DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2386--------------------------------------------------
Vestigial Organs?
By: AGelbert Date: December 14, 2014, 10:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Vestigial organs
[quote]An idea destructive to medical science and our health
Editor’s note: Since this 1998 article was written, research has
uncovered more functions for such things as the appendix. We
recommend that readers also check articles under Vestigial
organs Q&A.
By Robert H. Franks
Certain organs of man, as well as of various animals, have long
been described as useless ‘leftovers’ (vestiges) of structures
which were useful in a former evolutionary stage. However, this
evidence is no longer offered with the confidence it once was.
Practically all the so-called ‘vestigial’ organs, especially
those in man, have been proved in recent years to have definite
uses. They are not vestigial at all.
At one time, evolutionists claimed there were more than 100 such
vestigial organs in man. But few are claimed now. Some of these
are essential to everyday existence. So what are these so-called
‘vestigial’ organs? Some regarded as vestigial are:
1. The little semi-lunar membrane at the corner of the eye.
Facial expression in the human being far exceeds that in any
other vertebrate.
2. The pineal gland in the brain.
3. Ear muscles.
4. Wisdom teeth (molars).
5. Tonsils.
6. The thymus gland in the neck.
7. Nipples in the male.
8. The appendix.
9. The tail-bone (coccyx).
Let’s take these one by one and look at what modern medical
science knows about them.
Semi-lunar membrane
The plica semilunaris is a little fold of tissue at the inner
corner of the eye. Some evolutionists feel that it is a remnant
of the third eyelid of a lower form, such as the third eyelid in
birds and reptiles. But in man this tissue has several essential
functions. If you did not have the tissue for support at that
location, the eyeball would sink. This would cause double
vision. The tissue not only supports the eyeball, but the
tearduct as well. Without this tissue, tears would drain over
the cheeks causing a cosmetic problem.
This area also serves to collect foreign matter. When you wake
up in the morning, you will often find some white material in
the inner corner of your eye. It collects in this fold, the
semilunar fold of the eye. It is not true that this fold has no
purpose. It was designed. And it does not represent the cleverly
designed third eyelid of the bird which prevents the bird’s eyes
from drying out during flight.
Pineal gland
The pineal is a small gland situated on the mid-brain. This
little organ, the size of a peanut, is said by evolutionists to
be derived from the third eye of primitive reptiles. The organ
is covered by the skull, so it is certainly no eye. But it does
help regulate our biological clocks. This makes it an essential
organ. It secretes a specific hormone,melatonin, which
influences the activity of a number of glands probably by a
direct action on brain centres.
When the interplay of various factors governing the pineal is
finally understood, man may be able to adjust his biological
rhythm and become nocturnal like an owl for a period of time, or
for long-distance international travel.
Frog pineal cells may be similar to the cone cells of the retina
and even be photo-receptors, or so-called ‘third eyes’. But
pineal cells in man are certainly not eyes. To postulate that
the human pineal is therefore a vestige serving no biologic
purpose is erroneous. The vestige theory for the pineal is
rapidly being refuted.
Ear muscles
Ear muscles are muscles of facial expression. Facial expression
in the human being far exceeds that in any other vertebrate. By
no means are facial muscles vestigial. Evolutionary reasoning
argues that rabbits have large ears and well-developed ear
muscles.
Since humans have smaller ear muscles, these must be vestigial.
Does this mean that any human who can wiggle his ears is
primitive? Ear muscles allow the ears to be moved to gather
sound, and thus are a worthwhile mechanism. It is possible that
this was more efficient in our (human) ancestors, and that
degenerate mutations have caused a partial loss. But this is
certainly no demonstration of upward evolution!
Wisdom teeth
Wisdom teeth are often mentioned as vestigial organs. It is true
that when they do not erupt, and then become impacted, they
cause problems. Infection and pain can ensue. But ingrown
toenails also become impacted and cause infection and pain. And
toenails certainly are not vestigial! Molars are grinders and
necessary for chewing certain foods. It is no more fair to say
that molars are non-essential than it is to say that incisors
are non-essential.
Tonsils
Tonsils are glands in the throat which function as part of the
lymphatic system. They are part of the defence mechanism of the
body to resist bacteria and other disease organisms. The
evolutionary argument is that since they can be removed with
impunity, they must be useless. Actually, if a person were
unfortunate enough to be born without tonsils or any other
lymphatic tissue, he would be in bad shape. In the case of the
tonsils I try not to remove them before the child is two years
old. By then, I don’t worry about removing diseased, infected
lymphatic glands because the body has many lymphatic glands. The
Creator has built in a fail-safe mechanism so that removal of
the tonsils does not render a person incapable of resisting
disease. Thousands of lymphatic glands remain.
