DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Sober Thinking
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 24, 2022, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Forbidden History[/center]
Agelbert NOTE: View from the 32:57 mark to 1:10:00 for the meat
of the matter. 🧐
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/0lVhpw47NIs?t=1977[/center]
Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and
do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an
evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary
layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622202527-13931485.png<br
/>by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers.
Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the
fossils, they say their age is determined by
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622202527-13931485.png<br
/>which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-240822174427.png[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622153115-13851380.png<br
/>
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422143122.png[/center]
But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the
layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular
reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of
the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of
the rock.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200018.png
The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth
"evolved" from "primordial soup"
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718163600-14411639.png<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718202127.gif,<br
/>which then somehow formed into many different species like
birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals,
plants and fish evolved into many different types of species
themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed
different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe
that plants evolved everything from vines to trees to flowers,
and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans.
But, they didn't stop there. They wanted any other theory of how
life began on Earth to be prohibited from being taught in ours
schools and universities.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-080422121435.png
Over the last century or so, they have achieved the thoroughly
unscientifc censorship of any scientist that, using objective
scientific evidence, exposes the blatant faults in the Theory of
Evolution . As this video makes irrefutably clear, Darwinists
refuse
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622202650-14041402.gif<br
/>
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-080422121656.png<br
/>to accept any empirical scientific evidence that undermines
the
validity of the Theory of Evolution.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422180601-815856.pnghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522115758-1252334.png[/center]
To make matters worse, over the last century they have
established a coercive, intolerant of other views, monopoly on
Education to make sure no competing theory of the origin of life
is taught, and no credentialed scientist can publish a paper, no
matter how objective and well sourced with empirical scientific
observation evidence, that contradicts the Darwinian 🦍
Worldview. This is NOT science; this is ideological tyranny
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090822135611.gif<br
/>pretending to be "science".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300115234833.gif
#Post#: 472--------------------------------------------------
The Singularity ✨
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 27, 2022, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
AGelbert NOTE: "Crazy" is the correct adjective for the
disingenuous attempt to make our precisely fine tuned for life
(i.e. NON-random) Universe appear to be "random".
This brief video provides objective scientific (i.e.
irrefutable) counter arguments to atheists and advocates of the
"Multiverse"
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422155724.png.<br
/>
[center]Frank Tipler: The Singularity - Science Uprising Expert
Interview[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/jFpbngtvWD8[/center]
In this bonus interview footage from Science Uprising,
distinguished physicist and cosmologist Frank Tipler at Tulane
University discusses the Big Bang, fine-tuning, and more. Be
sure to visit
HTML https://scienceuprising.com/
to find more videos
and explore related articles and books.
FRANK J. TIPLER is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane
University. He is the co-author of (with John Barrow) The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle, about the significance of
intelligent life in the universe, and the author of The Physics
of Immortality about the ultimate limits of computers, and the
role computers will play in the universe, and The Physics of
Christianity, about his scientific research into central
Christian claims and beliefs.
[move]Other related videos you might be interested in:
🧐[/move]
[center]Privileged Species featuring Dr. Michael Denton[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/VoI2ms5UHWg[/center]
[center]Jay Richards: The Privileged Planet[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/j_m9DxLJ7V0[/center]
[move]Cosmic Fine-Tuning Would Be Hard to Believe if It Weren’t
True: an Interview with Michael Denton[/move]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/l-joKMFSHSU[/center]
Check out other videos from the Science Uprising playlist.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-
About Science Uprising
Well-known scientists have been preaching a materialistic
worldview rather than presenting the public with all the
evidence. We are here to change that. The objective scientific
evidence does not prove our universe is blind and purposeless.
It does not show we are simply meat machines. It does not prove
that evolutionary mechanisms can completely account for the
diversity of life on earth. This is what THEY want you to think.
Think for yourself and make an informed decision.
Visit the Science Uprising website
HTML https://scienceuprising.com/
to find more videos and explore
related articles and books. You can also find out more
information about the people interviewed in this episode.
Subscribe to our channel:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryScienceNews
#Post#: 473--------------------------------------------------
Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really Says
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 27, 2022, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522171847-12792299.png
[/center]
Nov 23, 2021 110,699 views
[center]Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really
Says[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/V15sjy7gtVM[/center]
Discovery Science 169K subscribers
In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising
series, paleontologist Gunter Bechly unveils the truth behind
the fossil record. There are multiple trade secrets among
paleontologists. Chief among them is that Darwin's insistence on
gradualism was motivated by his understanding that the dramatic
jumps found in the fossil record imply intervention. Darwin
hoped that time would reveal his desperately needed transitional
fossils. It has not, and what science has learned since Darwin's
day would've shattered his hopes as Bechly explains.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube
channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and
inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling
evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research,
sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce
articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information
visit
HTML https://www.discovery.org/id/
HTML http://www.evolutionnews.org/
HTML http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook:
HTML https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/
Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science
& Culture
Discovery Institute:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryInstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRWallaceID
#Post#: 487--------------------------------------------------
"... , scientism also ignores evidence of how Christianity
actually stimulated the growth of science."
