Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science
Sound of Trumpet
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
Neil Kelsey
Continually trying to discredit Darwin is irrelevant to whether or not
evolution is valid.
Cary Kittrell
Cart. Horse. Ass-backwards.
Darwin, who had studied to be a minister, was early on most devout,
so much so that his knee-jerk naivete cause mirth among the sailors
aboard the Darwin.
Observing nature, combined with personal life experiences, changed his
mind.
I never cease to be astonished by those who MUST find a way to
discredit evolution, by whatever means necessary.
-- cary
Les Hellawell
wrote:
It's an old principle. Attack the messenger not the message.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
ianpa...@gmail.com
close the "Establishment" and saying the right things. Not for anything
else.
The Origin of Species was published after Wallace sent Darwin a paper
as a referee. This was a paper on Evolution and Wallace proposed a
theory that was very close to Darwin's. Darwin had in fact published
nothing on Evolution but had published extensively on other topics.
After seeing Wallace's manuscript he then decided to rush into print
himself. I think Darwin's conduct was disgraceful but not for the
reasons given by the "Sound of the Trumpet". He did not referee with
integrity. He shoulod have published (and be damned) ages ago, but he
insisted on kow towing to the Establishment.
To me Evolution is the theory of WALLACE. Without him it would never
have seen the light of day.
S2
Natural selection is not entirely the invention of Darwin. By now it
has been skeptically reviewed by various spcialities within the
scientific community. DNA evidence, fossil records, zoological
catagorization and other research have so boosted the theory that it
remains one of the most enduring of theories since the 19th century.
It is a stark contrast to theories from the same period such as Freud's
theories (like penis envy, or the Oedipus Complex) that have not stood
the test of time.
To argue against natural selection on a religious basis shows a
stubbornness in the nature of the paradigm (systems of thought) the
religious person holds. It is interesting to note that there are xians
who can handle shifts in previously held beliefs to include new ideas.
An example of this was the Church accepting a heliotropic view of the
solar system. Those who subscribe to rigid pardigms certainly should
examine the disadvantages of this choice.
S.
R. Dean
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e1m3md$5id$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
advised and encouraged him, as a last resort to become a minister.
This was not Darwin's first choice. He rather shoot birds. But
to his credit he found a bird he had shot the previous day, still
alive and he felt ill at the suffering he had visited upon the poor
creature. This changed the man for the better.
Cary Kittrell
Hell, I just attended a four-lecture series by one of the most
noted paleontologists and writers on evolution of our day,
Simon Conway Morris (of Burgess shale fame). A significant
portion of his last lecture revolved about his belief in Christianity.
He came across as quite aimable and pleasant, even when talking
about issues which I happened to know had involved much vitriol
amongst certain notables in the field. Nonetheless, he came
very close to open contempt whenever he mentioned creationism
in general and Intelligent Design in particular.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Yes, I had been aware that he wasn't exactly Mr All-Nighter when
it came to his studies. And that being an English country
parson didn't necessarily involve the degree of fervor it
takes to be a door-to-door proselytizer.
> But to his credit he found a bird he had shot the previous day, still
> alive and he felt ill at the suffering he had visited upon the poor
> creature. This changed the man for the better.
That one I had not heard. Thank you.
-- cary
David H.
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote in message
news:1144950756.0...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
>
> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
>
Darwin was not a god. He was a scientist. We do not worship him; we
mention his name a lot because he was the one who put it all together
and produced the ToE, (which is confirmed over and over every single
day).
You attack Darwin because you perceive him to be some sort of god to
us. He is not. The theory he produced, and the *facts* it points out,
are a direct threat to your silly beliefs. Knowledge displaces
mysticism. You can't have that, can you?
Well, fuck you and your jesus/mary/mohammed/thor/insert-god-here.
David H.
#2217
Harris
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
This is a "sci.*" newsgroup. It is not of religious content. Persisting in posting such messages with
other peoples' quotations, probably without their permission, and not replying to anyone, ever, is a
clear attempt to spam this newsgroup and harass its users. It is curious that you cross-post these
messages to "alt.atheist" but never to "alt.religion" or smoething. This tactic is unethical, meaningless
and probably illegal, unless this attempt is in agreement with those specific publishers.
--
Harris
Dave Oldridge
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
>
> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
>
> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
>
>
> Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
>
>
> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
> Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
> influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
1. Citing some pack of lies does your case absolutely no good.
2. Citing it in support of an argumentum ad hominem fallacy (of the
classical variety) does your case even LESS good.
Is that all you have?
Where is your scientific theory of creation? How can we test it, using
the scientific method?
What is clearly an oxymoron is using the word "Christian" in connection
with these kinds of apologetics!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
raven1
<soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
>Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal
Now there's an objective forum!
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Mark K. Bilbo
<1kit32lujdsqsgt6c...@4ax.com>...
> On 13 Apr 2006 10:52:36 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>>Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
>>Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal
>
> Now there's an objective forum!
Not to mention one *hell of an oxymoron...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
mimus
<snip a buncha revisionist crap>
Darwin was a Christian all his life and died a Christian in good standing
with his Church and was buried in sacred ground, etc. etc. etc.
And it's only those savages so arrogant as to tell their own supposed god
(right in the face of the evolutionary sequence in Genesis and all the
evidence) how he could've done things that question that.
They're usually the same bunch that claims the wine at the Last Supper was
nonalcoholic, rewriting their own supposed "Holy Scripture" in accordance
with their will.
In short, pride, arrogance and lust for dominion, in the robes of religion.
As usual.
--
In the previous number, the cattle rustlers (post-
Hegelian dogma) had trapped Professor Dewey in an
abandoned mine shaft (Jamesian pragmatism) and had
ignited the fuse leading to a keg of dynamite
(neo-Newtonian empiricism).
< S. J. Perelman
Mark K. Bilbo
<1144950756.0...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
>
> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
Oh look, a freeper lying. Boy, that's never happened before...
Paul Holbach
> > Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> > Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
> > [...]
> > Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
> > Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
> Continually trying to discredit Darwin is irrelevant to whether or not
> evolution is valid.
For example, the founder of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaitre, was
a theist -- so what?!
His theistic worldview may have stimulated his scientific reflections,
but the only thing that counts is whether his theory is true or not.
#PH
quibbler
soundof...@mail2world.com says...
> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
> Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism
Unfortunately for your idiotic argument, Darwin was not an atheist,
nor is materialism interchangeable with atheism. One can believe in
a material universe in which god is a material object and the
material world is all that is.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
Douglas Berry
<soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 13 Apr 2006
10:52:36 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
>Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
Bollocks. Darwin's observations on HMS Beagle were the very epitome
of scientific method. He made observations and proposed a theory to
explain them, then offered evidence to back that theory.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
<paulholbachD...@freenet.de> posting the following on 13 Apr
2006 16:03:12 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
>For example, the founder of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaitre, was
>a theist -- so what?!
>His theistic worldview may have stimulated his scientific reflections,
>but the only thing that counts is whether his theory is true or not.
I've read some of his writings, and they boil down to "maybe God's
creation is what we see, and Genesis is a "just-so" story to tide us
over until we were able to discern the greater truth."
Healthy way to look at things.
Douglas Berry
<davidh...@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> posting the following on Thu, 13
Apr 2006 20:10:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
> Darwin was not a god. He was a scientist. We do not worship him; we
>mention his name a lot because he was the one who put it all together
>and produced the ToE, (which is confirmed over and over every single
>day).
> You attack Darwin because you perceive him to be some sort of god to
>us. He is not. The theory he produced, and the *facts* it points out,
>are a direct threat to your silly beliefs. Knowledge displaces
>mysticism. You can't have that, can you?
> Well, fuck you and your jesus/mary/mohammed/thor/insert-god-here.
It's the only name they know. It's like people who are ignorant of
physics often mention Einstein.
I swear, I've mentioned Watson and Crick to some of these bleaters and
gotten nothing but blank stares.
Douglas Berry
posting the following on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:20:40 -0400 iin
alt.atheism?
>Darwin was a Christian all his life and died a Christian in good standing
>with his Church and was buried in sacred ground, etc. etc. etc.
Not just sacred ground, but in Westminster Abbey, close to Issac
Newton!
Olrik
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "David H."
> <davidh...@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> posting the following on Thu, 13
> Apr 2006 20:10:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>
> > Darwin was not a god. He was a scientist. We do not worship him; we
> >mention his name a lot because he was the one who put it all together
> >and produced the ToE, (which is confirmed over and over every single
> >day).
> > You attack Darwin because you perceive him to be some sort of god to
> >us. He is not. The theory he produced, and the *facts* it points out,
> >are a direct threat to your silly beliefs. Knowledge displaces
> >mysticism. You can't have that, can you?
> > Well, fuck you and your jesus/mary/mohammed/thor/insert-god-here.
>
> It's the only name they know. It's like people who are ignorant of
> physics often mention Einstein.
You're right about that.
A lot of kooks, unable to understand modern physics (mind you, I don't
blame them; it's not easy stuff) try to take on Einstein because he's
well known.
Just take a look at these :
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html
A lot of them don't give a flying fuck about Heisenberg, Plank, Niels
Bohr, etc.
Olrik
johac
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
>
> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
>
> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
>
>
> Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
>
>
> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
> Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
>on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
> influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
Sean
"johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <1144950756.0...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>>
>>
>> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
>>
>> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
>>
>>
>> Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
>>
>>
>> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
>> Research Journal (v29, #2)
>
> Hardly a reliable source.
>
>
>>on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
>> influenced his writing more than actual science did.
>
> Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
> valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
Les Hellawell
Yes:
From the Introduction to "Origin of the Species"
"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species, inhabiting this world have
been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which justly excites our admiration."
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt
Paul Holbach
> > "Paul Holbach" <paulholbachD...@freenet.de> wrote:
> > For example, the founder of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaitre, was
> > a theist -- so what?!