Thymus
Another member of the lymphatic system of the body is the thymus
in the neck (not to be confused with the thyroid). It is very
prominent in children. In earlier days, perhaps partly due to
the influence of evolutionary thinking, the thymus was treated
with X-ray in some children with respiratory distress. Sadly,
some of these children later in life became leukemic, so we no
longer irradiate the thymus in children with respiratory
distress.
Since the thymus shrinks, we might conclude that it is not
necessary. But that is not the case. A group of physicians
reported in 1968 the case of a baby boy born without a thymus.
The physicians were able to trace the child’s diarrhoea and
continual running nose to lack of the thymus. The month-old boy
did not thrive. When his immune mechanism was challenged, he
could not respond, because the thymus is involved in the body’s
ability to resist invading organisms and reject foreign tissue.
After thymus tissue was transplanted into the baby, the
diarrhoea and running nose abruptly ceased. The child responded
to irritating chemicals and rejected a skin graft, showing a
healthy immune response. He began to thrive. This work gives
additional support to current concepts of the essential early
function of the human thymus gland.
[b]Nipples[/b]
I am sure no one regards nipples in the female as non-essential.
Now if I tell you that the human breast does not know whether it
is male or female except by responding to male or female
hormone, perhaps you can understand the complexity of the
situation. In the male treated with female hormone because of
prostate cancer, the breasts and nipples enlarge in response to
the female hormone.
Many evolutionists reason that since male humans do not suckle
the young, male breasts are vestigial. Would this mean that we
are descended from some (unknown) mammal in which the male
suckled the young? More informed evolutionists actually agree
with the creationist that this is an example of sexual homology
and has nothing to do with vestigial structures.
Appendix
The appendix is another organ of the lymphatic system, like the
tonsils and the thymus gland. The human organ also regulates
intestinal immunity to repel germs attacking through the
unsterile foods digested. Intestinal immunity also causes
rejection of foreign allergenic materials. The appendix is able
to sample the bowel contents and form antibodies. It is in a
very beautiful location to do this. Of course, like the tonsils
it sometimes falls prey to infection and requires removal.
Again, God has built in a fail-safe mechanism so that we can get
along without the appendix. There are hundreds of lymphatic
glands in the mesentery of the intestine (the mesentery is a
fold of abdominal tissue keeping the intestines in place).
The evolutionist compares the rabbit appendix, which is a
digestive organ, to the human appendix, then states that since
the human appendix does not function like that in the rabbit,
then ours is vestigial! That is not good science.
[b]Coccyx[/b]
The coccyx is also called the tail-bone. If you were designing
the vertebral column, would you have it end in a circle, a
square, or a triangle? God chose to end it with a triangular
bone called the coccyx. Attached to the coccyx are the
pubococcygeal muscles important for child-birth, intercourse and
bladder control. Would the evolutionist like to be devoid of
this important structure?
Important nerves and blood vessels course nearby. Individuals
who injure the tail-bone may develop a painful condition called
coccydynia. Removal of the coccyx seems to be a poor operation.
I counsel my patients with tail-bone pain to resist removal of
the coccyx if ever suggested.
Conclusion
In view of the history of this subject, it would seem wise not
to claim any organs at all as vestigial.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
The ignorance of scientists about the specific functions of such
structures does not prove they have none. It is more than likely
that further study will, as in the past, reveal specific
functions for the remaining supposedly useless organs.[/quote]
HTML http://creationtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/4156.png
Related Articles
Vestigial Organs Questions and Answers
Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?
‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?
Vestigial arguments: remnants of evolution
Is the dog’s ‘collar bone’ vestigial?
Is the human male nipple vestigial?
Further Reading
Badly designed arguments—‘vestigial organs’ revisited
The plantaris and the question of vestigial muscles in man
The human umbilical vesicle (‘yolk sac’) and pronephros—Are they
vestigial?
Cutting out a useless vestigial argument
Related Media
Vestigial Organs
HTML http://creation.com/do-humans-have-vestigial-organs
#Post#: 2457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 27, 2014, 12:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
MORE PROOF that Wall Streeters are EVOLUTIONARY DEAD ENDS!
