ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:Macro Evolution on the other hand is where scientists take a very very very large leap in trying to explain how billions of extremley complex organels/organs/systems/processes in the human body alone could have evolved(my hat is off to them for their imagination)not to mention the orgin of life/cosmic organization through emence amounts of energy(both of which go against proven laws(not theories)of science.
Please provide these laws.
Arke, I think you better address this one.
ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
Only 500? Do you know how many scientists are in the world? That is hardly a drop in the bucket. The word crisis is hardly the word, because there isn't any crisis. Just a few people who currently are a very small minority.
ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:Darwin himself had a trying relationship with God. Though he was a firm believer in his early years, his theories forced him to question his faith and any commitment to Christianity that remained was extinguished with the death of his daughter in 1851. In one letter to another correspondent, Charles Lyell, he made his position clear: "Many persons seem to make themselves quite easy about immortality & the existence of a personal God by intuition; & I suppose that I must differ from such persons, for I do not feel any innate conviction on any such points."
-perhaps Darwin grew bitter at his loss? My sympathies
This claim is false. It was fabricated by a devout person named Lady Hope, and those Creationists who propagate this claim are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that Darwin's children (who were uniquely in a position to know) have affirmed that Lady Hope's story is false in all particulars.
Even if this claim were 100% true (instead of being 100% false), it wouldn't matter. The theory of evolution is not accepted by real scientists because Darwin said it; rather, the theory of evolution is accepted by real scientists because it explains the data better than any other theory which has yet come to light.
Creationist think-tank Answers in Genesis agrees that this claim is likely false, and is first on their list of arguments that should not be used.
Darwin himself was disturbed with the misuses "Social Darwinism" made of his theories. He thought that Christianity was good for common people, though not for himself and other educated men. Darwin was revising his theories in the latter part of his life, to take new information into account, though he did not doubt that evolution had occurred, only how it had happened. Lady Hope probably heard all of this in a visit to Darwin late in his life, and conflated it imaginatively into a deathbed recantation!
1. The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood
2. Did Darwin Recant? - From Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization based in Cincinnati.
3. Clark, Ronald W. The Survival of Charles Darwin. New York: Avon, 1984, 214-217, 525
4. Desmond, A., et al. Darwin: the Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: Warner Books/Norton, 1991), pp. 485-663
5. Tom McIver, "Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism." Skeptical Inquirer 10 (3) 266-276"
6. Moore, James The Darwin Legend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), pp. 11-168
7. The Lady Hope Story (
http://www.ediacara.org/hope.html)
ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:The Whale on Its Tail
OK! Time for some talk from Stephen Becker, PhD. Geology, Virginia Tech
Stephen wrote:[21:19] spbecker: total bullshit
[21:20] spbecker: I mean, just look at the fucking diagram, those beds are inclined
[21:20] spbecker: that's what happens when complete fucking morons (aka jesus freaks) try to interpret geology without any sort of knowledge of how things work
[21:22] spbecker: it's really quite simple: whale dies, sinks to the bottom, is covered by siliceous ooze (aka diatom skeletons), everything is lithified (turns to rock), and then is later tilted by tectonic forces
[21:22] psi29a: thanks for the reply, i need fuel
[21:23] psi29a: can I quote ya?
[21:23] spbecker: I mean, that guy actually shot himself in the head by posting that diagram
[21:23] spbecker: the beds themselves are inclined
[21:23] spbecker: it is physically impossible for beds to be deposited on an incline
[21:23] spbecker: absolutely
[21:23] spbecker: quote me
[21:23] psi29a:
thanks
ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:-Even though this would have been a valid reasoning for natural selection
(proven and true)this entire thing was staged by the scientist
Wells disagrees with the results of the research on industrial melanism in the peppered moth, and manipulates the literature and the data to fit his views. He points out that the "problem" of the peppered moths is far from simple. His discussion centers on three points where he believes textbooks are in error, alleging that (1) the daytime resting places of peppered moths invalidates Kettlewell's experimental results; (2) the photos of the moths are "staged"; and (3) the recovery patterns of populations dominated by light moths after the levels of pollution were reduced do not fit the "model," although he is unclear as to what the "model" is. All three of these objections are spurious. They are distractions from the general accuracy of the story and its value in showing the effects of natural selection on genetic variability in natural populations.
First, Wells argues that the story is seriously flawed because "peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks" (Wells, 2000:138). He repeats this point throughout the chapter. However, it is both false and irrelevant, and only serves as a distraction to lead the reader away from the actual story of the moths. Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus (1998:123) indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time.
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon6moths.html
The argument implies that the pictures of moths resting on tree trunks is the only evidence for the hypothesis that natural selection is the cause of industrial melanism. However, the pictures are only an illustration, the real evidence lies in data from the release-and-capture experiments.
Even if the moths didn't rest on tree trunks, it doesn't matter. Branches, twigs and (to some extent) leaves of the trees are also darker from industrial pollution. The darker colour improves camouflage anywhere in the tree.
ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:
It would seem that evolutionists are having a harder time clinging to their faith than a prodestant would have to cling to his. I mean given i know, i know evolution is a way for a scientist to prove how the world came into being through natural causes(which is totally respectable) but its time to think about another theory to explain the genisis of the world. znf
It is getting harder and harder for anti-evolutionists to come up with more holes and most of the "heat" is against the data which is proving to be resilient to attack.
We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We makes changes, slow, and meticulously.
However, if you have another natural explanation for what phenomenon we are experiencing, please do so. Aside from non-natural explanations, there is currently NONE.
Evolution does NOT address the "genisis" [sic] of the world. Stop saying it, it is wrong and you make yourself a fool for repeating it.