Re: Timmy, your comments please

"Gods of Europe (18+5)" <lol@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:00183b69$0$2069$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It seems lots of people much clever than you disagree with you...

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another
species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin

Let's talk about the fish that cleans the whales teeth eh?

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce
the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive
in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

You need to be honest and explain what Szent-Gyorgyi received a Nobel prize for Medicine in 1937 (. He was not a biologist. You
have tried to make it appear that he was an evolutionary biologist and received a Nobel prize for such work. That is not the case.
We can discuss him if you wish; however, I suggest you consider how weak this position would be especially given that he did not
work outside of muscular physiology and (later in his career) on cancer research.

As the renown British physicist Lord Kelvin once wrote: "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie
around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."

This is obviously a totally subjective opinion, what are these "strong proofs" - LOL. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just as
useless in a debate as quoting Bertrand Russell claiming that God doesn't exist because people are assholes. Neither is of much
use.

Despite no real biological or fossil evidence2 of this wolf-to-whale transition, evolutionists still hold to this imaginative
fairy tale (see The Overselling of Whale Evolution). The evolutionist Ernst Mayr once candidly wrote that "it is a considerable
strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the
bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations3."

Yet another example of how proponents of Creationism attempt to tell half-truths. This is a quote from a book he wrote in 1942, and
in that book, he goes on to say "However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternate
explanaton that was supported by substantial evidence." This is because the entire discussion is about the arguments going on
between geneticists over the effect of random mutations and that he, Mayr, believed that the evidence was not yet clear although he
accepted that it seemed the only possible conclusions. You'll note that in later books of his, he stipulated that he had picked a
side in the debate, and the side he chose was of the evolution of the eye being impacted significantly through such mutations.

The whole idea that an arm could evolve into a wing is patently absurd, since the arm would become completely useless and a
hindrance long before it could possibly become a functional wing. Even the leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognizes
evolution by gradual changes (neo-Darwinism) as a pipe-dream: "Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful
structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"

You really, really, need to read what it is you're quoting.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_hopeful-monsters.html

If you bother to read the article in question you will clearly see that this aspect of the paper is where Gould is arguing the
merits of two forms of adaptive change, that of gradual change and that of abrupt change. He's not dismissing modern evolutionary
synthesis, far from it, he's pointing out (as scientists do and should continue to do) what areas still need research in order to
make more assertive cases for why a particular method of change should be accepted over the other.

Try the book "bones of contention" Timmy

Renowned Evolutionist Richard Lewontin once candidly wrote: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the
tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialismYwe
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

That's not actually what he said, and it doesn't explain why he said it. The actual quote is below:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of
its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no
matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot
allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If you read the quote in its context (even out of context it does not mean what you try to make it mean) you'll see that Lewontin is
simply arguing Occam's razor should be applied in all cases. He is, in fact, reviewing Carl Sagan's work "Demon Haunted World"
(which I recommend you read although it's a bit dry in places.) The entire article (Billions and billions of Demons I believe it is
called) is available online and you can, for once, read the quote in its entirety if you wish.

"You might say this [modern cosmological discoveries] would make [scientists] more inclined to accept religious views on the
origin of the world. But their materialism is so deeply imbued in them - and I would count myself also as affected by this
feeling - that the general response has been simply to avoid considering the implications." -- Robert Jastrow

Yet again, no context provided. Jastrow was talking about how, when considering the birth of the universe (presuming a particular
'birth of the universe'), physics breaks down at the moment of 'our' universe's creation and things like the standard model do not
appear to function properly given the presumed conditions. He's not saying it's wrong to think that way, he's simply stating that
most scientists (like Lewontin above) accept that they do not understand the physical nature of a particular phenomenon yet and
would rather wait to learn more than simply attribute the unexplained to a super powerful being of creation who seems to appear
virtually non-stop in the Old Testament and yet we don't see him again after his 'son' comes down to 'die for our sins' although
we're apparently still sinning and liable to go to hell... How come we don't see any burning bushes that don't result in arson
charges Ted?

WTH



.

Loading