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWs6bf7tvI&feature=player_embedded
This is NOT what I was taught about Darwin's Theory in College
Biology. But it's nice that they are fighting Wall Street's
CELEBRATION of GREED with some HARD SCIENCE!
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif
#Post#: 2481--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 31, 2014, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Quoted from an Essay on Dogma and the Universe by C.S. Lewis
[quote]“When a Central African convert and a Harley Street
specialist both affirm that Christ rose from the dead, there is,
no doubt, a very great difference between their thoughts. To
one, the simple picture of a dead body getting up is sufficient;
the other may think of a whole series of biochemical and even
physical processes beginning to work backwards.
The Doctor knows that, in his experience, they never have worked
backwards; but the African knows that dead bodies don’t get up
and walk. Both are faced with miracle, and both know it. If both
think miracle impossible, the only difference is that the Doctor
will expound the impossibility in much greater detail, will give
an elaborate gloss on the simple statement that dead men don’t
walk about. If both believe, all the Doctor says will merely
analyze and explicate the words ‘He rose’.
When the author of Genesis says that God made man in His own
image, he may have pictured a vaguely corporeal God making man
as a child makes a figure out of plasticine.
A modern Christian philosopher may think of a process lasting
from the first creation of matter to the final appearance on
this planet of an organism fit to receive spiritual as well as
biological life.
But both mean essentially the same thing. Both are denying the
same thing—[i]the doctrine that matter by some blind power
inherent in itself has produced spirituality.”[/I][/quote]
#Post#: 2546--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 13, 2015, 7:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed in our Brave New "Scientific"
World
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&feature=player_embedded
I won't hold my breath waiting for those so THREATENED by
religions in general, and Christian Fundamentalists in
particular
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif,
to
UNDERSTAND how a much GREATER a threat to science and
rationality the DARWINST RELIGION IS.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp<br
/>
Science has stated that 250 COMPLEX proteins are required for
the most simple life form to form in the correct order.
Mathematicians have stated that it is statistically impossible,
in 12-14 billion years, for that many complex proteins to
"mutate" into the proper sequence. I've written about that here
before. Twelve Billion years is not even ONE PERCENT of the time
needed for that to occur. A NON-RANDOM event produced life,
PERIOD. The latest hypothesis is that we were "seeded" by
intelligent life. Who made them? NOBODY! You see, there are
trillions of parallel universes with trillions of variations.
SO, in one of THOSE, there was enough TIME for those 250
proteins to get this show on the road. Umpteen billions later,
the aliens got huge brains. Then they found our YOUNG universe
and seeded it. End of story!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Homo SAPS are expert in demonizing any teachings that, no matter
how rational, would require acceptance of the mere possibility
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif
that
they OWE THEIR EXISTENCE to a superior being (unless it's ET).
So it goes. [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
#Post#: 2547--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 13, 2015, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Eddie said, [quote]The term "evolution" has been completely
struck from the text books, and has been replaced with
euphemisms designed to placate the fundies, like "change over
time" and "developmental progression". Did you know that there
are 94 synonyms for evolution? And that textbook writers are
expected to use them in order to be "more precise"?[/quote]
There is a Law of gravity, but Evolution is a theory, NOT a law.
If you and your daughter want to "go with the flow" on the
theory of Evolution, why should the rest of us be force fed it?
Your argument against "force feeding" creationism is a form of
mockery. Next you will be telling us creationism requires we
believe the earth is 6,000 years old and is flat too.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
The implications of intelligent design are one thing; the
science is another. Let's not confuse the two. Science does not
do slippery slopes.
The evidence of cell biology nano-molecular machines has been
presented, peer reviewed and fastidiously fact checked over and
over. The complexity of these machines could NOT come about
through random mutations in 12-14 billion years. If your
daughter does not know this, she is behind in her science. As
you know, a scientist MUST be ready to question any theory that
no longer best explains the evidence.
Intelligent design is not "the tooth fairy did it"; it's a more
rational explanation of life than Darwinian evolution.
The belief, and that's all it is (regardless of what textbooks
claim) that modern scientific advances are a result of the
acceptance in the scientific community of the Theory of
Evolution as the best explanation of how life came to be here is
merely human resistance to change.
The Piltdown man fraud is history. So is the "tadpole to human
evolution" fetal development baloney that was in biology
textbooks for half a century AFTER it had been proven a clever
fraud.
It's time the theory of evolution was sent to the dustbin of
failed theories. That's science. If people don't want to believe
in God, so what? You supporters of evolution think that people
in your camp will be given a firing squad for being an infidel
if intelligent design is accepted. That's just silly.