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 31, 2022, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Scientism Is Unbelievable - Historian of science Michael
Keas[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/JhL3McIxeqk[/center]
Discovery Science 170K subscribers
Historian of science Michael Keas critiques the idea of
"scientism," the claim that only science (not religion) is
reasonable. He explains how this idea is based on fake stories
about Christianity being at war with science in history.
According to Keas, scientism also ignores evidence of how
Christianity actually stimulated the growth of science.
This presentation was taped at the 2022 Westminster Conference
on Science and Faith in the greater Philadelphia area, which was
jointly sponsored by Discovery Institute's Center for Science
and Westminster Theological Seminary.
Michael Keas is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute and is author of the book,
Unbelievable: 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science
and Religion. He serves as lecturer in the history and
philosophy of science at Biola University and on the board of
directors of Ratio Christi, an alliance of apologetics clubs on
college campuses. He earned his PhD in the history of science
from the University of Oklahoma.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube
channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and
inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling
evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research,
sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce
articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information
visit
HTML https://www.discovery.org/id/
HTML http://www.evolutionnews.org/
HTML http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook:
HTML https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/
Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science
& Culture
Discovery Institute:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryInstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRWallaceID
#Post#: 500--------------------------------------------------
Why Human Skeletal Joints Are Masterpieces of Engineering
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: September 7, 2022, 9:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Why Human Skeletal Joints Are Masterpieces of
Engineering
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122505-6702373.gif<br
/>
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122214-653256.gif[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/EmXjK4HiM4M[/center]
Sep 7, 2022 Discovery Science 170K subscribers
One of Britain's top mechanical engineers, Stuart Burgess
explains how the skeletal joints in the human body are
masterpieces of intelligent design. He also responds to claims
by 👿 some that human joints are badly designed.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422155724.png
This presentation was taped at the 2022 Westminster Conference
on Science and Faith in the greater Philadelphia area, which was
jointly sponsored by Discovery Institute's Center for Science
and Westminster Theological Seminary.
Dr Stuart Burgess
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422180554-644315.gif<br
/>has held academic posts at Bristol University (UK), Cambridge
University (UK), and Liberty University (USA). He has published
over 180 scientific publications on the science of design in
engineering and biology. In the last two Olympics he was the
lead transmission designer for the British Olympic Cycling Team,
helping them on both occasions to be ranked in first place for
track cycling. For the last two decades his gearboxes have been
used successfully on all the large earth-observation satellites
of the European Space Agency. He has received many national and
international awards for design, including from the Minister of
State for Trade and Industry in the UK. In 2019 he was given the
top mechanical engineer award in the UK out of 120,000
professional mechanical engineers.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-070922231440.pnghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-070922231525.png[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-070922232907.png[/center]
[move]Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that
hateth reproof is brutish. -- Proverbs 12:1[/move]
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube
channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and
inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling
evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research,
sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce
articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information
visit
HTML https://www.discovery.org/id/
HTML http://www.evolutionnews.org/
HTML http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook:
HTML https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/
Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science
& Culture
Discovery Institute:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryInstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRWallaceID
#Post#: 564--------------------------------------------------
In the face of systematic attempts to efface from public view,
Darwin’s racism, a friend writes to offer quotes from Dar
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 5, 2022, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
UNCOMMON DESCENT
Serving The Intelligent Design Community
February 14, 2009 Author O'Leary
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122257-657398.png
[center]Darwin Reader: Darwin’s Racism[/center]
In the face of systematic attempts to efface
HTML http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/02/20/introduction_darwin_day_in_america_a_rev<br
/>from public view, Darwin’s racism, a friend writes to offer
quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man
HTML http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/:
Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:
“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a
lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I
hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.
“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater
number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of
danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to
others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But
the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even
to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more
highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”
“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed
by the natives of South America is well known, and has been
confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made
experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise
persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some
curious observations on the connection between the power of
smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the
olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have,
therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having
a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe
in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit
that the sense of smell in its present state was originally
acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an
enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early
progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it
was continually used.”