> > His theistic worldview may have stimulated his scientific reflections,
> > but the only thing that counts is whether his theory is true or not.
> I've read some of his writings, and they boil down to "maybe God's
> creation is what we see, and Genesis is a "just-so" story to tide us
> over until we were able to discern the greater truth."
>
> Healthy way to look at things.
There is certainly a qualitative difference between a sophisticated
philosophical theism and a primitive biblical literalism.
#PH
Christopher A. Lee
<paulholbachD...@freenet.de> wrote:
No. They are both unjustified beliefs with rationalisations from
within the belief system.
>#PH
Sean
"Les Hellawell" <myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:d2su321g70p38dl5r...@4ax.com...
thx, and the satisfactory evidence for this found within origin of species
would be??
Elmer
"If several varieties of the cabbage, radish, onion, and of some other
plants, be allowed to seed near each other, a large majority, as I have
found, of the seedlings thus raised will turn out mongrels: for
instance, I raised 233 seedling cabbages from some plants of different
varieties growing near each other, and of these only 78 were true to
their kind, and some even of these were not perfectly true. Yet the
pistil of each cabbage-flower is surrounded not only by its own six
stamens, but by those of the many other flowers on the same plant. How,
then, comes it that such a vast number of the seedlings are mongrelised?
I suspect that it must arise from the pollen of a distinct variety
having a prepotent effect over a flower's own pollen; and that this is
part of the general law of good being derived from the intercrossing of
distinct individuals of the same species. When distinct species are
crossed the case is directly the reverse, for a plant's own pollen is
always prepotent over foreign pollen; but to this subject we shall
return in a future chapter."
From Chapter 4 OOS
Richard Smol
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
>
> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
>
> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
>
>
> Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
>
>
> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
> influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Even if that would be true, it is totally irrelevant to the question
whether his theory is valid. That question can only be answered "yes"
on account of the massive amount of evidence supporting it.
RS
Sean
"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:phN%f.7043$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
Good example.
Is "I suspect" an accepted scientific method?
Was the cabbage expereint repeated? What relevance is that to iguanas in the
south atlantic?
Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on valid
evidence?
I recall Darwin specifically saying that any relayed "evidince" had been
specifially excluded from his "abstract" work called OOS.
I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are the
appendix with supporting evidence for same" .... so whether or not his
"abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after the fact, I still fail to
see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of an example of sound science
and valid repeatable evidence or experiements that prove the postualtes.
But hey, who am I to argue with the rest of the world? ;-)
Elmer
It was, in 1859. Still is so in most cases. Scientists know that nature
has a way of surprising, so they do tend to use terms that are less
restrictive than most professions, so e.g., saying "We think", or "We
suspect" is quite normal.
> Was the cabbage expereint repeated? What relevance is that to iguanas in the
> south atlantic?
Yes, and yes they show isolation and selection.
> Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on valid
> evidence?
Absolutely. I rather doubt that all those scientists who have studied
the evidence over the past 150 years are wrong.
> I recall Darwin specifically saying that any relayed "evidince" had been
> specifially excluded from his "abstract" work called OOS.
Citation?
> I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
> postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are the
> appendix with supporting evidence for same" ....
He cited all the autthorities needed to support his ides.
> so whether or not his
> "abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after the fact, I still fail to
> see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of an example of sound science
> and valid repeatable evidence or experiements that prove the postualtes.
It was more an argument than an exposition of eriudition, but it was
based on all known evidences of the day and on his own experiments.
Nothing since has changed it much.
Stu
But then you wouldn't be able to attack a man who was long dead. It is
clearly the Christian thing to do.
--
~Stu
Craig Franck
> Is "I suspect" an accepted scientific method?
Certainly. Any theory must conclude more than can be definitively
proven, or it doesn't add anything.
> Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on
> valid evidence?
It's the only rational conclusion from the evidence. All else involves
magical thinking.
> I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
> postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are
> the appendix with supporting evidence for same" .... so whether or not his
> "abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after the fact, I still fail to
> see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of an example of sound science
> and valid repeatable evidence or experiements that prove the postualtes.
It was postulated before even the basic principles of heredity had
been worked out. It presupposed the modern science of genetics.
What you must realize is biology is not like physics or math. You
form broad generalizations based on what is available. Medical
researchers aren't sure why half the drugs we take actually work.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Chris Krolczyk
(snip)
Y'know, STrumpet, the more you post these little cut-n-pastes,
the more you convince people of how utterly unoriginal you are -
in addition to being repetitive and stupid, of course.
(Newsgroups trimmed)
-Chris Krolczyk
Immortalist
Douglas Berry wrote:
> >For example, the founder of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaitre, was
> >a theist -- so what?!
> >His theistic worldview may have stimulated his scientific reflections,
> >but the only thing that counts is whether his theory is true or not.
>
> I've read some of his writings, and they boil down to "maybe God's
> creation is what we see, and Genesis is a "just-so" story to tide us
> over until we were able to discern the greater truth."
>
What if the God, if it exists, created everything so that it evolved
just like it appears to have evolved on the best evidence and theories?
Or could the God have the power to cause the world to evolve as it
appeared to on the evidence?
Of course your "just-so" story could be the effects of human
"oral-traditions" and how the story changed a little bit each time it
passed on till finally written down in some way.
Or it could have resulted from;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/de24d6e31a496465
Reconstructive Memory
Our memory plays an important role in all our social interactions.
Because of this, it is vital to grasp this one thing about memory:
Human memory is re-constructive in nature. By this I mean that we
cannot tap into a literal translation of past events.
It is not like playing back a tape recorder or a VCR; instead, we
re-create our memories from bits and pieces of actual events filtered
through and modified by our notions of what might have been and what
should have been.
Our memories are also profoundly influenced
by what people might have told us about the
specific events- long after they occurred.
As Anthony Greenwald has noted, if historians revised and distorted
history to the same extent that we do in trying to recall events from
our own lives, they'd lose their jobs! Of course, most of us would like
to believe that our memories contain only the truth about the past. To
most people, the idea that their memory is fallible is somewhat
frightening.
...Elizabeth Loftus ...conducted a fascinating program of research on
re-constructive memory-investigating how ... "suggestive" questioning
can influence memory and subsequent eyewitness testimony.
In one of her experiments, Loftus showed subjects a film depicting a
multiple-car accident.
After the film;
some of the subjects were asked,
"About how fast were the cars going
when they smashed into each other?"
Other subjects were asked the same
question, but the word smashed was
replaced by the word hit.
Subjects who were asked about smashing cars, as opposed to hitting
cars, estimated that the cars were going significantly faster;
moreover, a week after seeing the film, they were more likely to state
(erroneously) that there was broken glass at the accident scene.
Leading questions can not only influence the judgment of facts (as in
the case above), but also can affect the memory of what has happened.
In one of her early studies, Loftus showed subjects a series of slides
depicting an auto-pedestrian accident. In a critical slide, a green car
drove past the accident. Immediately after viewing the slides, half of
the subjects were asked, "Did the blue car that drove past the accident
have a ski rack on the roof ?" The remaining subjects were asked this
same question but with the word blue deleted. Those subjects who were
asked about the "blue" car were more likely to claim incorrectly that
they had seen a blue car. A simple question had changed their memory.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22reconstructive+memory%22
Sean
What "evidence" of Darwins did they study? any examples?
>> I recall Darwin specifically saying that any relayed "evidince" had been
>> specifially excluded from his "abstract" work called OOS.
>
> Citation?
>
"This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. cannot
here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must
trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors
will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to
good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at
which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope,
in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the
necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references,
on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to
do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in
this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to
conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair
result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and
arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.intro.html
SEAN: So again I ask, irrespective of the 150 year history or the validity
of "evolution" in a general sense, how can anyone claim that Darwin's OOS
was a good example of sound science, and one based upon valid evidence?
Even Darwin himself posits that his abstract is NOT a fair result. Even
Darwin said that it would be necessary to publish in detail all the facts
with references. Was this ever done?
Why do others put this up as a shining example of sound science when Darwin
himself does not. Sure Darwin says his own opinions are based on sound
science, but that is NOT what I am referring to, I am referring to OOS
itself.
For that is what people present as being the holy grail example of evolution
theory, when it is unsubstanciated according to the normal methodology of
sound science, and contains no substanciating evidence except Darwins own
rhetoric of his experiences, experiments and anecodotal observations.
Even Darwin says that natural selection is not the ONLY thing to affect
evolution and that other matters must have had an affect.
"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those
belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some
other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged
varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species.
Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most
important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."
Darwins #1 claim was simply that species were not "immutable", and therefore
had not been spontaneously created at a point in time.
What darwin does not ever address is the origin of *all* species.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
THE END
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap15.html
>> I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
>> postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are
>> the appendix with supporting evidence for same" ....
>
> He cited all the autthorities needed to support his ides.
>
No he did not. He positied his opinions and gave some *examples* with no
verification of supporting evidence.
Read OOS without bias, and you will see endless numbers of jumping to
conclusions and assumptions based soley on his opinion about anecdotal
"facts".
He also repeatedly states that the necessary 'evidence' to prove his claims
is in fact missing at that time.
>> so whether or not his "abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after
>> the fact, I still fail to see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of
>> an example of sound science and valid repeatable evidence or experiements
>> that prove the postualtes.
>
> It was more an argument than an exposition of eriudition, but it was based
> on all known evidences of the day and on his own experiments. Nothing
> since has changed it much.
>
Right so you then admit that OOS was NOT a sound scientific Theory and was
not supported with objective, testable, and known evidence but it was simply
an "argument" based entirlely on Darwin's opinion, shall I say different
BELIEF, that species were *not* immutable. [which at the time was an
accepted belief. ]
And that it was Darwin's anecdotable observations that led him to question
his BELIEFs, and that AFTER he changed his belief that he then SAW more and
more evidence around him that SUPPORTED his new belief, and that even though
he could NOT PROVE his belief, DARWIN BELIEVED that he had seen enough to
convince him of it;s TRUTH.
