuse, and that you need to grow up and get a life. The kind of crap going on here amounts to little more than a circle-jerk. Olaf, you seem to be far more guilty of your own accusations than almost anyone here. You should listen to yourself - really.
Save an elk, shoot a cow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112 |
Olaf, you seem to be far more guilty of your own accusations than almost anyone here.
You should listen to yourself - really. Brent, I feel your pain, trust me, I do, and trust me, I've been party to more of this kind of crap than I care to admit or remember. One hopes for earnest discussion, but, alas, this is the way it always ends up. Virtually no one here is interested in polite, educated, rational discussion of ideas. Instead what we have are proponents of two, mutually-exclusive world-views engaged in a pissing match, each intent on trying to make the opposite view look like a**holes. And if that offends you, don't ever, ever read John Calvin or Martin Luther. They'd knock your socks off with their plain-speaking: "I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels." �John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,105 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,105 Likes: 5 |
Wow, discussing abuse:
Your the one who called me(scientists) a psychopath and started asking where I live.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 06/07/13.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112 |
Wow, discussing abuse:
Your the one who called me(scientists) a psychopath and started asking where I live. Brent, are you getting the picture yet . . . ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 11,738
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 11,738 |
Don't ever read Gould or Lewontin or Fisher or Haldane or a gazillion others, heaven forbid (pun in there somewhere) Darwin. They will be scarier to you than Calvin or Luther.
Frankly, Olaf, you seem a lot more like what you complain about than anyone else does. At least to me.
Save an elk, shoot a cow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 112 |
Don't ever read Gould or Lewontin or Fisher or Haldane or a gazillion others, heaven forbid (pun in there somewhere) Darwin. They will be scarier to you than Calvin or Luther.
Frankly, Olaf, you seem a lot more like what you complain about than anyone else does. At least to me. Sorry to disappoint, Brent, but I have read Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Charles Darwin. Darwin is fine. Gould and Dawkins are Materialist fundamentalists . . too stupid, dishonest, and epistemologically unconscious to be worthy of comment. You continue to make my point for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 11,738
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 11,738 |
You continue to make your own point. You obviously did not understand what you read. And I'm expecting that when you said you read those authors you read their primary literature not their stuff for the lay public as it were.
Save an elk, shoot a cow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337 |
to put the whole thing a bit more succiently, we don't know from whence we came, we don't know where we are, and most certainly, we don't know where we are going next?
Next?????? What makes you think there is any "next"? i have spoken at length with two Rabbi's that are highly regarded and well trained seminarians. they do not believe in a "next" at all. they think that part is all Greek as far as they are concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,019 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,019 Likes: 10 |
to put the whole thing a bit more succiently, we don't know from whence we came, we don't know where we are, and most certainly, we don't know where we are going next?
Next?????? What makes you think there is any "next"? i have spoken at length with two Rabbi's that are highly regarded and well trained seminarians. they do not believe in a "next" at all. they think that part is all Greek as far as they are concerned. I would heartily agree with the good Rabbi's. Eternity, Heaven, and Hell were invented by the priesthood as the carrot and the stick which kept the coffers overflowing. And then there is this seriously, science evolves or descends from religion, doesn't it? Religion was invented to control and extort from the peasants. Government evolved from religion. Science came about in a natural manner as man strove to understand and manipulate his environment so that he and his tribe might be warmer, better fed, better defended, and well, to put it simply, more wealthy!
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348 |
If a certain load from Federal consistently gave me bang-flops and bug holes, I couldn't care less if somebody wrote that it was loaded with a mix of talcum powder and corn meal.
Results trump theories.
"Good enough" isn't.
Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337 |
to put the whole thing a bit more succiently, we don't know from whence we came, we don't know where we are, and most certainly, we don't know where we are going next?
Next?????? What makes you think there is any "next"? i have spoken at length with two Rabbi's that are highly regarded and well trained seminarians. they do not believe in a "next" at all. they think that part is all Greek as far as they are concerned. I would heartily agree with the good Rabbi's. Eternity, Heaven, and Hell were invented by the priesthood as the carrot and the stick which kept the coffers overflowing. And then there is this seriously, science evolves or descends from religion, doesn't it? Religion was invented to control and extort from the peasants. Government evolved from religion. Science came about in a natural manner as man strove to understand and manipulate his environment so that he and his tribe might be warmer, better fed, better defended, and well, to put it simply, more wealthy! once upon a time somebody said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. but, in practice, they are not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 377
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 377 |
headhunter, Onward to your next quoted canard: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY GROUNDED
That evolution is not based on science is easily shown in the following principle - �The theory of evolution can be denied without denying one
single fact of science.� This principle has been set forth by many who disagree with the Darwinian theory and has gone unanswered. The logic
in this argument is readily accepted when applied to other pseudo-scientific theories. For example, one might teach the theory that rats arise
spontaneously out of old rags. Challenging that position another might say: �I can deny that theory without denying any fact of science.� Since
the supporter of such a theory could not show any point of science which must be rejected, it is concluded that his theory has no scientific basis!
But when evolution is tested with the same logic, the conclusion is simply brushed aside. The following syllogism establishes the argument: 1)
A theory is unscientific if it can be denied without denying any fact of science. 2) Evolution can be denied without denying any fact of science.
3) Therefore, evolution is unscientific. Actually one must deny an ark-load of facts in order to deny biological evolution. It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations. It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that every organism on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review. It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
These are the facts of evolution, ways which we can sufficiently prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is an inescapable reality both of population genetics and evident phylogeny. What facts can you show me that will distinguish your preferred beliefs from the illusions of delusion? � AronRaOh, and a syllogism that begins with a false premise is invalid. Regards, Wolf
One unerring mark of the love of the truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant. John Locke, 1690
|
|
|
|
|
582 members (1minute, 10Glocks, 1badf350, 10gaugemag, 12344mag, 1936M71, 62 invisible),
2,339
guests, and
1,177
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,707
Posts18,513,889
Members74,010
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