[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability
to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn’t very difficult, with a bit
of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders
handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art
if they wanted to. Most human beings don’t even try to develop
their sense of smell – we are mostly occupied with avoiding
distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I
don’t of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of
smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin’s idea here is basically
wrong and best explained by racism. ]
“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were
tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of
man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is
likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee
and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the
Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually
furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound;
they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the
Caucasian races.
“It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and
several other cases, more frequently present structures which
resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One
chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat
nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like
progenitors.”
[From Denyse: The nice thing about teeth is that, if they give
trouble, they can simply be pulled. I would be reluctant to
found a big theory on the size or convenience of teeth, given
that this fact must have occurred to our ancestors many
thousands of years ago.]
“It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can
resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and
other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man
in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as
susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which
have never yet survived long, when removed from their native
country.”
[From Denyse: Native North Americans often perished from human
diseases to which they had not become immune in childhood. That
is probably unrelated to the inability of anthropoid apes to
stand cold climates.]
This includes the degraded morals of lower races:
“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense,
which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which
reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of
the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind….
A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is
honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a
Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as
a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs
me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is
well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of
South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded
that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not
robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before
him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers
is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”
“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives
are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly
indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in
witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of
the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies.
Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and
humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given
of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to
strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the
Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”
[From Denyse: If early modern Europeans in Canada had not
trusted “Indians,” they would all have died off pretty quickly.]
“The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not
obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the
tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly
appreciated by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is
no reproach with savages.”
“I have entered into the above details on the immorality of
savages, because some authors have recently taken a high view of
their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to
mistaken benevolence. These authors appear to rest their
conclusion on savages possessing those virtues which are
serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of the family
and of the tribe,–qualities which they undoubtedly do possess,
and often in a high degree.”
[From Denyse: Charles Darwin, let me introduce you to Hollywood,
before you say any more silly things about the supposed
immorality of “savages.” ]
Making slavery understandable, though of course distasteful now:
“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times,
is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite
recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was
especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a
race different from that of their masters.”
From Denyse: Not really. In ancient times, slaves were typically
unransomed captives in war, convicted criminals, or people who
had fallen into irrecoverable debt. In Roman times, there would
be nothing unusual about being a slave to someone of the same
race as oneself. Slavery based on race alone was an early modern
legal invention, aimed against blacks.]
Mass killings of savages is understandable as a type of species
extinction:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly
exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for
it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we
may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a
baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.”
“The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races
of man is historically known….When civilised nations come into
contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a
deadly climate gives its aid to the native race…. The grade of
their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the
success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared
the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be
ridiculous.”
“[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is
forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it
seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless,
they suffered greatly in health….With respect to the cause of
this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death
followed the attempts to civilise the natives.” [–Obviously the
problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]
“Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction
of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on
many causes which differ in different places and at different
times; it is the same problem as that presented by the
extinction of one of the higher animals.”
Of course the degradation extends to the intellectual:
“There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when
carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as
in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all
parts of the body …Their mental characteristics are likewise
very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional,
but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has
had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with
the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S.
America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a
nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans who
live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from
each other only by a narrow space of sea.”
[From Denyse: I would imagine that the aborigines of South
America felt some resentment over the loss of their continent to
invaders from Europe … ]
” A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must
always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent
diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is
spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and
this, although a different consideration from their lessened
fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific
distinctness of the parent races.”
“So far as we are enabled to judge, although always liable to
err on this head, none of the differences between the races of
man are of any direct or special service to him. The
intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be
excepted from this remark.”
And… drum roll.., the main conclusion:
“The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man
is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to
think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a
doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment
which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and
broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection
at once rushed into my mind-such were our ancestors. These men
were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair
was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their
expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. … He who has
seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if
forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble
creature flows in his veins.”
[From Denyse: Sounds like a local rave to me. Not my ancestors
(who were, as it happens, rigidly correct people, but my 2009
fellow Torontonians.)]
“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey,
or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to
torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices
infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows
no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.
From Denyse: Yuh, I know. I know women who have divorced guys
like that too … but, when founding a theory in science, it
strikes me that … ]
And let’s not forget sexism!
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two
sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in
whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep
thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses
and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from
averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on
‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided
pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental
power in man must be above that of woman.”
“The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man
is probably due to natural selection, combined with the
inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have
succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for
their wives and offspring.”