As 150 years has unfolded, other people who also totally ACCEPT DARWIN's
BELIEF, or should I say people's OPINION of what was DARWIN"S BELIEF, and
keep finding more evidence to support that. and often wave flags in the air
that they have done so.
But Darwin and others have not proven any causal affect whatsoever. All they
can show is historical chnages, and then they CONJECTURE that the *reason"
for the changes is because of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and
exclude all other possibilities for a change within speices or behaviour in
Man. THis is NOT science, it is adhereance to existing CULTURAL BELIEFS,
Evolution and Natural Selection do NOT prove there is no Supreme Being or
Creator. All it indiciates is that Species of the day were logically not
immutable, which was priviously "believed" to be the case, and for which
there was just as much "evidence" to indicate same.
Why has no one been looking for evidence to support DARWIN's BELIEF that
way back in the beginning, before millions of years of evolution, that a
Creator was responsible for the beginnings of Life?
Why do scientists claim that any such a study is unscientific, but Dawinism
is the poster child of all things scientific and valid?
Sean
"Craig Franck" <craig....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:O7W%f.20$_w6.12@trndny09...
> "Sean" wrote
>
>> Is "I suspect" an accepted scientific method?
>
> Certainly. Any theory must conclude more than can be definitively
> proven, or it doesn't add anything.
>
>> Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on
>> valid evidence?
>
> It's the only rational conclusion from the evidence. All else involves
> magical thinking.
>
Then I would suggest that Darwin was infused with magical thinking ......
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining
the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long
before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me
to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one
living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.
And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to
a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are
grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the
species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly
extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell
that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the
larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail
and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are
the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch,
we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never
once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence
we may look with some confidence to secure future of great length. And as
natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all
corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap15.html
How coulod it be said that "natural selection" works solely by and for the
good of each being, whne there is a litany of examples where such "good" has
led to the extinction of species?
I'd suhggest this is just one example of magical thinking ...... the other
is that the progress is towards perfection as opposed to entrophy and a
degeneration of the variation of life to the mundane.
How could evolution support the idea of perfection in the likes of Stalian
and Hitler and POl Pot, and the many many "individuals" who acted out the
policies of these people?
How can evolution support the idea of perfection when children around Kiev
are born with deformaties because men are stupid.
How can evolution point to perfection when slavery is a major foundation for
America's economic and social and political wealth today?
> I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
>> postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are
>> the appendix with supporting evidence for same" .... so whether or not
>> his "abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after the fact, I still
>> fail to see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of an example of
>> sound science and valid repeatable evidence or experiements that prove
>> the postualtes.
>
> It was postulated before even the basic principles of heredity had
> been worked out. It presupposed the modern science of genetics.
>
BIG DEAL ....hereidity is obvious ...... there is no basis in fact that
natural selection has anything to do with anything, only that when two of a
species get together thier progeny will have particualr traits some similar
to their parents and some not.
Where is the EVIDENCE that a thing called "natural selection" has anything
to do with genetics?
If so why is there so much ongoing genetic malfunctions going on, or is this
natures way of eliminatiing particular types of humanity ..... if so, and if
this has been scientifically PROVEN as being the way of "natural selection"
then how come people are bothered to do any science to overcime such
defromties and weaknesses to illnesses .... how about just let people die.
For that is the ONLY logical outcome of believing in the "theory" of
evolution and natural selection. ONLY the fittest will survive, therefore
all weaker versions of a species are DOOMED .... then let them die is the
only sane logical step for a scientist who believes in darwin's theories.
Let nature decide, 100%
But we don;t do we?
Everyday repeatable human actions DEFIES any REAL belief in Darwinism, and
the supremeacy of natural selection.
bob young
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
IDIOT
>
>
> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
>
> Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
>
> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
> Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
> influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
> how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
> 'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
> wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
> website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
> subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
> about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
> Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
> atheism.
>
> Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
> Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
>
> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
>
> Synopsis
>
> During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
> evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
> the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
> processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
> strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
> exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
> argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
> atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
> facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
> writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
> form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
> posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
> reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
> selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
> processes.
bob young
Neil Kelsey wrote:
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
> >
> >
> > Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
> >
> Continually trying to discredit Darwin is irrelevant to whether or not
> evolution is valid.
They seem to think somehow that
if they can discredit Darwin
their imaginary god will suddenly appear.
And they wonder why there are atheists !
johac
"Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
result., theory.
The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
Sean
On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time much
longer than Darwins ideas.
Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific theory as
being proven? ;-)
But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150 years, but
Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where that long waffling
saga meets the definition of sound science and that it was based on solid
evidence?
It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing the
test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of sound
science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math, analysis of
result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting documentation of
evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap theory,
write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
documentation. .................... that's science?????
I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile>
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Sean broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Why has no one been looking for evidence to support DARWIN's BELIEF that
> way back in the beginning, before millions of years of evolution, that a
> Creator was responsible for the beginnings of Life?
If you think there is such evidence, why don't *you* look for it? So far
the evidence points in the other direction: that there is no bright-line
distinction between living matter and non-living matter, that there are no
fundament differences among matter that can clearly be recognized as living,
matter that can clearly be recognized as dead, and matter that is neither
clearly living nor clearly dead, and that there is no evidence to suggest
that anything supernatural ever happened to matter to make some of it
recognizably living and distinct from nonliving matter. There is nothing to
stop you from looking for such evidence, if you think it worthwhile, but I
would suggest that the principal reason no one has produced any such is
evidence is that none exists.
> Why do scientists claim that any such a study is unscientific, but Dawinism
> is the poster child of all things scientific and valid?
I have never heard a scientist advocate "Darwinism." The usual poster child
for all things scientific is Newton, and we now know even Newton did not get
it quite right. It's the 21st century. The personalities of 17th, 18th,
and 19th century scientists are subjects of history, not of science.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner, ULC use...@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of GodŽ -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
First Church of Electro-Baptism ***Atheist #1965*** One Short Circuit to Jesus
Two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer
Sean
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrne41hb7...@goodwill.io.com...
> In our last episode, <BtmdnQD_aZih8t3Z...@inspired.net.au>,
> the
> lovely and talented Sean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>
>> Why has no one been looking for evidence to support DARWIN's BELIEF that
>> way back in the beginning, before millions of years of evolution, that a
>> Creator was responsible for the beginnings of Life?
>
> If you think there is such evidence, why don't *you* look for it?
Ipso facto. ;-)
So far
> the evidence points in the other direction: that there is no bright-line
> distinction between living matter and non-living matter, that there are no
> fundament differences among matter that can clearly be recognized as
> living,
> matter that can clearly be recognized as dead, and matter that is neither
> clearly living nor clearly dead, and that there is no evidence to suggest
> that anything supernatural ever happened to matter to make some of it
> recognizably living and distinct from nonliving matter.
That's an interesting concept you've outlined Lars.
So the theory of evolution would be basically irrelevant to you then?
> There is nothing to
> stop you from looking for such evidence, if you think it worthwhile, but I
> would suggest that the principal reason no one has produced any such is
> evidence is that none exists.
>
>> Why do scientists claim that any such a study is unscientific, but
>> Dawinism
>> is the poster child of all things scientific and valid?
>
> I have never heard a scientist advocate "Darwinism." The usual poster
> child
> for all things scientific is Newton, and we now know even Newton did not
> get
> it quite right. It's the 21st century. The personalities of 17th, 18th,
> and 19th century scientists are subjects of history, not of science.
>
Thanks Lars, that's a close summary of what I am actually saying. Of course
no one except yourself has had the common sense to state the obvious.
<smile>
Christopher A. Lee
<santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
>news:slrne41hb7...@goodwill.io.com...
>> In our last episode, <BtmdnQD_aZih8t3Z...@inspired.net.au>,
>> the
>> lovely and talented Sean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>> Why has no one been looking for evidence to support DARWIN's BELIEF that
>>> way back in the beginning, before millions of years of evolution, that a
>>> Creator was responsible for the beginnings of Life?
Darwin only believed that when he was young.
>> If you think there is such evidence, why don't *you* look for it?
>
>Ipso facto. ;-)
Well?
>So far
>> the evidence points in the other direction: that there is no bright-line
>> distinction between living matter and non-living matter, that there are no
>> fundament differences among matter that can clearly be recognized as
>> living,
>> matter that can clearly be recognized as dead, and matter that is neither
>> clearly living nor clearly dead, and that there is no evidence to suggest
>> that anything supernatural ever happened to matter to make some of it
>> recognizably living and distinct from nonliving matter.
>
>That's an interesting concept you've outlined Lars.
He happens to be right.
>So the theory of evolution would be basically irrelevant to you then?
Where did he say that, moron?
The theory of evolution is the well understood explanation for the
facts of evolution.
>> There is nothing to
>> stop you from looking for such evidence, if you think it worthwhile, but I
>> would suggest that the principal reason no one has produced any such is
>> evidence is that none exists.
>>
>>> Why do scientists claim that any such a study is unscientific, but
>>> Dawinism
>>> is the poster child of all things scientific and valid?
Only in the fantasies of the seriously deluded who invent that as a
straw man.
Darwin's science was brilliant. But it's only an -ism in the
imagination of those who want it to be an ideology that competes with
their own doctrinal -ism.
>> I have never heard a scientist advocate "Darwinism." The usual poster
>> child
>> for all things scientific is Newton, and we now know even Newton did not
>> get
>> it quite right. It's the 21st century. The personalities of 17th, 18th,
>> and 19th century scientists are subjects of history, not of science.
>
>Thanks Lars, that's a close summary of what I am actually saying. Of course
>no one except yourself has had the common sense to state the obvious.