The reality is that if ANYBODY that is a credentialed scientist
and attempts to discuss or write about, with accompanying
scientific HARD EVIDENCE, the irreducibly complex cell machinery
and the theory of intelligent design, he or she gets fired from
their university or research lab position and CANNOT get a job
in the same field because WORD GETS AROUND!
THAT is what I consider THREATENING, FASCIST, INTOLERANT and
UNSCIENTIFIC behavior.
But you think those scientists that get kicked out of THE CLUB
for talking irreducible cell complexity deserve to go. Don't
deny it. The fact that you are sweating fundy craziness and are
happy as a lark about the "way it works" in the evolutionary
true believer university club is proof.
When I see you weigh in equally against intolerance on both
issues, I will accept you are being objective. Yeah, I know, you
aren't going to lose any sleep over my opinion. Join the crowd.
::)
#Post#: 2549--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 14, 2015, 7:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Eddie provided us this gem of erudition. I consider it a
diversion from the real issue. Nevertheless, I will argue the
merits:
[quote] THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of
information about some related group of natural phenomena
(Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to
increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of
nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation
of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or
investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished
from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or
assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking
confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I
include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there
is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an
explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a
hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation
or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for
the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general
laws, principles or causes of something known or observed.
(Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations
that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence
(Krimsley, 1995).
[/quote]
The THEORY of EVOLUTION does not meet "3)", "5)" or "6)". Key
word = EVIDENCE. It's NOT THERE. I can prove it's not there. You
just don't want to go there.
So, not only does the BELIEF in Evolution not qualify as a LAW
in science, it's not even a THEORY according to the proper
definition as you presented it! NO EVIDENCE, NO THEORY. Science
is based on EVIDENCE, [i]not good narratives about how this,
that and the other happened. [/i]
Newton, Pasteur and many other scientific greats were DEVOUT
Christians. That did NOT stop them from providing the basis for
the scientific method. Are you saying they were childish people
that learned their science in Sunday school? I didn't think so.
Those scientists ALL went to Sunday school back in the 19th
century, ya know! Somehow, that did not prevent them from doing
good science, DID IT?
THEY had to fight furiously with the "KNOW IT ALL" scientific
community of THEIR DAY to get the truth out. The TRUTH, along
with the presented EVIDENCE, was RESISTED TOOTH AND NAIL!
Pasteur wasn't talking fairy tales, now was he? But they still
tried to shut him down for MOST OF HIS LIFE.
The doctor in Poland that PROVED that women got disease (causing
the death of their child and sometimes the mother too!) from
doctors that delivered babies after doing autopsies died in a
NUT HOUSE. Lister came LATER. Spare me the stuff about how the
scientific community welcomes dissent as long as evidence backs
it. That is just not so. I wish it was. That's the pretense, no
the reality.
IN FACT, when the science textbooks tell the TRUTH about the
history of scientific inquiry, the belief in ONE GOD and ONE
TRUTH is attributed to the basis of the scientific method.
The relativistic baloney that is peddled today is a DETRIMENT to
the scientific method. Fun and mocking games about Gods and
Goddesses shows disdain for metaphysics and caricatures the
OBVIOUS fact that, if there is ONE GOD, said being doesn't DO
reproduction, regardless of what reproductive mechanisms IT sets
up in his created critters. But I digress. All that stuff about
God this or God that is NOT the issue. You (and others
;))always try to make it the issue. The ISSUE is the LACK OF
EVIDENCE for the Theory of Evolution.
As for me, do you think the 35 college credits I have in
Biology, zoology, parasitology, genetics, botany and
microbiology is SUNDAY SCHOOL!!!?
That was quite a cheap shot, pal! Shame on you.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
Do you think I WANTED to buck that rigid mass of groupthink in
the scientific community that puts the word "evolution" in every
other article and paragraph out there? I just did the math.
They've got nothing. I cornered my profs. They've got nothing.
They would get thoroughly upset but could not counter my
arguments. I told them over and over that the evolution story is
not based on science. Yes, it's a nice story but it's NOT
evidence based.
They claimed that BECAUSE of that theory, we left the dark ages
of scientific inquiry and modern science OWES its existence to
the Theory of Evolution. I KNOW you believe that.
THAT, and not natural selection or the irreducible complexity of
molecular machines in cells, is what you evolutionists fear will
be LOST if the theory of evolution is discredited.