[From Denyse: Re women vs. men: Actually, if we leave Darwin’s
obsession with natural selection out of the matter for a moment,
we can come up with a simple explanation for the difference
between men’s and women’s achievements. Men are far more likely
to win Nobel Prizes than women – but also far more likely to sit
on Death Row.
For most normal achievements, women will do as well as men,
given a chance. Women do just as well as men at being, say, a
family doctor, an accountant, a real estate agent, a high school
teacher, etc.
It’s only in outstanding achievements – either for good OR for
ill – that men tend to dominate. One way of seeing this is that
the curve of women’s achievements fits inside the curve of men’s
achievements, either way.
Natural selection does not explain this because most men who
have outstanding achievements do not contribute a great deal to
the gene pool as a consequence.
Either they produce few or no children, or their children do
nothing outstanding. So Darwin did not really have a good
explanation for this fact.]
What should we do? Breeding of people and letting the weak die
off:
“The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate
problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid
abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a
great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to
recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has
remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless
marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members
of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced
to his present high condition through a struggle for existence
consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance
still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to
a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and
the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle
of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of
increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be
greatly diminished by any means. There should be open
competition for all men; and the most able should not be
prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing
the largest number of offspring.”
“We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the
process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical
men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to
the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly
have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized
societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the
breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly
injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want
of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of
a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,
hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to
breed.”
[From Denyse: But how would anyone know who the “worst animals”
are among people?]
Post navigation
Book on Alfred Russel Wallace now available!
Darwin’s “Sacred” Cause: How Opposing Slavery Could Still
Enslave
141 Replies
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202144.gif<br
/>to “Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism”
KRiS February 14, 2009 at 9:24 pm
If only people understood that, contrary to the common view of
his time, Darwin was actually racist, then they would understand
why evolution must be wrong. Thank you, O’Leary, for bringing
this to everyone’s attention.
Nullasalus February 14, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Maybe it’s worth being aware of the social and political baggage
Darwin and others attached to the evolutionary theory. I happen
to believe in evolution – though I reject the extraneous
Darwinian metaphysical baggage that so often is attached to it.
If it turned out that Darwin was a racist or worse, it wouldn’t
impact the scientific validity of evolution.
It does, however, illustrate the flaws – and perhaps ugliness –
of the worldview Darwin extracted from evolution. Nothing wrong
with dealing with such, much as it makes some (for whatever
silly reason) squirm nowadays.
Allen_MacNeill February 14, 2009 at 10:08 pm
[center]
HTML http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg[/center]
Even granting that Darwin was racist (which I do not, especially
by the standards of his day), how does this make him “wrong”?
Wrong in what way? Wrong about his theory of evolution by
natural selection? Wrong about his theory descent with
modification? Wrong about his belief that Down House was drafty
in the winter?
Come on, this kind of ridiculous logical fallacy would get one
of my students shredded in less than a second, by the other
students in the room. What a person believes about any
particular subject (and especially what a person’s “character”
is like) has absolutely no bearing on whether they are “right”
or “wrong” about any other subject at all.
Suppose that Newton were an alcoholic who liked to drown cute
little puppies – would that make his theory of gravitation
“wrong”? If you think people who listen to rap music are
uncultured, and you found out that Richard Dawkins thinks the
same thing, would that make him “right” about the theory of
evolution?
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110822211037-18321080.jpeg[/center]
Allen_MacNeill February 14, 2009 at 10:22 pm
While we’re on the subject, we had a panel discussion here at
Cornell during our Darwin Week celebration. The topic: Evolution
and Racism. Oddly enough, every single one of the panelists
(which included four eminent evolutionary biologists: Warren
Almann, Sylvester Gates, Kenneth Kennedy, and Will Provine)
agreed that Darwin was:
1) an ardent abolitionist,
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422145441-5641222.gif
2) somewhat less racist than his contemporaries
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622202551-13971996.gif,<br
/>and
3) generally wrong in his racist and sexist views, when viewed
by today’s standards.
All of them also agreed that modern evolutionary theory:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-260322170319.png
1) has virtually eliminated race as a salient biological
characteristic of humans,
2) has provided a scientific basis for treating all people
equally
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422145218.gif<br
/>(since we are all genetically very similar due to our common
ancestry), and
3) has virtually nothing to do with racism
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164519-508103.gif,<br
/>which is primarily an economic, political, and religious
phenomenon.
So, what point was O’Leary trying to make with this post?
Tribune7 > Allen_MacNeill February 14, 2009 at 11:12 pm
So, what point was O’Leary trying to make with this post?
Maybe it was just to contrast his view with the one held by
Alfred Russel Wallace and to point out this birthday deification
thing is just a little too much.