><smile>
It wasn't evident from the silly things you said.
You don't know what evolution is, what Darwin's explanation of it was,
what the subsequent confirmation of Darwin's explanation was, how the
juggernaut that is science has progressed since then, how Darwin's
explanation has been incorporated in the modern synthesis, or even
that Darwin's wasn't the first explanation for the facts that were
given the label of evolution several generations earlier.
Or that without it we would not have spin off sciences and
technologies that wouldn't even exist, but that you take advantage of
every day in modern agriculture and medicine.
Tim
"Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fdSdnTA_Pdz...@inspired.net.au...
Darwin tells ya where to look ya big silly.
Elmer
>(snip)
> What "evidence" of Darwins did they study? any examples?
Here's one example: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 27;96(9):5101-6.
"Phylogeny of Darwin's finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences." By Sato
A, O'hUigin C, Figueroa F, Grant PR, Grant BR, Tichy H, Klein J.
Max-Planck-Institut fur Biologie, Abteilung Immungenetik, Corrensstrasse
42, D-72076 Tubingen, Germany.
"Darwin's finches comprise a group of passerine birds first collected by
Charles Darwin during his visit to the Galapagos Archipelago. The group,
a textbook example of adaptive radiation (the diversification of a
founding population into an array of species differentially adapted to
diverse environmental niches), encompasses 14 currently recognized
species, of which 13 live on the Galapagos Islands and one on the Cocos
Island in the Pacific Ocean. Although Darwin's finches have been studied
extensively by morphologists, ecologists, and ethologists, their
phylogenetic relationships remain uncertain. Here, sequences of two
mtDNA segments, the cytochrome b and the control region, have been used
to infer the evolutionary history of the group. The data reveal the
Darwin's finches to be a monophyletic group with the warbler finch being
the species closest to the founding stock, followed by the vegetarian
finch, and then by two sister groups, the ground and the tree finches.
The Cocos finch is related to the tree finches of the Galapagos Islands.
The traditional classification of ground finches into six species and
tree finches into five species is not reflected in the molecular data.
In these two groups, ancestral polymorphisms have not, as yet, been
sorted out among the cross-hybridizing species."
>>> I recall Darwin specifically saying that any relayed "evidince" had been
>>> specifially excluded from his "abstract" work called OOS.
>> Citation?
> "This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. cannot
> here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must
> trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors
> will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to
> good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at
> which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope,
> in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the
> necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references,
> on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to
> do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in
> this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to
> conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair
> result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and
> arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."
> http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.intro.html
Yet, he does mention and cite other researchers in OOS. I counted six
mentions of other researchers findings in just the first half of chapter
4 in OOS on-line.
> SEAN: So again I ask, irrespective of the 150 year history or the validity
> of "evolution" in a general sense, how can anyone claim that Darwin's OOS
> was a good example of sound science, and one based upon valid evidence?
The fact that Darwin discovered and showed convincing evidence that one
of the causes of heritable genetic change in reproducing populations
over time was natural selection.
> Even Darwin himself posits that his abstract is NOT a fair result. Even
> Darwin said that it would be necessary to publish in detail all the facts
> with references. Was this ever done?
I don't know.
> Why do others put this up as a shining example of sound science when Darwin
> himself does not. Sure Darwin says his own opinions are based on sound
> science, but that is NOT what I am referring to, I am referring to OOS
> itself.
> For that is what people present as being the holy grail example of evolution
> theory, when it is unsubstanciated according to the normal methodology of
> sound science, and contains no substanciating evidence except Darwins own
> rhetoric of his experiences, experiments and anecodotal observations.
And can you supply examples of "sound science" of the 1850's as examples
that Darwin was not following normal methodology?
> Even Darwin says that natural selection is not the ONLY thing to affect
> evolution and that other matters must have had an affect.
Yup. That's exactly what biology has shown.
> "I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those
> belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some
> other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged
> varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species.
> Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most
> important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."
> Darwins #1 claim was simply that species were not "immutable", and therefore
> had not been spontaneously created at a point in time.
> What darwin does not ever address is the origin of *all* species.
So? That's abiogenesis and is a scientific fact, but it has little to do
with biology. It has much more to do with chemistry and physics.
> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
> originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
> whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
> gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
> wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
> THE END
>
> http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap15.html
>>> I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
>>> postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are
>>> the appendix with supporting evidence for same" ....
>> He cited all the autthorities needed to support his ides.
> No he did not. He positied his opinions and gave some *examples* with no
> verification of supporting evidence.
Nope. I gave an example above that he did cite others.
> Read OOS without bias, and you will see endless numbers of jumping to
> conclusions and assumptions based soley on his opinion about anecdotal
> "facts".
Try rereading the first half of chapter 4 again.
> He also repeatedly states that the necessary 'evidence' to prove his claims
> is in fact missing at that time.
Yup. And science has amply discovered most of it since.
>>> so whether or not his "abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after
>>> the fact, I still fail to see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of
>>> an example of sound science and valid repeatable evidence or experiements
>>> that prove the postualtes.
>> It was more an argument than an exposition of eriudition, but it was based
>> on all known evidences of the day and on his own experiments. Nothing
>> since has changed it much.
> Right so you then admit that OOS was NOT a sound scientific Theory...
Nope. It was. A scientific theory explains the facts seen. That's what
OOS did.
> and was
> not supported with objective, testable, and known evidence...
And this is wrong. Anyone can go back and dig up fossils and can collect
birds, do animal breeding experiments and plant seeds.
> but it was simply
> an "argument" based entirlely on Darwin's opinion,...
No. It was based on his views of the evidence.
> shall I say different
> BELIEF, that species were *not* immutable. [which at the time was an
> accepted belief. ]
No, Everyone at that time knew species changed, they just didn't know why.
> And that it was Darwin's anecdotable observations that led him to question
> his BELIEFs, and that AFTER he changed his belief that he then SAW more and
> more evidence around him that SUPPORTED his new belief, and that even though
> he could NOT PROVE his belief, DARWIN BELIEVED that he had seen enough to
> convince him of it;s TRUTH.
So what? That's what scientists do - *change their beliefs* based on the
evidence.
> As 150 years has unfolded, other people who also totally ACCEPT DARWIN's
> BELIEF, or should I say people's OPINION of what was DARWIN"S BELIEF, and
> keep finding more evidence to support that. and often wave flags in the air
> that they have done so.
Heritable genetic change in reproducing populations over time is
scientific fact. That *is* evolution.
> But Darwin and others have not proven any causal affect whatsoever.
Of course they have. Do you really think science doesn't have a clue as
to the causes of genetic change?
> All they
> can show is historical chnages,...
Wrong. They can duplicate most of these changes.
> and then they CONJECTURE that the *reason"
> for the changes is because of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and
> exclude all other possibilities for a change within speices or behaviour in
> Man. THis is NOT science, it is adhereance to existing CULTURAL BELIEFS,
And again, you are wrong. Genetics is not a cultural belief.
> Evolution and Natural Selection do NOT prove there is no Supreme Being or
> Creator.
And who said it did?
> All it indiciates is that Species of the day were logically not
> immutable, which was priviously "believed" to be the case, and for which
> there was just as much "evidence" to indicate same.
And you say this after how much study of the science of the early 1800's?
> Why has no one been looking for evidence to support DARWIN's BELIEF that
> way back in the beginning, before millions of years of evolution, that a
> Creator was responsible for the beginnings of Life?
Because the evidence either exists everywhere (Rom 1:20) or it's
unevidenced (2 Cor 5:7).
> Why do scientists claim that any such a study is unscientific,....
Because the supernatural and the natural are mutually exclusive *by
definition*.
> but Dawinism
> is the poster child of all things scientific and valid?
Who says this? He was a good scientist by the standards of his day but
his work would need a lot of changes were he publishing in scientific
publications today. That said, he did revolutionize biology, geology and
zoology, not to mention botany.
Elmer
> (snip)
> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
> that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
> better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
> that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
> the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining
> the birth and death of the individual.
And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent
creation of species?
Sean
I'll follow that thru,
much appreciated.
"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:nV60g.7174$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
Sean
straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin .... people
blindly accept his theory and within his theory he uses the term "laws
impressed on matter by the Creator"
and
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin
Christopher A. Lee
<santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:P370g.7176$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
>> Sean wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>
>>> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
>>> that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
>>> better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
>>> that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
>>> the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those
>>> determining the birth and death of the individual.
>>
>> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent creation
>> of species?
>
>straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin .... people
>blindly accept his theory and within his theory he uses the term "laws
>impressed on matter by the Creator"
Why do you lie? Darwin's explanation for the fact of evolution is
accepted because of its explanatory and predictive power.
> and
>
>There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
>originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
>whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
>gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
>wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Poetic language. He died an agnostic.
Why do you imagine that saying somebody believed in your version of a
creator, is any kind of argument?
>Charles Darwin
>
Ralph Page
>
> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:P370g.7176$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
>> Sean wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>
>>> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with
>>> the view that each species has been independently created. To my
>>> mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on
>>> matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the
>>> past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to
>>> secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of
>>> the individual.
>>
>> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent
>> creation of species?
>
> straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin ....
> people blindly accept his theory and within his theory he uses the
> term "laws impressed on matter by the Creator"
<snip remainder>
How can you determine that people blindly accept his theory?
What proportion of, say, biologists are merely accepting this theory
blindly?
Do you think that physicists blindly accept any particular theories?
--
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email
Sean
"Ralph Page" <ra...@PANTSralphpage.net> wrote in message
news:hB80g.59836$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
would it help if i said that the term *people* does not include biologists
and physicists?
how about if I say I determine it on my observations of others, comments by
others, and that i have the evidence but as I'm getting old, all I have time
for is this simple abstract statement above?