You are defending a BELIEF system, not science. You think if
that belief system is discredited, SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY will be
discredited.
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>That's why you use every tool in the book to mock and discredi
t
THE EVIDENCE that makes mincemeat out of the [s]Theory[/s]
BELIEF in Evolution. I accepted that possibility back then. It
beat the hell out of magic and incantations. :icon_mrgreen: It
seemed to be CFS.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
But, after several decades of wading through scientist
publications, I have become convinced that the reverse is true.
Your prized theory is a groupthink, unscientific world view
holding science back. No, I am not advocating a return to magic
and incantations. That's NOT what Newton or Pasteur did, is it?
I admire them and respect the way they went at science. Their
faith AIDED them, by their own admission, in their scientific
research. They didn't say that to avoid being burned at the
stake! 8)
I am advocating a rejection of the Theory of Evolution based on
the FACT that there is NO EVIDENCE to support it.
I READ science, as you do. I have been doing it steadily for
about 30 years. I am sick to death of seeing every damned thing
they can't figure out, and other things TOTALLY unrelated as
well, to be explained away as evolution this and evolution that.
The most outlandish bull**** is presented in science articles
AND papers WITHOUT PROOF as "scientific conjecture" with
"[b]evolution coulda done dat[/b]" attached to it. Subsequently,
every tenured groupthinker that knows which side his bread is
buttered on says, "AMEN, brother!".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
I follow the EVIDENCE. I suggest all readers do as well. 8)
5. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one
simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are
related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict
between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.
However, the dominant theory of evolution today is
neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by
natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable
and purposeless process that “has no discernible direction or
goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on
Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by
neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly
challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article
“Meanings of Evolution” by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer &
Michael Newton Keas.
6. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent
design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science
and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero
both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the
history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the
nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design,
including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles
Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the
Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can
be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but
among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of
the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely
rejected design in the early twentieth century after
neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of
biological complexity through the unintelligent process of
natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades,
however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics,
cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused
a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question
neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best
explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout
the natural world.
7. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to
empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature
acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the
product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an
undirected process such as natural selection acting on random
variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal
reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation
of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.
Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design
is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment
to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why,
then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent
design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part
of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without
actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information
read Center Director Stephen Meyer’s piece “Intelligent Design
is not Creationism” that appeared in The Daily Telegraph
(London) or Center Associate Director’s piece “ Intelligent
Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same“in Research News &
Opportunities.
HTML http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/
HTML http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/
#Post#: 2550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 14, 2015, 9:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg64253#msg64253
date=1421292833]
FACTS and QUOTES from: The Origin of the Species (sixth Edition
published in 1872)
[quote][I]Darwin spent 13 years revising and correcting what was
a literary monument to indecision, uncertainty, and
obfuscation.[I][/quote]
SNIPPET:
b) Hundreds of equivocations
Far from being a definitive work, the Origin is saturated with
conjecture. In the final 1876 printing20 of the 1872 sixth
edition, Darwin employed the word “may” 642 times, “if” 493
times, “might” 203 times, “probable” or “probably” 182 times,
“tend” or “tendency” 153 times, “suppose(d)” 141 times,
“perhaps” 63 times, “no doubt” 58 times, and so on.21 “I
believe” occurs 58 times, and “I think” 43 times; down from 97
and 81 times respectively in the 1st edition, because Darwin’s
correspondents complained!19
Here’s a sample of Darwin-speak from p. 100 of his 6th Edition:
[quote]“variations in a single species inhabiting an isolated
station might be beneficial, and thus the whole mass of
individuals might be modified, or two distinct forms might
arise.”[/quote] (Emphases added.) But equally, they might not …
might not … might not. Darwinian conjecture does not constitute
scientific evidence.
c) No actual evidence of anything
In Chapter 4 on Natural Selection, under the heading:
“Illustrations of the Action of Natural Selection, or the
Survival of the Fittest”, Darwin wrote:[quote] “In order to make
it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg
permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.”