Jerry February 14, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Allen,What made Darwin, “Wrong about his theory of evolution by
natural selection? Wrong about his theory descent with
modification?”
was that the theory never received the empirical backing for him
to have made the conclusions he did in his time or even today.
You are right about it having nothing to do with his thoughts on
race. It had all to do with the fact the was wrong on most of
what he believed and was advocating. He got a couple things
right and that is all and for that he is memorialized.
I would have thought your panel would be complaining about the
false extolment of his accomplishments.
Of all your time here you have never been able to justify why
Darwin should not be more than a small footnote in the history
of biology. Mainly for his work on barnacles and earth worms.
For that he deserves some credit but on evolution he has been
discredited.
Jerry February 14, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Allen, Aren’t you embarrassed that anyone should have a Darwin
Week celebration let alone Cornell. I would think you would be
protesting an event like that at such a prestigious university.
Did you protest it?
Gleaner 63 February 14, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Unless there is a factual error in Denyse’s post, I don’t see
why anyone would have a problem with it. Because Charles Darwin
was an historical figure of great import, and because of “Darwin
Day”, he is natrually going to invite great scrutiny, which is a
good thing.
In my experience you have to be careful when discussing certain
historical figures (see Martin Luther King and William T.
Sherman). Some people like sanitized versions of their idols.
O'Leary
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122257-657398.png<br
/>February 15, 2009 at 2:02 am
Factual error? The post is merely quotations of Darwin’s views,
with a couple of clearly identified reflections from me.
It matters because of the ridiculous hagiography around Darwin,
falsely linking him with Lincoln, for example. Students deserve
better than that rubbish, and it won’t be MY fault if they don’t
get it.
Darwin helped provide a “scientific” basis for racism. I think
that fact should just be acknowledged so that we can all move on
– instead of the whitewash that has become a regular feature of
the false knowledge of our times.
Read more:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164615-5351419.gif
Darwin Reader: Darwin’s Racism
HTML https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-reader-darwins-racism/
#Post#: 591--------------------------------------------------
Darwininan Theory and Wild Bear Habits Questions
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 12, 2022, 10:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-240422203338.jpeg[/center]
October 10, 2022, 6:32 AM by Jonathan Wells ✨
[center]Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422145344-560693.png[/center]
What does it mean to say that a theory is “in crisis”? It’s not
enough to point out that a theory is inconsistent with evidence.
Critics have been pointing out for decades that Darwinism
doesn’t fit the evidence from nature.
Continue Reading
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2022/10/is-darwinism-a-theory-in-crisis-2/<br
/>
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164615-5351419.gif
[move]Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular
and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley,
and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. A Senior
Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture,
he has previously worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at
the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a
medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. He also taught
biology at California State University in Hayward and continues
to lecture on the subject.[/move]
#Post#: 606--------------------------------------------------
A growing number of biologists now acknowledge that there are
serious problems with modern evolutionary theory.
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 19, 2022, 1:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a new series by
biologist Jonathan Wells asking, “Is Darwinism a Theory in
Crisis?” This is the third post in the series, which is adapted
from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and
Faith
HTML https://www.discovery.org/b/comprehensive-guide-to-science-and-faith/<br
/>
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422180553-636818.gif.<br
/>Find the full series
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422180554-644315.gif<br
/>here
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/tag/is-darwinism-a-theory-in-crisis-series/.<br
/>
Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and
Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and
one in Religious Studies from Yale University. A Senior Fellow
at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, he has
previously worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the
University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a
medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. He also taught
biology at California State University in Hayward and continues
to lecture on the subject.
October 12, 2022, 6:44 AM by Jonathan Wells
[center]🦍 Theory in Crisis? Dissatisfaction and the
Proliferation of New Articulations[/center]
[center]
HTML https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Z49fJ5NU2bPw39zntKLKrru5lwhW_8g-J48i0P1Utaw-EDNuqe2f8HSNmmG0S2g45tl_M5KQaO7aly3YRZAnsQ3tc4jC9hdDa6VcZeKhnrT1QbPTYfRAxqXK-2_6M4aTryAPmNaXWUQG9HAiUxiOpuJueAzxlOnSMMS_V8FtL4A4=s0-d-e1-ft#https://dot.discovery.org/l/563722/2020-11-25/5srkvv/563722/1606339854zUV4GO1R/Galapagos_Finches_wikimedia.jpg[/center]
Photo: Galápagos finch, by Mike's Birds from Riverside, CA, US,
CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
A scientific revolution is fueled in part by growing
dissatisfaction among adherents of the old paradigm. This leads
to new versions of the theoretical underpinnings of the
paradigm. In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn wrote:
--- Quote ---
> The proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness
to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the
recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals, all
these are symptoms of a transition from normal to extraordinary
research.1
--- End Quote ---
Serious Problems with Darwin’s 🦍 Theory
A growing number of biologists now acknowledge that there are
serious problems with modern evolutionary theory. In 2007,
biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci published a paper
asking whether we need “an extended evolutionary synthesis” that
goes beyond neo-Darwinism.2 The following year, Pigliucci and 15
other biologists (none of them intelligent design advocates)
gathered at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and
Cognition Research just north of Vienna to discuss the question.