Not scientific enough for you?
Well I base my scientific claim entirely on Darwin's M.O. and therefore beg
your indulgence that I have done my best to avoid any errors of fact. ;-))
Reference: http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.intro.html
My work is now (1859) nearly finished; but as it will take me many more
years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged
to publish this abstract. I have more especially been induced to do this, as
Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the natural history of the Malay
Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that
I have on the origin of species.
Elmer
>>> (snip)
>>> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
>>> that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
>>> better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
>>> that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
>>> the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those
>>> determining the birth and death of the individual.
>> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent creation
>> of species?
> straw man,...
A straw man is arguing something other than what the other person is
saying. Saying "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully
satisfied with the view that each species has been independently
created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws
impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction
of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to
secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the
individual." is your argument, so my asking for evidence of independent
creation or citations to same is not arguing a straw man since that *is*
what you're claiming.
> I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin .... people
> blindly accept his theory...
No. People do *not* blindly accept Darwin's theory. It is massively
backed by evidence. Accepting the reality of the evidence is not blind
acceptance ;-)
> and within his theory he uses the term "laws
> impressed on matter by the Creator"
Which was a perfectly normal and acceptable reference for papers and
people writing in the early 19th century. Nowadays it depends critically
on what one means by the term "creator".
Stu
>>> >
>>
>> Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
>> result., theory.
>>
>> The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
>
>
> On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time
> much longer than Darwins ideas.
Jesus is god has not stood the test of time. Xians only comprise a
small part of the world population. Most people have rejected this
thesis. It is most a Dionysian fantasy that happens to fulfill some
psychological need in people who do not want to grow up.
>
> Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
Of course. Quoting myth is going to only take a person so far.
>
> You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific
> theory as being proven? ;-)
>
> But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150
> years, but Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where
> that long waffling saga meets the definition of sound science and that
> it was based on solid evidence?
Pick: Fossil records, radiometric dating(including potassium/argon,
argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating), DNA evidence,
zoological investigation. Quality of predictions based on evidence.
>
> It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing
> the test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
Yes.
>
> I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of
> sound science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math,
> analysis of result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting
> documentation of evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
Many zoologists, geneticists, engineers, and so on have published
evidence that has been repeatable and verifiable in the last 150 years.
Perhaps it would do you good to put down the 19th century documents
and pick up something more recent.
>
> Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap
> theory, write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
> documentation. .................... that's science?????
Again, Darwin like Freud and Rutherford posited many theories in the
19th century. Notice that many of their theories did not survive
skeptical inquiry. However, many have. Natural selection is one of
them. Hell, you can observe it your self with a jar full of fruit
flies.
>
> I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile
What is odd, is how you can cling to medieval myths in the light of
evidence. The earth is round, it rotates around the sun, and life
evolves.
Though your own mindset suggests that not all life evolves at the same rate.
--
~Stu
Don Kresch
<santimva...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>
>"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:P370g.7176$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
>> Sean wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>
>>> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
>>> that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
>>> better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
>>> that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
>>> the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those
>>> determining the birth and death of the individual.
>>
>> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent creation
>> of species?
>
>straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin
Darwin was in seminary.
Conveniently forgetting that?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
mimus
> In alt.atheism On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:41:27 +1000, "Sean"
> <santimva...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>
>>
>>"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>>news:P370g.7176$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
>>> Sean wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
>>>> that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
>>>> better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
>>>> that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
>>>> the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those
>>>> determining the birth and death of the individual.
>>>
>>> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent creation
>>> of species?
>>
>>straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin
>
> Darwin was in seminary.
>
> Conveniently forgetting that?
The difference between Darwin and the antievolutionists is that Darwin was
an *honest* Christian.
--
If we should fight for the good old Cause
By rules of military laws,
And do only what they call just,
The Cause would quickly fall to dust.
This we among ourselves may speak;
But to the wicked or the weak
We must be cautious to declare
Perfection-truths, such as these are.
< _Hudibras_ (sl. ed.)
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote
>> "Sean" wrote
>>> Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on
>>> valid evidence?
>>
>> It's the only rational conclusion from the evidence. All else involves
>> magical thinking.
>>
>
> Then I would suggest that Darwin was infused with magical thinking ......
I don't doubt he was. Darwin was a transitional figure; he only had one
foot in the door, so to speak. (Newton was even more of a magical
thinker.)
One question is whether the driving feature of biodiversity is going to be
full-blown hocus pocus or natural process. Another is whether the
biosphere needed to be set in motion by a supernatural process. It was
common in Darwin's day to believe in naturalism WRT the first question,
and supernaturalism WRT the second.
> How coulod it be said that "natural selection" works solely by and for the
> good of each being, whne there is a litany of examples where such "good"
> has led to the extinction of species?
>
> I'd suhggest this is just one example of magical thinking ...... the other
> is that the progress is towards perfection as opposed to entrophy and a
> degeneration of the variation of life to the mundane.
That's irrelevant. Evolution is Darwinism plus 150 years of scientific
progress. Newton thought God had to nudge the planets occasionally to
keep them in stable orbits. That doesn't mean quantum gravity needs
to introduce supernatural forces.
>> It was postulated before even the basic principles of heredity had
>> been worked out. It presupposed the modern science of genetics.
>>
>
> BIG DEAL ....hereidity is obvious ...... there is no basis in fact that
> natural selection has anything to do with anything, only that when two of
> a species get together thier progeny will have particualr traits some
> similar to their parents and some not.
>
> Where is the EVIDENCE that a thing called "natural selection" has anything
> to do with genetics?
The evidence is in statistical variation. You would need something to
work against this for evolution not to occur.
My main point was creation is consistent with any possible world,
and evolution a small subset of possible worlds. So it's statistically
more likely to be the case according to probabilistic induction.
Sean
> Sean wrote:
>> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>>> Sean wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the
>>>> view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it
>>>> accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the
>>>> Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present
>>>> inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like
>>>> those determining the birth and death of the individual.
>
>>> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent
>>> creation of species?
>
>> straw man,...
>
> A straw man is arguing something other than what the other person is
> saying. Saying "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied
> with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind
> it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the
> Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present
> inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like
> those determining the birth and death of the individual." is your
> argument, so my asking for evidence of independent creation or citations
> to same is not arguing a straw man since that *is* what you're claiming.
>
No silly, that is a HARD QUOTE from darwin ..... I am discussing Darwin's
"perceived" scientific credentials, and valid scientific MO used within OOS
..... You are making this into something else entirely, which IS as I said a
STRAW MAN.
You are the omne making something totally different out of what I am
suggesting, rather, ASKING about Darwin's MO. on a scientific basis.
>> I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin .... people blindly
>> accept his theory...
>
> No. People do *not* blindly accept Darwin's theory. It is massively backed
> by evidence. Accepting the reality of the evidence is not blind acceptance
> ;-)
>
Well I beg to differ. I have mentioned things that Darwin includes inj his
OOS and blind believers deny he said them ..... when I quote them, as below,
people tend to discount them and suggest he meant something different than
he actually says in his "scientific theory" documentation.
"people" seem to have this tendency to selectively choose the words they
want from Darwin, that happen to fit their current belief system ..... IOW
they don;t actualkly KNOW what Darwin said, they have this almost Biblical
blind belief in what he said.
Of course, that may not apply to you, but hey I have seen it with my own
eyes no less than darwin saw different species of finches. ;-))
>> and within his theory he uses the term "laws impressed on matter by the
>> Creator"
>
> Which was a perfectly normal and acceptable reference for papers and
> people writing in the early 19th century. Nowadays it depends critically
> on what one means by the term "creator".
>
Well how about we just restrict ourselves to what DARWIN meant by it, and
then go froim there?
Because it is DARWIN I am talking about, and what other people say/believe
Darwin said and meant when the documentation does not actually back up what
they say TODAY. See?
>> and
>
>> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
>> been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
>> that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law
>> of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and
>> most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Don;t you just love this line from ORIGIN OF SPECIES ?????
***... originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
****
Sean
"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1douv66iwbgex$.gjj4q625198n.dlg@40tude.net...
If you are suggesting that *I* am an anti-evolutionist, then you would be
mistaken.
If you are also suggetsing *I* am a christian, then you;'re also mistaken.
and if you were not, then by all means carry on and ignore my reply.
Sean
> "Sean" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote
>
>>> "Sean" wrote
>
>>>> Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on
>>>> valid evidence?
>>>
>>> It's the only rational conclusion from the evidence. All else involves
>>> magical thinking.
>>>
>>
>> Then I would suggest that Darwin was infused with magical thinking ......
>
> I don't doubt he was. Darwin was a transitional figure; he only had one
> foot in the door, so to speak. (Newton was even more of a magical
> thinker.)
>
thx, nice to discuss a topic with someone who;s life didn;t depend on the
outcome. ;-)
> One question is whether the driving feature of biodiversity is going to be
> full-blown hocus pocus or natural process. Another is whether the
> biosphere needed to be set in motion by a supernatural process. It was
> common in Darwin's day to believe in naturalism WRT the first question,
> and supernaturalism WRT the second.
>
My general point is simple .... some people mainly died in the wool athiests
twend to put darwin up as a poster boy that totally denies any
supernaturalism or potential hocus pocus, that since darwin evolution
precludes any possibility of seeing a creator as being involved in the
universe.
When the facts in Darwins own words do not actually support this view.
Me personally I am not denying evolution, what's odd is that how qucikly
some people assume that I am, and that ANY criticism of darwin, or more
specifically any criticism of "some people's opinions" about Darwin is
automatically seen as hocus pocus.
It pretty well proves my point that peoples opinions are always based at a
levelm of belief, more than factual knowledge and accuracy.
>> How coulod it be said that "natural selection" works solely by and for
>> the good of each being, whne there is a litany of examples where such
>> "good" has led to the extinction of species?