[/quote]22 (His words, emphasis added.) Why “imaginary
illustrations”? Well, when you can’t cite a single real-life
example of natural selection producing anything new, the only
resources left are imaginary ones! ;D
The first of these is about wolves chasing their prey. Darwin
wrote:
[quote]… let us suppose that the fleetest prey, a deer for
instance, had from any change in the country increased in
numbers, or that other prey had decreased in numbers. … Under
such circumstances the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have
the best chance of surviving, and so be preserved or selected. …
I speak of the slimmest individual wolves, and not of any single
strongly-marked variation having been preserved.22[/quote]
Actually, the facts about wolves are substantially different, as
Sir David Attenborough has demonstrated in several of his
nature-study TV films. Wolves prefer to hunt in packs rather
than singly, and whatever their prey group is, they don’t choose
the strongest and fleetest individual to attack but the weakest
and slowest, which may be injured or sick or old or a juvenile.
So, not only could Darwin not produce a single real-life example
of natural selection producing anything, even this imaginary
case was contrary to the facts. The Origin is all speculation,
ad hoc assumptions, and special pleading. See:
Muddy waters: clarifying the confusion about natural section
[color=navy]Natural selection ≠ evolution
Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and
misconceptions
How information is lost when creatures adapt to their
environment
Exploring the God Question: 2, Life and Evolution, Part 1
(Darwinism)
HTML http://creation.com/exploring-evolution-darwinism
[i]Agelbert NOTE:[/i] In typical goal post moving fashion, I
expect someone will claim that, "It was supposition THEN but we
have 150 years of PROOF NOW! Yada-yada ya!"
NOPE! What we HAVE now is a LOT of Evidence that contradicts the
hypothesis that produced the Evolution Narrative. But you fine
"scientific" minds here can cling to your "theory" all you want!
TPTB are BACKING you ALL THE WAY while you bleat and whine about
the "attack" on civil liberties from (LOL!) Christianity!
RIGHT! It's Christianity that pushes justification for offing
the useless eaters, hysterics about carrying capacity,
justification for wars for oil, game theory, survival of the
meanest mother F'ing apex predator by any means needed to
destroy the competition and, last but not least, experimentation
on living beings, be they humans or not, is A-f u c k ing okay
for the "good" of science!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
Keep believin', true believers! It's all those whacko Christians
that are messing up this planet... Just get rid of ALL of us
superstitious whackos and then everything will be just fine in
your truly rational, logical. prudent, measured, do the math, f
u c k your buddy world.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
[/quote]
#Post#: 2558--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 16, 2015, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=3845.msg64251#msg64251
date=1421286540]
[quote] THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of
information about some related group of natural phenomena
(Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to
increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of
nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation
of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or
investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished
from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or
assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking
confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I
include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there
is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an
explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a
hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation
or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for
the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general
laws, principles or causes of something known or observed.
(Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations
that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence
(Krimsley, 1995).
[/quote]
The THEORY of EVOLUTION does not meet "3)", "5)" or "6)". Key
word = EVIDENCE. It's NOT THERE. I can prove it's not there. You
just don't want to go there.
[/quote]
[color=purple][size=12pt][i][b]JRM said, [quote]
This could be an interesting conversation if we began with a
working definition of "evolution". The evidence for biological
evolution is, of course, overwhelming -- e.g., the fossil record
and the fact that biological evolution has been observed in
current time (say, a single human lifetime -- or even much
shorter time frames).
To say "the evidence for evolution is not there" is not so much
right or wrong as it is an incomplete -- or vague -- statement,
as there are not one but many theories of biological evolution.
Which one is the one you think lacks evidence? --
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
[/quote]
Surly said, [quote]He's considering the beatification of Romero.
Leave Frank alone.
[/quote]
I have a nice TRUE story I'm working on about Romero. No, I
never met him. But I am related to someone who studied him
EXTENSIVELY. :icon_mrgreen:
The story might get you a lot of beady bubbles so I will attempt
to wordpress it. No guarantees, though. I'm kinda busy right
now. ;D
I'm having to deal with accusations of "vague" statements and
"incomplete definitions" by people who are silent as death
about just about every comment I make here (Hi JRM!) except when
they want to pop in and do a little "friendly" sniping.
JRM,
Before I address your statement about evolution and the "various
competing definitions", I wish to point out your comment on Ka's
valid observation.
Your hairsplitting on Ka's clear statement is known as verbal
dancing. Ka was clear.
Although Ka was not talking about complexity per se, that's what
SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory) refers to when defining
evolution. COMPLEX life emerging from LESS COMPLEX life is
evolution.
Here's a great example of a VAGUE statement: [quote]"there are
not one but many theories of biological evolution. "
[/quote]
As I have, and continue to state in my debate with Eddie (that
UB has weighed in on as well with his EXTENSIVE knowledge of
anthropology and human fossils), science does not DO "vague".