Science journalist Suzan Mazur called this group “the Altenberg
16.”3 In 2010, the group published a collection of their essays.
The authors challenged the Darwinian idea that organisms could
evolve solely by the gradual accumulation of small variations
preserved by natural selection, and the neo-Darwinian idea that
DNA is “the sole agent of variation and unit of inheritance.”4
“A View from the 🔬👨‍🔬 21st
Century”
In 2011, biologist James Shapiro (who was not one of Altenberg
16 and is not an intelligent design advocate) published a book
titled Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Shapiro
expounded on a concept he called natural genetic engineering and
provided evidence that cells can reorganize their genomes in
purposeful ways. According to Shapiro, many scientists reacted
to the phrase “natural genetic engineering” in the same way they
react to intelligent design because it seems “to violate the
principles of naturalism that exclude any role for a guiding
intelligence outside of nature.” But Shapiro argued that
--- Quote ---
> the concept of cell-guided natural genetic engineering is well
within the boundaries of twenty-first century biological
science. Despite widespread philosophical prejudices, cells are
now reasonably seen to operate teleologically: Their goals are
survival, growth, and reproduction.5
--- End Quote ---
AGelbert NOTE: TELEOLOGICAL
HTML https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleological
is
exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in
nature.
In 2015, Nature published an exchange of views between
scientists
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122257-657398.png<br
/>who believed that 🦍 evolutionary theory needs “a
rethink” and 🦍 scientists who believed it is fine as it
is. Those who believed that the theory needs rethinking
suggested that those defending it might be “haunted by the
specter of intelligent design” and thus want “to show a united
front to those hostile to science.” Nevertheless, the former
concluded that recent findings in several fields require a
“conceptual change in evolutionary biology.”6 These same
scientists also published an article in Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London,in which they proposed “an alternative
conceptual framework,” an “extended evolutionary synthesis” that
retains the fundamentals of evolutionary theory “but differs in
its emphasis on the role of constructive processes in
development and evolution.”7
An Unusual Meeting in London
In 2016, an international group of biologists organized a public
meeting to discuss an extended evolutionary synthesis at the
Royal Society in London. Biologist Gerd Müller opened the
meeting by pointing out that current evolutionary theory fails
to explain (among other things) the origin of new anatomical
structures (that is, macroevolution). Most of the other speakers
agreed that the current theory is inadequate, though two
speakers defended it. None of the speakers considered
intelligent design an option. One 😈 speaker even
caricatured intelligent design as “God did it,” and at one point
another 😈 participant blurted out, “Not God — we’re
excluding God.”8
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164614-5342345.gif
The advocates of an extended evolutionary synthesis proposed
various mechanisms that they argued were ignored or downplayed
in current theory, but none of the proposed mechanisms moved
beyond microevolution (minor changes within existing species).
By the end of the meeting, it was clear that none of the
speakers had met the challenge posed by Müller on the first
day.9
A 2018 article in Evolutionary Biology reviewed some of the
still-competing articulations of evolutionary theory. The
article concluded by wondering whether the continuing
“conceptual rifts and explanatory tensions” will be overcome.10
As long as they continue, however, they suggest that a
scientific revolution is in progress.
Next, “Theory in
HTML https://media.tenor.com/images/8714e6aa996c682f95c9cfd09d64fdf7/tenor.gif<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818163126-16771578.gif<br
/>Crisis? 👿 Circling the 🦍 Wagons.”
Notes
Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 91.
Massimo Pigliucci, “Do we need an extended evolutionary
synthesis?,” Evolution 61 (2007), 2743-2749.
Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution
Industry (Wellington, New Zealand: Scoop Media, 2009).
Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller, Evolution: The Extended
Synthesis (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).
James A. Shapiro, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011), 134-137.
Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B.
Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, John Odling-Smee, Gregory A.
Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra, Douglas J. Futuyma, Richard E. Lenski,
Trudy F.C. Mackay, Dolph Schluter, and Joan E. Strassmann, “Does
evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Nature 514 (2014), 161-164.