>>
>> I'd suhggest this is just one example of magical thinking ...... the
>> other is that the progress is towards perfection as opposed to entrophy
>> and a degeneration of the variation of life to the mundane.
>
> That's irrelevant. Evolution is Darwinism plus 150 years of scientific
> progress.
Well, it is releveant because I am talking about what DARWIN said, and
believed, and not evolution circa 2006. I am talking about how people make
Darwin into a God who was 100% perfect and right about his views on
evolution, and that HE personally backed up his opinions with hard science,
when he did not.
IOW a criticism of Darwin, is not a criticism of evolution and all science
that has followed since...... but it is a criticism of how some people can;t
help themselves turn factual science into a false belief that it measn
something it never says, that it means something that Darwin specifically
never said.
> Newton thought God had to nudge the planets occasionally to
> keep them in stable orbits. That doesn't mean quantum gravity needs
> to introduce supernatural forces.
>
THAT is my point .... TY
>>> It was postulated before even the basic principles of heredity had
>>> been worked out. It presupposed the modern science of genetics.
>>>
>>
>> BIG DEAL ....hereidity is obvious ...... there is no basis in fact that
>> natural selection has anything to do with anything, only that when two of
>> a species get together thier progeny will have particualr traits some
>> similar to their parents and some not.
>>
>> Where is the EVIDENCE that a thing called "natural selection" has
>> anything to do with genetics?
>
> The evidence is in statistical variation. You would need something to
> work against this for evolution not to occur.
>
> My main point was creation is consistent with any possible world,
> and evolution a small subset of possible worlds. So it's statistically
> more likely to be the case according to probabilistic induction.
>
Yes I can see that.
I guess I am saying that "natural selection" is about as meaningful as
saying if males and females mate, then they'll have babies who will often
look like their parents.
Darwin was making this "natural selection" as some kind of guiding "hocus
pocus" thing that influenced how and why things were as they were .... when
really it si just a simplified term for what is a very complex question,
and one which has still not been entirely answered 150 years later.
My beef is that "someA" poeple put such ideas as a fait accoimnpli, and use
current science to prove or ridicule people of different beliefs, when
science, and Darwin in particular do not actually support the many and
varied views that *some* people believe they do.
Yes genetics show some of the mechanics of how traits are passed on a
microsopci level, but external signs were already there that something like
that must have been happeneing, even by simply looking at the appearance of
ones own children. Darwin was not the only person talking about evolution,
natural selection etc either ..... it;s not like he was some genius that
destroyed the entire basis of creationism in one foul swoop.
So what I mean here as one example is that "natural selection" is a
non-saying ..... it really doesn't mean anything from a scientific pov, and
I can;t see that anything since darwin has proven a definitive as "natural
selection" exists or how it works.
Yes dna and genetics are in play, yes external factors like a volcanoe or an
ice age can cause a species to become extinct, yes the develoment of
langiage made a difference in human diverstity and ability to "survive" but
there is no relevance to this a scientific term called natural selection
that can be shown and proven ..... IOW it is a belief, not a scientific
fact.
DNA is a fact. BUT natural selection is phrase that describes a "belief" of
how the world works, and why it works a particular way, no less than a
belief in "creationism".
Science hops on the natural selection term, becuase it is there, and other
people can connect it with the general trust of evolution ...... people
can look at the many variations and changes in life forms , and yes they can
see inj hindsight that that beak has a different function than that other
beak .... and yes they could say that it another sign of natural selection
an example fo survival of the fittest but no ones knows if the new beak
won't turn out to be a cause for extinction in 100 or a 1000 years from now.
It is an unprovable terminaology, it is a generalisation that has no
foundation in science whatso ever. It is a term that has no fixed meaning.
Plants and animals have a natural tendency to "adapt" to their environment,
in a short term and long term basis which includes shifts over longer term
periods in genetics. This I wpuld suggest is a simple function of LIFE. When
a species own behaviour becomes counter productive it affects the species
negatively, and if it can;t respond fast enough it perishers or becomes
extinct. When a species develops new methodss or instincts it uses these
abilities in order to thrive survive.
I could describe this as a God given creative power invested in LIFE by the
creator to affect change in a beings self-attributes. darwin called it
natural selection. The difference in the terms used is not a fact, they are
a "belief" a conclusion based upon the facts, and simply way to describe
those conclusions of the facts in a "generalised way".
So a person can loook at all the "facts" of evolution and see the hand of
God in them, or another person can look at all the same facts and see
nothing but chemicals, atoms, and sheer chance.
My beef is extremist athiests who use these facts and demand other people
bow down to their God of un-created evolution in a petri dish of a universe
and demaand others accept their view that this , and the work of darwin
proves without doubt that God and creation has absilutley nothing to do with
anything..... and then say that THEY have scienctific proof on their side
that what they say is 100% correct.
Well the example I have been using is that Darwin himself, in his OWN words
does not support such extremist ideology from these obbsessive athiests.
[ note not talking about all athiests, only the outspoken twits who frequent
newsgroups and love arguning with those who follow religious paths]
When really, all they are is as blindly adheriong to a "beleif" of how life
exists which is no different from that of those they abuse, and ridicule for
being un-scientific and stupid.
I think it's is all kinda funny to me ...... but I understadn that not too
many people are able to follow what it is I am getting at here. <smile>
But I do hope that explains this issue I see a little clearer for some folks
who can see past their own biases on this issue, and separates it from the
whole of "evolution" and what science actually says about it at this poijnt
in time.
anyway, thanks Frank for a sensible reply ...... much appreciated.
Cheers
Sean
"Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2006041513092850073-Nospam@towelcom...
> On 2006-04-15 02:41:41 -0700, "Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>>> >
>>>
>>> Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
>>> result., theory.
>>>
>>> The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
>>
>>
>> On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time
>> much longer than Darwins ideas.
>
> Jesus is god has not stood the test of time. Xians only comprise a small
> part of the world population. Most people have rejected this thesis. It
> is most a Dionysian fantasy that happens to fulfill some psychological
> need in people who do not want to grow up.
>
Yes Stu. Sure.
Christians = 1 billion
Muslims = 1 billion
Buddhists = 1 billion
other theists/supernaturalists = 1 billion
Chinese communist/athiests = 1 billion
other/impoverished starving uneducated = 1 billion
Fantasy Group = 4 billion = 66%
Communist/Athiest = 1 billion = 16%
Other/near dead irrelevant group = 1 billion = 16%
Why do folks such as yourself have to assume that anyoine in the Christian /
thiest camp automatically denies evolution or the valid aspects of darwin's
150 y.old opinions as a physical reality in the world?
>>
>> Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
>
> Of course. Quoting myth is going to only take a person so far.
>
the quote i'm asking for is one related to darwin and science, btw.
>>
>> You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific theory
>> as being proven? ;-)
>>
>> But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150 years,
>> but Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where that long
>> waffling saga meets the definition of sound science and that it was based
>> on solid evidence?
>
> Pick: Fossil records, radiometric dating(including potassium/argon,
> argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating), DNA evidence,
> zoological investigation. Quality of predictions based on evidence.
>
Why can;t you read and understand what I WROTE ?????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin's OOS specifically <<<<<<<<<<<<
Did Darwin use "carbon dating" ?? NO
<shaking head>
>>
>> It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing the
>> test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
>
> Yes.
Hello ..... wake up ............ Darwin did not use DNA evidence to make his
case..... ;-))
>>
>> I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of
>> sound science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math,
>> analysis of result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting
>> documentation of evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
>
> Many zoologists, geneticists, engineers, and so on have published evidence
> that has been repeatable and verifiable in the last 150 years. Perhaps it
> would do you good to put down the 19th century documents and pick up
> something more recent.
>
WHY?
When the question *I* am asking is can anyone show me where Darwin actually
follows sound science and presents valid evidence for HIS theory?
Some of his HIS "guesses" may have been right after others found the
evidence, but was his documentation of his theory really **valid science**
and follow scientific principles and MO's?????
THAT is my question, if you don;t like the question tough, but that is my
question never the less.
>>
>> Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap theory,
>> write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
>> documentation. .................... that's science?????
>
> Again, Darwin like Freud and Rutherford posited many theories in the 19th
> century. Notice that many of their theories did not survive skeptical
> inquiry. However, many have. Natural selection is one of them. Hell,
> you can observe it your self with a jar full of fruit flies.
YES ... that's my point. "natural selection" is NOT much of THEORY is it?
Get married, have children ..... shit the children loook like the parents
... NOT much of a theory is it?
The species is not immutable ............... WOW like how obvious is that in
the first place?
>>
>> I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile
>
> What is odd, is how you can cling to medieval myths in the light of
> evidence. The earth is round, it rotates around the sun, and life
> evolves.
>
> Though your own mindset suggests that not all life evolves at the same
> rate.
STRAW MAN ..... get over yourself, and read what I am saying and not what
you IMAGINE I am saying.
> --
> ~Stu
>
Elmer
>>> straw man,...
What has this to do with the quote? "Authors of the highest eminence
seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been
independently created." is not Darwin's agreement with them. It is
rather the opposite. Your quoting this indicated to me agreement.
>>> I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin .... people blindly
>>> accept his theory...
>> No. People do *not* blindly accept Darwin's theory. It is massively backed
>> by evidence. Accepting the reality of the evidence is not blind acceptance
>> ;-)
> Well I beg to differ.
Go ahead.
> I have mentioned things that Darwin includes inj his
> OOS and blind believers deny he said them ..... when I quote them, as below,
> people tend to discount them and suggest he meant something different than
> he actually says in his "scientific theory" documentation.
> "people" seem to have this tendency to selectively choose the words they
> want from Darwin, that happen to fit their current belief system ..... IOW
> they don;t actualkly KNOW what Darwin said, they have this almost Biblical
> blind belief in what he said.