When we are talking about the ORIGIN of species (I. e. NEW
speciation), we are talking about EVOLUTION. Different
mechanisms and definitions within that field of study have
branched out.
Evolution has been applied to planets, mud, conversations, stars
and so on. THAT is NOT what we are talking about when we are
talking about the ORIGIN of species.
If you REALLY want to talk about what is VAGUE in the above
thread, it's the incredibly convenient dial a definition of
"religion" that so many people have. But that is another
subject. I respect your views on your belief system even though
I don't agree with them. Same with WHD.
Ashvin has been quite clear and consistent in stating logically,
dispassionately and without rancor, why his views are well
founded. He has made it clear what a CHRISTIAN actually is,
regardless of those rebrobates out there that hijacked the
moniker for predatory profit and mayhem. I have not seen anyone
here but Surly admit that. That too, is another subject.
I don't mind if you wish to challenge my views on evolution. I
don't mind because I myself never challenged Standard Evolution
Theory (SET) until, as a 40 year old, I went back to college and
actually STUDIED biology intensively. THEN I realized it was an
exercise in conjecture, nothing more.
I did not question SET because of Sunday School or Christian
beliefs; I questioned it because when I studied Biology 101 and
102, Botany, Genetics, Zoology, Parasitology and Microbiology I
discovered THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for Evolution.
Scoff all you want. Let's talk natural selection, cell machinery
and the fossil "record". And while we are at it, let's talk
about the geological column.
Did you know that the geological column used to date fossils
(Carbon 14 and tree rings are USELESS for dating ANYTHING older
than several thousand years!) has "issues"? No, you didn't.
It's a construct. It's a pieced together thought exercise. They
have a bit here and a bit there. There is NO PLACE ON EARTH that
you can just go from humans to dinosaurs, PERIOD. I can prove
that. However, I will not even attempt to do so if you scoff at
that statement. If you do not respect my integrity, there is not
point, PAL!
But let us say that I am being too harsh, strident, hysterical
(and so on) and you do agree to ponder the evidence I present
objectively.
Consider these facts:
1) Modern duck skeletons have been found in exactly the same
place as Dinosaur skeletons are. What do you suppose that does
to the current "scientific" BELIEF that birds evolved from
dinosaurs?
2) ALL species skeletons (and human artifacts) found in the
"wrong" strata (BELOW creatures that we supposedly evolved from)
are NEVER published (but they ARE documented -and I can prove
that too!). The consensus "scientific" view is that some fissure
opened from an earthquake and dropped the artifact or the "out
of place" skeleton into the aged strata. The fact that NO
EVIDENCE of erosion, rock banding or any other well studied
geological process having occurred to SAVE a good evolution
story can be found is "irrelevant".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif
They'll figure it out
someday, they claim. ::)
3) Transitional fossils proving the ORIGIN of new species
(speciation through evolution) )are not in the fossil record.
The claim that human (and other) species like cartilaginous fish
are not preserved n the fossil record because they are fragile
flies in the face of "1)" above (to put mildly!).
4) Rock dating techniques for multi-million year fossil dating
(those fossils CANNOT BE DATED so the rock they are in is what
is dated) produce multi-million year ages from lava samples
produced by the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. PLEASE don't
call bull**** on this. I have SEVERAL articles full of hemming
and hawing by the scientific community trying to dance around
that, but still admitting that "erroneous dates" ;D can be
produced (as in the CONSISTENT case of new lava rocks - see
Hawaii lava rocks in the ocean formed within the last 100
years).
5) Rock dating ALWAYS produces SEVERAL different dates that vary
by millions of years. Now you would expect that the published
dates would be an average or a mean.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
But no, this is what they do, JRM. This is SOP (standard
operating procedure) in rock dating. Research is done in the
scientific literature of other fossils in this type of rock
strata (see CONSENSUS VIEW and how to avoid ruining a
"scientific" career
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif).
Then, the date is
chosen from the rock dating data that is AT LEAST as old as that
stated in the literature.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
But that's not
the BEST PART. LOL! ANY date OLDER than the literature instantly
becomes the "new" age!
That new date then goes into the "scientific" literature for
future rinse and repeats. The other SCIENTIFICALLY DETERMNIED
DATES ARE DISCARDED despite the fact that no instrument error or
contamination is documented as the cause. The other dates ARE
NOT put in the record of observation, as SHOULD be done when
REAL SCIENCE is being done! Hypothesis, Observation, evidence
and reproducibility DO NOT APPLY.