Kevin N. Laland, Tobias Uller, Marcus W. Feldman, Kim Sterelny,
Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John
Odling-Smee, “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its
structure, assumptions and predictions,” Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London B 282 (2015), 20151019.
Paul A. Nelson, “Specter of intelligent design emerges at the
Royal Society meeting,”Evolution News & Views (November 8, 2016)
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/specter_of_inte/,
(accessed
August 22, 2020).
Paul A. Nelson and David Klinghoffer, “Scientists confirm:
Darwinism is broken,” CNS News (December 13, 2016).
HTML https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/scientists-confirm-darwinism-broken<br
/>(accessed August 22, 2020).
Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda and Francisco Vergara-Silva,
“Hierarchy Theory of Evolution and the Extended Evolutionary
Synthesis: Some Epistemic Bridges, Some Conceptual Rifts,”
Evolutionary Biology 45 (2018), 127-139.
JONATHAN WELLS SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2022/10/theory-in-crisis-dissatisfaction-and-the-proliferation-of-new-articulations/
#Post#: 607--------------------------------------------------
Darwinist 😈 alteng: The Dover, Pennsylvania legal case
that demolished the totally nutty "intelligent design"
nonsense.
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 19, 2022, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
alteng > AGelbert
Union of Concerned Scientists
======
These would be the same scientists who fully agree with the
rational, sane decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District - the Dover, Pennsylvania legal case that demolished
the totally nutty "intelligent design" nonsense. Correct?
The legal case that you failed to mention and when it was
mentioned you ran away from its logic and its ramifications.
Why?
AGelbert > alteng
You aren't kidding, are you? You are REALLY STUCK on a using a
LEGAL DECISION to justify the 🦍 Theory of Evolution.
Sorry, pal, but ONLY SCIENCE can DO THAT; and SCIENCE HAS FAILED
TO DO THAT. You can ramble on about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School District till the cows come home. Only someone in your
ideological echo chamber will listen BECAUSE it is NOT Based on
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, but SPECULATION from "experts" VOICING
THEIR OPINIONS. OPINIONS ARE NOT NOW, OR EVER WILL BE, "Facts"
or "Evidence".
I prefer honest debate by scientists. You obviously don't. You
want to exclude any scientist from the, "Is Darwn's Theory in
Crisis?" debate who doesn't have your hero worshipping opinion
of racist bigot Charles Darwin and his pseudo-scientific
🦍 theory.
You can forget trying to convince me that you are basing your
defense of Darwin on "reason" or "scientific evidence" with your
repetitious "appeals to authority" 👎. That is a
fallacious debating technique 👎. Another one is the
disingenuous use of the interrogative (i.e. "why") to position
yourself as a "rational fellow trying to enlighten a poor
deluded dummy" 👎. Condescending mockery 👎 and
disdainful arrogance 👎 will get you nowhere.
The use of fallacious debating techniques is the mark of a
person who, having no rational basis for his claims, and lacking
an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, resorts to
sophistry to "win" the debate. Your repeated attempts to sell me
that (🦍 Darwinian) Bridge in Brooklyn expose the
insecurity of your ideology.
Here is an example of an ACTUAL debate in 2016 (except for the
irrational histrionics by two atheist ideologues 👉 “Not
God — we’re excluding God.”) by serious scientists on both sides
of the "Is 🦍 Darwn's Theory in Crisis?" debate.
SNIPPET:
Darwinian theory is broken and may not be fixable. That was the
takeaway from a meeting last month organized by the world's most
distinguished and historic scientific organization, which went
mostly unreported by the media.
The three-day conference at the Royal Society in London was
remarkable in confirming something that advocates of intelligent
design (ID), a controversial scientific alternative to
evolution, have said for years. ID proponents point to a chasm
that divides how evolution and its evidence are presented to the
public, and how scientists themselves discuss it behind closed
doors and in technical publications. This chasm has been well
hidden from laypeople, yet it was clear to anyone who attended
the Royal Society conference, as did a number of ID-friendly
scientists.
Read more:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164555-532108.png
Paul A. Nelson and David Klinghoffer, “Scientists confirm:
Darwinism is broken,” CNS News (December 13, 2016). (accessed
August 22, 2020).
HTML https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/scientists-confirm-darwinism-broken
Read more:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164555-532108.png
Paul A. Nelson, “Specter of intelligent design emerges at the
Royal Society meeting,” Evolution News & Views (November 8,
2016), (accessed August 22, 2020).
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/specter_of_inte/
I had forgotten the definition of "Teleology". I had to look it
up (👉 TELEOLOGICAL is exhibiting or relating to design
or purpose, especially in nature
HTML https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleological).