> Of course, that may not apply to you, but hey I have seen it with my own
> eyes no less than darwin saw different species of finches. ;-))
So what? Are these people with blind belief practicing scientists? Are
they practicing biologists? Practicing paleontologists? Botanists?
Geneticists? Zoologists? If not, then lots of people have the wrong end
of the stick on scientific matters. Do you fault people for
misunderstanding Einstein's theories? Do you doubt these theories
because ordinary people misunderstand them?
>>> and within his theory he uses the term "laws impressed on matter by the
>>> Creator"
>> Which was a perfectly normal and acceptable reference for papers and
>> people writing in the early 19th century. Nowadays it depends critically
>> on what one means by the term "creator".
> Well how about we just restrict ourselves to what DARWIN meant by it, and
> then go froim there?
Why?
> Because it is DARWIN I am talking about, and what other people say/believe
> Darwin said and meant when the documentation does not actually back up what
> they say TODAY. See?
What has what Darwin wrote about, that was not directly relevant to his
thesis, have anything to do with evolution, any more than what Newton's
writings on alchemy have to do with calculus today?
>>> and
>>> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
>>> been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
>>> that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law
>>> of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and
>>> most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
> Don;t you just love this line from ORIGIN OF SPECIES ?????
> ***... originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
> ****
Yes, but not terribly scientific. You might, however, find this book
interesting:
"The Evolution of Darwin's Religious Views" By Frank Burch Brown. Pub:
Mercer University Press (1986) ISBN: 0865542392
Sean
>
> What has this to do with the quote? "Authors of the highest eminence seem
> to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been
> independently created." is not Darwin's agreement with them. It is rather
> the opposite. Your quoting this indicated to me agreement.
>
That is NOT my problem, that was your doing, not mine. Hereis the ORIGINAL
quote in full ...... reposted .... leave it you to work it out where YOU
misunderstood what was "indicated" .... I've had explaining and
re-explaining the obvious.
start quote -----------------
Then I would suggest that Darwin was infused with magical thinking ......
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining
the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long
before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me
to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one
living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.
And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to
a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are
grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the
species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly
extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell
that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the
larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail
and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are
the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch,
we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never
once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence
we may look with some confidence to secure future of great length. And as
natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all
corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap15.html
How coulod it be said that "natural selection" works solely by and for the
good of each being, whne there is a litany of examples where such "good" has
led to the extinction of species?
end quote ------------------
>> Of course, that may not apply to you, but hey I have seen it with my own
>> eyes no less than darwin saw different species of finches. ;-))
>
> So what?
So it's an aspect of a topic I raised. If you're not interested then ignore
it. It has relevance to philosophy and rational thinking imho. Feel free to
disagree, but people stand behind what they "claim" darwin says when he said
no such thing, or said the opposite.
If you are not interested in direct quotes from darwin which show some
people on these ng's have been mis-quoting him then no problem, I don;t care
either way what you do.
> Are these people with blind belief practicing scientists?
Some have claimed they were. So Yes.
> Are they practicing biologists? Practicing paleontologists? Botanists?
> Geneticists? Zoologists?
They di not specificy. Such things are outside of my control.
These questions are more STRAW MAN arguments, because I have NOT claimned
that a practicing biologost, etc etc were the problem or the issue I was
raising .... so as usual your argument is irrelevant to what I am saying.
> If not, then lots of people have the wrong end of the stick on scientific
> matters.
THAT is my point. Do you have a problem if I make it?
> Do you fault people for misunderstanding Einstein's theories?
Yes, I sure don;t blame Eienstien, and if people were misquoting Eisteien on
alt.phil;osophy and saying what he meant was something MORE than it was then
I;d probably take a moment to point ti ourt too. Do you have a problem with
that too?
> Do you doubt these theories because ordinary people misunderstand them?
>
NO .... STRAW MAN ..... try to pay attentiojn to what I actually say,
instead of jumping to to stupid conclusions. That is what some athiests have
been doing to Darwin, putting things in his mkouth and in his "theiry" that
he never ever said, when in fact direct quotes show the oppositie.
Now what that has got to do with todays scientists, or biology or dna or
genetics damned if I know ... so why you and others feel so intent to bring
it up and blame for things I have not done is simply beyond me ..... and as
I said above it isn;t MY problem if you misunderstand what I type, and what
I quote.
I hope u are not a scientist because you have shown your observation skills
are not very good .... IMHO.
>>>> and within his theory he uses the term "laws impressed on matter by the
>>>> Creator"
>
>>> Which was a perfectly normal and acceptable reference for papers and
>>> people writing in the early 19th century. Nowadays it depends critically
>>> on what one means by the term "creator".
>
>> Well how about we just restrict ourselves to what DARWIN meant by it, and
>> then go froim there?
>
> Why?
>
<shaking head> see next paragraph and READ IT this time. LOL
>> Because it is DARWIN I am talking about, and what other people
>> say/believe Darwin said and meant when the documentation does not
>> actually back up what they say TODAY. See?
>
> What has what Darwin wrote about, that was not directly relevant to his
> thesis, have anything to do with evolution, any more than what Newton's
> writings on alchemy have to do with calculus today?
>
STRAW MAN ......... answer to YOUR question is NOTHING.
If you do not wish to discuss or argue what I say, and want to discuss
something else entirely then why bother responding to me?
>>>> and
>>>> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
>>>> been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
>>>> and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed
>>>> law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful
>>>> and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
>
>> Don;t you just love this line from ORIGIN OF SPECIES ?????
>
>> ***... originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
>> ****
>
> Yes, but not terribly scientific. You might, however, find this book
> interesting:
>
<shaking head in total disbelief>
THAT'S WHAT I SAID ABOUT DARWIN'S OOS in the first place ....
** IT IS NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC **
NOW YOU AGREE WITH ME ...... AFTER SEVERAL POSTS ARGUING.
GOD GIVE ME PATIENCE.
ROTFLMAO
johac
"Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Darwin's ideas are backed by evidence, where's your evidence for your
Jesus?
>
> Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
Read Chapter 4 "Natural Selection" A compelling argument filled with
many examples as evidence.
>
> You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific theory as
> being proven? ;-)
Theories are not proven. They are either supported or not supported by
evidence.
You don't know much about science do you? :-)
>
> But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150 years, but
> Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where that long waffling
> saga meets the definition of sound science and that it was based on solid
> evidence?
It was based on his own observations and observations of others. Many of
his data are described in his previous works and his notes. Nineteenth
century authors tended to be wordy.
>
> It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing the
> test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
Yes.
>
> I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of sound
> science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math, analysis of
> result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting documentation of
> evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
That's the way that science was reported in Darwin's day. If he were
publishing his theory today in a journal like Nature, it would be
shorter and there would be an experimental section in which he described
his methodology.
That , however, does not invalidate Darwin's work. His important theory,
natural selection, is supported by his observations and subsequent
observations over 150 years.
>
> Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap theory,
> write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
> documentation. .................... that's science?????
Nonetheless, Darwin's theory is nearly universally accepted in science
today.
>
> I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile>
I find it odd that people still try to explain science using 3000 year
old books of dubious origin with NO supporting data.
Elmer
Because NS promotes *new life*. "As all the living forms of life are the
lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian
epoch...". It does not always work for the good of the individual or its
species. This really is not all that difficult.
Again, what does this have to do with the reality of heritable genetic
change in reproducing populations over time???
> Now what that has got to do with todays scientists, or biology or dna or
> genetics damned if I know ... so why you and others feel so intent to bring
> it up and blame for things I have not done is simply beyond me ..... and as
> I said above it isn;t MY problem if you misunderstand what I type, and what
> I quote.
> I hope u are not a scientist because you have shown your observation skills
> are not very good .... IMHO.
Then what the heck are you trying to say?????? I really don't think my
reading comp skills are all that bad. You seem to be trying to cast
doubt on present day evolutionary science by saying Darwin said things
that are not believed today - again, so what????
>>>>> and within his theory he uses the term "laws impressed on matter by the
>>>>> Creator"
>>>> Which was a perfectly normal and acceptable reference for papers and
>>>> people writing in the early 19th century. Nowadays it depends critically
>>>> on what one means by the term "creator".
>>> Well how about we just restrict ourselves to what DARWIN meant by it, and
>>> then go froim there?
>> Why?
> <shaking head> see next paragraph and READ IT this time. LOL
>>> Because it is DARWIN I am talking about, and what other people
>>> say/believe Darwin said and meant when the documentation does not
>>> actually back up what they say TODAY. See?
>> What has what Darwin wrote about, that was not directly relevant to his
>> thesis, have anything to do with evolution, any more than what Newton's
>> writings on alchemy have to do with calculus today?
> STRAW MAN ......... answer to YOUR question is NOTHING.
> If you do not wish to discuss or argue what I say, and want to discuss
> something else entirely then why bother responding to me?
Interestingly you don't seem to want to actually address my question
either ;-)
>>>>> and
>>>>> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
>>>>> been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
>>>>> and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed
>>>>> law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful
>>>>> and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
>>> Don;t you just love this line from ORIGIN OF SPECIES ?????
>>> ***... originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
>>> ****
>> Yes, but not terribly scientific. You might, however, find this book
>> interesting:
> <shaking head in total disbelief>
>
> THAT'S WHAT I SAID ABOUT DARWIN'S OOS in the first place ....
>
> ** IT IS NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC **
No. It is scientific. That's why it convinced almost all scientists of
his day. You seem to want Darwin to write OOS as though he were alive
today. You also seem to read it with 21st century eyes.
> NOW YOU AGREE WITH ME ...... AFTER SEVERAL POSTS ARGUING.
> GOD GIVE ME PATIENCE.
> ROTFLMAO
Talk about reading comp...I say a *specific* line in Darwin's book is
not very scientific and you morph that into the my agreeing that
entirety of OOS is not scientific which is simply not so.
