Re: Timmy, your comments please


"Chuck Spears" <chuck-spears@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ub9Al.185980$6t7.118572@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Redman" <redman1977@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:00194a4f$0$2100$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"lescor" <lescorbett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49D0A886.2060502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gods of Europe (18+5) wrote:
"WTH" <harvestthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dxQzl.22124$9a.19658@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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 explanation 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


Thanks, you have proven my point - it is all subjective opinion, of
which
nobody knows the answer, so it is futile and anally pedantic to
constantly
attempt to undermine someone's faith.


The problem here is that the concept of "nobody knows the answer" is
hardly the one promoted by the worlds religions is it? THEY do know the
answer and have been acting as gods messengers and, through his clerics,
have been passing it on to us for centuries or even thousands of years.

The "word" , although confusing and contradictory in much of its
writings, was clear about creation and mans place in the universe just
as we would expect "gods word" to be. So were the rewards promised to
the faithful, those able to accept their gods need for constant
adulation without question, not an easy task for some.

And so all was fine. Church laws ruled or dominated and were followed in
good devout faith by most whilst, too often, being diluted for profit
and earthly pleasure by those with the power to abuse their positions
without being challenged. So, backed by the threats of excommunication,
eternal damnation in hell or even a slow, painful execution, the
structure worked quite well when unquestioning faith by the masses was
the objective. Then along came science, slowly at first, but then
demanding and with irrefutable evidence from the enquiring minds of
Copernicus and Galileo, and the leading Christian church started on its
long road of defence and catch up which has continued to this day.
Darwin once again raised that question which the religions found
unanswerable. Having for so long convinced their followers that they
were passing on gods word, how do you explain how our god got the facts
so wrong?

No simple answer, so best to ignore these new facts, because if the
Earth was not the centre of the universe, and Adam and Eve was a myth
how could the faithful be expected to believe the rest of the
teachings? So lets put the books of Copernicus and Galilee into the
mass of others in the prohibited reading list and hope they will be
forgotten. Darwin ? Not so easy in times where the church had less
direct power and the right to freedom of speech had gained a stronger
hold.

Nothing original here. Just a potted version of the plight of religious
teaching in the face of scientific discovery. But what surprises me is
not the reluctance of some to accept difficult ideas ( the churches have
taken that path for centuries ) but the fact that Darwin's , quite
simple teachings, are so little understood by some who dispute them.

Questions like " how does the butterfly know that it needs to get shapes
like eyes on its wings in order to survive" show an amazing lack of
knowledge in suggesting that changes in species are the result of choice
rather than chance. Darwin never suggested that natural selection was
predetermined. The simple basis of his ideas on evolution can even be
seen over a short and record able period, and one in particular puts
them into clear perspective.

There is a particular woodland moth which mainly lives on the trunks of
trees. It has changed its colour to a darker shade over a relatively
short, recorded recent period. This change coincides with the effect
the smoky industrial revolution in this part of the UK had on the colour
of the trees they lived upon. They had grown darker due to the soot in
the air. So, it naturally followed that those moths of a slightly
darker hue - and all species have variations - were more likely to
survive the attentions of the birds which fed on them as they were
better hidden on the darker bark. No surprise that, over years, these
darker traits were passed on down the surviving line.

It's what Neo Darwinists call Industrial Melanism and has *** all to do
with evolution/natural selection, it was a population shift, no surprise
there. The same thing would happen in human terms if some disease were to
kill off the white race and leave the black race unharmed, ffs. Similar
shifts in balance continually occur among animal and plant populations
where
one variety flourishes at the expense of another but this process cannot
be
used to explain the central proposition of Darwinism, how one species can
change into a completely different species.


This is a simple but perfect example of Darwinism in action and his
ideas grow more relevant by the day as the questions left unanswered
grow less and less. They have reached the status of being almost
universally accepted by the rational and thinking people of the world
because the proof is so self evident and no longer regarded as theory
but absolute fact, except of course by those with other religious fish
still to fry.

You think, why did Darwin in the very first edition of his Origin of the
Species say that a Bear can become a Whale? Yet in every edition
thereafter
this statement was removed. Why did he remove this statement? Show me
anywhere in the so called and I use the term very loosely fossil record
of
one species of animal turning into a completely different animal. And
don't
even get me started on his Finches of the Galapagos Islands bollox. An
unusually clear example of the corrupted vulgate version of Neo Darwinism
in
practice occurred with a broadcasting of an Open University educational
program. The broadcast concerned certain species of wildflower that had
adapted to life on railway cuttings dug 100 years ago in rocks containing
highly toxic minerals such as Arsenic, Antimony and Lead. The programs
presenters explained to Open University biology students that here was an
example of natural selection and evolution in action. The cuttings had
been
dug in rocks where no flower could survive he said, placing an
extraordinary
environmental demand on nature. Yet within 100 years species of
wildflower
had evolved which were able to tolerate and thrive in the highly toxic
conditions where all normal varieties had withered away. The magnitude of
this claim and the magnitude of its falseness is simply breathtaking.
First
no specific change has occurred, no new species has come into existence,
so
the claim that evolution has occurred is simply untrue. Second, the claim
that the appearance of plants which are toxic resistant is an example of
natural selection is equally false. What has happened is precisely the
same
thing in the so called industrial melanism in moths, the plants unable to
tolerate the toxic soils all died leaving the ground clear for plants
which
are not poisoned by the metals. To imagine that a new species of plant
came
into existence because workmen dug over the ground is reminiscent of the
18th Century belief that maggots in cheese represented spontaneous
generation of life. The presenter also said that the appearance of these
novel types was in response to the evolutionary demand of natural
selection
for just such a plant. This kind of thinking is symptomatic of the
confusion
that the teaching of Neo Darwinism leads to. Though many lecturers and
teachers are sufficiently well informed to know that something is amiss,
they quiet their consciences with the reflection that what they are
passing
on to their students is merely the popular form of the theory, which in
its
true form remains inviolate and inviolable. It's fucking morons like you
that state Darwinism is an ABSOLUTE FACT that get on my tits. I could
show
you thousands of examples that blow Darwinism out of the water but why
bother, you're a believer in that it's an absolute fact, nothing will
change
your mind. Oh and BTW I don't believe in Creationism either for the
record.
As Ted has pointed out, nobody knows where we came/come from, how we and
all
the
other things on this planet came about, so to claim Darwinism as a FACT
is
just total
bollox.

Redman



LC


Wolf to whale seems to me virtually impossible, most likely something
completely new would develop to suit the conditions. Species such as
predators and prey would have had to develop their characteristics mostly
in parallel. If a mutation in the predator had developed a certain trait
that for example that made them faster without a parallel development of
prey, all but the very fastest prey would have been caught. This would
have in turn led to starvation of the predator in areas where they were
fastest. In fact maybe only areas were slower predators were present would
food been left to hunt.
millions of wolves died drowning over thousands of years in order to
facilitate that transition.
What a laughable concept, but people believe that ***.


.

Quantcast