Here
is an atheist scientist who makes some interesting assertions,
WITH EVIDENCE, that contradict the most basic "random undirected
processes" assumptions about of Evolution Theory:
QUOTE:[b]“A View from the 🔬👨‍🔬
21st Century”
In 2011, biologist James Shapiro (who was not one of Altenberg
16 and is not an intelligent design advocate) published a book
titled Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Shapiro
expounded on a concept he called natural genetic engineering and
provided evidence that cells can reorganize their genomes in
purposeful ways. According to Shapiro, many scientists reacted
to the phrase “natural genetic engineering” in the same way they
react to intelligent design because it seems “to violate the
principles of naturalism that exclude any role for a guiding
intelligence outside of nature.” But Shapiro argued that
--- Quote ---
> the concept of cell-guided natural genetic engineering is well
within the boundaries of twenty-first century biological
science. Despite widespread philosophical prejudices, cells are
now reasonably seen to operate teleologically: Their goals are
survival, growth, and reproduction.5
--- End Quote ---
Are you familiar with William Paley (1743-1805)? Paley
originated the Teleological Argument For Intelligent Design.
This 11 minute video, complete with the fellow on the left that
makes YOUR arguments against it, will be well worth your while:
🌞👍👍👍
[center]The Teleological Argument (Argument for the Existence of
God 🙌🕊️)[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/s06w4pXvUyk[/center]
The impossibility of random undirected processes producing even
the first living cell that, by the way, HAD to be able to
reproduce itself in addition to performing all the functions
required to live, is evidenced by this irrefutable FACT:
The ability to reproduce COULD NOT take place in a step by step
process; it HAD TO come into existence SIMULTANEOUSLY with all
the complex cell functions, from the extremely complex
glycoprotein molecule cell walls to the thousands of
interacting, irreducibly complex, molecular machines that power
a living cell, no matter how primitive. Chance and Deep Time
will not work to randomly produce self-reproducing life even in
a universe 100 times older than ours.
Darwinists labor under the magical thinking that the following
low probability random rock positioning below is the "same way
life got started".
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-121022140120-2045353.jpeg[/center]
[move]Even one single cell is trillions and trillions of times
more complex.[/move]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522172328-13112031.png[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522172328-[img<br
/>width=640]13112031.png[/img][/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522172423-1316146.png[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522172305-13101201.png[/center]
The "many universes" ::) claim (SEE: MORE magical thinking) is
completely devoid of any scientific evidence whatsoever. It is
based on circular reasoning by those who do not understand, or
do not wish to understand, probability and statistics
mathematics.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422175637.png[/center]
[center]This is the video ✨ referenced in the above
graphic:[/center]
[center]
HTML http://youtu.be/1pVulmHTd74[/center]
#Post#: 611--------------------------------------------------
Evolution and the "Experts"
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 20, 2022, 5:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Evolution and the "Experts" - Douglas Axe at Dallas
Science Faith Conference 2020[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/1pVulmHTd74[/center]
Apr 1, 2020 70,171 views
Discovery Science 176K subscribers
The controversy about Darwinian evolution is often framed as a
matter of credentials. We must listen to the “experts”! In a
presentation at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith,
molecular biologist Douglas Axe explains that “expertise does
not necessarily drive you in the right direction.” Sometimes it
does the exact opposite. How could that be? Watch now and find
out. Evolution and the “Experts”: Douglas Axe at 2020 Dallas
Conference on Science & Faith
Douglas Axe is the Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at
Biola University, the founding Director of Biologic Institute,
the founding Editor of BIO-Complexity, and the author of
Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is
Designed. After completing his PhD at Caltech, he held
postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University
of Cambridge and the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre.
His research, which examines the functional and structural
constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems,
has been featured in many scientific journals, including the
Journal of Molecular Biology, the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, BIO-Complexity, and Nature, and in such
books as Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen
Meyer and Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris.
The annual Dallas Conference on Science & Faith explores
exciting scientific discoveries about the origin of the
universe, the origin of life, and the development of biological
complexity, as well as critiquing the scientific and cultural
impact of Darwinism. It also deals directly with the
intersection of science and religion and the role that faith
plays in scientific research and study.
Be sure to check out these related videos:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422145549-5701455.gif
[center]Douglas Axe: Why more scientists are going off-script
from the Darwinian Story [/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/fnrHH1nGmUQ[/center]
[center]James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been
Explained[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y[/center]
[center]The Open Mind | Douglas Axe, Ph.D.[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/-JHi3SygoPI[/center]
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 11
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page