BIAS for longer and longer dates DOES, WHY? Because EVOLUTION
REQUIRES millions of years.
[b]How can so many scientists be wrong?[/b]
[quote]
Michael Crichton on consensus science
Editor: This is a good response to someone who says, “But all
those scientists can’t be wrong!” Crichton was referring to
science in general, not specifically evolution, but what he says
is apt for evolution. Dr Crichton had a career in science and
medicine before he became a famous writer. He wrote some
well-known science fiction novels such as The Andromeda Strain
and Jurassic Park, and the long-running TV medical drama ER.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus,
and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard
consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that
ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim
of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a
way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already
settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on
something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being
had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do
with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science,
on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to
be right, which means that he or she has results that are
verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus
is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The
greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they
broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus,
it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific
consensus was completely wrong for many years.][/quote]
That's we are supposed to believe goes on in the study of
fossils. But exactly what he states as NOT SCIENCE is what is
taking place. That's why I am so incensed about it.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
And now "millions of years" is NOT ENOUGH for Evolution! A 14
billion year old universe CANNOT, according to the REAL science
of probability and statistics, get the simplest life form (that
requires a minimum of 250 complex proteins ordered in a specific
way and ALL AT ONCE) to occur randomly.
This "evolution" rabbit hole is DEEP, pal.
Natural Selection has been PROVEN, by modern molecular biology
research, to whittle away DNA, not add new information in order
to INCREASE complexity and promote the ORIGIN of a species from
a more simple one (i.e. evolution).
Natural selection explains the SURVIVAL of the Fittest, quite
well. But it DOES NOT explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest AT ALL.
NON-RANDOM events produced Sentience as well as COMPLEX
biological life forms. SET FAILS to explain either (see:
[I][font=times new roman]Chaplin in the Lion cage [/font][/I]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/pollution/msg2557/#msg2557).
#Post#: 2561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 17, 2015, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RE,
Your assumption that human life BEGAN MILLIONS of YEARS AGO
lacks even a shred of scientific evidence. How can you so
blithely come out with such assumptions? ??? Spare me the
"any moron knows we evolved to be humans millions of years ago"
consensus scientific world view. I'm painfully aware of it. It's
not science (evidence) based. It's half baked conjecture. Try
arguing the merits instead of pulling the "everybody knows"
business on me, godfader.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Darwin is on MY SIDE of this anti-evolution argument!
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
[move]If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST
the validity of the Theory of Evolution! :o[/move]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png[/img]
2 minute video on the probability of single celled life occuring
randomly
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/single-celled-life-probability
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/single-celled-life-probability
4 minute video on cell complexity
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/cell-complexity
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/cell-complexity
For ANYBODY here that thinks SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory)
does NOT need to be SEVERELY revised, to put it mildly, here's a
brief review of the scientific method as summarized CORRECTLY by
Eddie, a scientist in his own right:
[quote]Observation, hypothesis, proof.
All else is bullshitting around the campfire.[/quote]
THAT is how it works. After the EVIDENCE (proof) is INSUFFICIENT
to confirm the original hypothesis, or CONTRADICTS the original
hypothesis, THEN a scientist MUST revise or DISCARD the
hypothesis!
If you insist on clinging to a good story sans evidence, you are
not doing science, you are doing consensus groupthink. Have a
nice day.
#Post#: 2590--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 23, 2015, 8:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The boy who’s proud to be a killer
Will Cornick murders teacher in front of classmates in Leeds,
England
by Warren Nunn
Published: 22 January 2015
The horrendous stabbing murder1 of an English high school
teacher and the comments the perpetrator made afterwards are a
potent reminder of the possible effects of evolutionary thinking
on impressionable minds.
Some of the sickening comments the teenage student made after
the killing included:
“I wasn’t in shock, I was happy. I had a sense of pride. I still
do.
“I know it’s uncivilised but I know it’s incredibly instinctual
and human. Past generations of life, killing is a route of
survival.
“It’s kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill
her or suicide.
“I know the victim’s family will be upset but I don’t care. In
my eyes, everything I’ve done is fine and dandy.”1
He had previously said of the teacher on Facebook that “she
deserves more than death, more than pain and more than anything
that we can understand”.1
Full article here:
HTML http://creation.com/will-cornick-murders-teacher
[img width=640
height=460]
HTML http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p098/c09872/9872-how-to-3.jpg[/img]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page