Sean
>
> Talk about reading comp...I say a *specific* line in Darwin's book is not
> very scientific and you morph that into the my agreeing that entirety of
> OOS is not scientific which is simply not so.
>
I know that was very unfair ..... but really I never used the words
"entirety of OOS" so you aren't being fair either.
Call it a draw then? <smile>
At least you didn't lay the jesus supporter or using 3000 year old texts to
prove creationism, like others have when I have done no such thing. So THX
for that.
I'll just accept that it is impossible to mention any criticism of Darwin,
or his "work" in OOS without being accused of insantity, of unmitigated
stupidity, gross bias, and as part of a secret theological conspiracy to
introduce creationism into schools. Such is the level of deity Darwin and
the ritual of "natural selection" has risen to in the eyes of the common
scientific man.
OK? Is that fair?
No, I thought not. <smile>
Elmer
>> Talk about reading comp...I say a *specific* line in Darwin's book is not
>> very scientific and you morph that into the my agreeing that entirety of
>> OOS is not scientific which is simply not so.
> I know that was very unfair ..... but really I never used the words
> "entirety of OOS" so you aren't being fair either.
> Call it a draw then? <smile>
OK.
> At least you didn't lay the jesus supporter or using 3000 year old texts to
> prove creationism, like others have when I have done no such thing. So THX
> for that.
Religious beliefs have nothing to do with the reality of evolution.
> I'll just accept that it is impossible to mention any criticism of Darwin,
> or his "work" in OOS without being accused of insantity, of unmitigated
> stupidity, gross bias, and as part of a secret theological conspiracy to
> introduce creationism into schools.
But, unfortunately, nonscientific criticism of Darwinian evolution,
natural selection and etc., is *almost always* an attempt to do exactly
that, as was seen in Dover.
> Such is the level of deity Darwin and
> the ritual of "natural selection" has risen to in the eyes of the common
> scientific man.
> OK? Is that fair?
No. This is rather a claim that facts do not matter to scientists, which
is mainly untrue. I know you're trying to make a claim for "common
scientific man" but that is rather a stretch. Sort of like claiming that
Einstein is a deity to physicists (mainly untrue) or is a deity to
"common scientific man" which might be true in some specific circumstances.
Sean
> Sean wrote:
>>> Talk about reading comp...I say a *specific* line in Darwin's book is
>>> not very scientific and you morph that into the my agreeing that
>>> entirety of OOS is not scientific which is simply not so.
>
>> I know that was very unfair ..... but really I never used the words
>> "entirety of OOS" so you aren't being fair either.
>
>> Call it a draw then? <smile>
>
> OK.
>
>> At least you didn't lay the jesus supporter or using 3000 year old texts
>> to prove creationism, like others have when I have done no such thing. So
>> THX for that.
>
> Religious beliefs have nothing to do with the reality of evolution.
>
>> I'll just accept that it is impossible to mention any criticism of
>> Darwin, or his "work" in OOS without being accused of insantity, of
>> unmitigated stupidity, gross bias, and as part of a secret theological
>> conspiracy to introduce creationism into schools.
>
> But, unfortunately, nonscientific criticism of Darwinian evolution,
> natural selection and etc., is *almost always* an attempt to do exactly
> that, as was seen in Dover.
>
Then I can only plead that the exception proves the rule sir!!!
cheers ....
I surrender and fall on my sword to put myself out of my own misery
........... please take my castle, drawbridge, cobbled paths, my concubines,
donkeys, and any copies of wuthering heights.
<smile>
sacs...@rsvl.net
Sean wrote:
>
> >> Because it is DARWIN I am talking about, and what other people
> >> say/believe Darwin said and meant when the documentation does not
> >> actually back up what they say TODAY. See?
> >
> > What has what Darwin wrote about, that was not directly relevant to his
> > thesis, have anything to do with evolution, any more than what Newton's
> > writings on alchemy have to do with calculus today?
> >
>
>
> STRAW MAN ......... answer to YOUR question is NOTHING.
>
You seem to be using an Ad Hominem rather than a straw man argument. I
don't believe many people would hold Darwin's OOS as a shining example
of scientific methodology or that his religious views are in any way
pertinent to the theory of natural selection. Darwin's beliefs are
irrelevant except as a historical note, natural selection has not only
stood the test of time (i.e. no contradictory evidence has been found)
but it is also fairly obvious. Humanity has been breeding animals for
desirable characteristics for thousands of years. It is easy to see how
all life either adapts to its environment or perishes. Good or bad are
subjective and irrelevant; it's a matter of survival (on this mortal
plane of existence).
Ralph Page
>
> "Ralph Page" <ra...@PANTSralphpage.net> wrote in message
> news:hB80g.59836$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> "Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:qNidnQIYGKu...@inspired.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:P370g.7176$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
>>>> Sean wrote:
>>>>> (snip)
>>> straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin ....
>>> people blindly accept his theory and within his theory he uses the
>>> term "laws impressed on matter by the Creator"
>>
>> <snip remainder>
>>
>> How can you determine that people blindly accept his theory?
>> What proportion of, say, biologists are merely accepting this
>> theory blindly?
>> Do you think that physicists blindly accept any particular
>> theories?
>>
>> --
>> -Ralph Page
>> remove pants to reply by email
>>
>
> would it help if i said that the term *people* does not include
> biologists and physicists?
It would make more sense.
> how about if I say I determine it on my observations of others,
> comments by others, and that i have the evidence but as I'm getting
> old, all I have time for is this simple abstract statement above?
>
> Not scientific enough for you?
I wasn't expecting anything 'scientific', I just wanted some
clarification.
I am sure some percentage of us accept evolutionary theory without any
critical analysis, I don't really think that's very meaningful though,
it obviously has no bearing on the validity of the theory.
After reading the rest of your thread and the quote below it appears
you're just trying to get the goat of atheists, no?
--
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email
> Well I base my scientific claim entirely on Darwin's M.O. and
Stu
>
> "Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
> news:2006041513092850073-Nospam@towelcom...
>> On 2006-04-15 02:41:41 -0700, "Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
>>>> result., theory.
>>>>
>>>> The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time
>>> much longer than Darwins ideas.
>>
>> Jesus is god has not stood the test of time. Xians only comprise a
>> small part of the world population. Most people have rejected this
>> thesis. It is most a Dionysian fantasy that happens to fulfill some
>> psychological need in people who do not want to grow up.
>>
>
> Yes Stu. Sure.
>
> Christians = 1 billion
> Muslims = 1 billion
> Buddhists = 1 billion
> other theists/supernaturalists = 1 billion
> Chinese communist/athiests = 1 billion
> other/impoverished starving uneducated = 1 billion
>
> Fantasy Group = 4 billion = 66%
> Communist/Athiest = 1 billion = 16%
> Other/near dead irrelevant group = 1 billion = 16%
Those numbers do indicate we have a long way to go before we as a
planet have intellectually evolved out of medieval theology.
I did not realize Buddhism was so popular. Technically they fall into
the atheist group, though there are some theist among them.
>
>
> Why do folks such as yourself have to assume that anyoine in the
> Christian / thiest camp automatically denies evolution or the valid
> aspects of darwin's 150 y.old opinions as a physical reality in the
> world?
Evidently you have not been reading my posts. The premise of several
of them has been that there are reasonable xians who have accepted the
scientific evidence for events like heliotropism, a round earth, and
evolution of the species.
>>>
>>> Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
>>
>> Of course. Quoting myth is going to only take a person so far.
>>
>
>
> the quote i'm asking for is one related to darwin and science, btw.
>
>
>>>
>>> You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific
>>> theory as being proven? ;-)
>>>
>>> But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150
>>> years, but Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where
>>> that long waffling saga meets the definition of sound science and that
>>> it was based on solid evidence?
>>
>> Pick: Fossil records, radiometric dating(including potassium/argon,
>> argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating), DNA evidence,
>> zoological investigation. Quality of predictions based on evidence.
>>
>
> Why can;t you read and understand what I WROTE ?????
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin's OOS specifically <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Did Darwin use "carbon dating" ?? NO
>
> <shaking head>
Darwin did not need to use carbon dating. He only needed to make
assertions based on observations. Time tested his theories. Just
because what he observed was contrary to church doctrine did not make
him an atheist. Do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe in
geocentrism? Does that make you an atheis? It contradicts biblical
cosmology.
>
>
>>>
>>> It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing
>>> the test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> Hello ..... wake up ............ Darwin did not use DNA evidence to
> make his case..... ;-))
Again observable are at work here. Darwin did the best science he
could with the tools of the period.
>
>
>>>
>>> I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of
>>> sound science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math,
>>> analysis of result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting
>>> documentation of evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
>>
>> Many zoologists, geneticists, engineers, and so on have published
>> evidence that has been repeatable and verifiable in the last 150 years.
>> Perhaps it would do you good to put down the 19th century documents and
>> pick up something more recent.
>>
>
> WHY?
>
> When the question *I* am asking is can anyone show me where Darwin
> actually follows sound science and presents valid evidence for HIS
> theory?
>
> Some of his HIS "guesses" may have been right after others found the
> evidence, but was his documentation of his theory really **valid
> science** and follow scientific principles and MO's?????
>
> THAT is my question, if you don;t like the question tough, but that is
> my question never the less.
The answer by all the other posters here have been Darwin's historical
accomplishments spurred terrific science. Science begins with
assertions. He make excellent assertions.
Einstein made assertions. If he or Darwin were easily disproved their
names would not have survived except as historical footnotes.
Fortunately for these two thinkers they made excellent assertions that
have been supported by subsequent evidence.
That is science.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap
>>> theory, write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
>>> documentation. .................... that's science?????
>>
>> Again, Darwin like Freud and Rutherford posited many theories in the
>> 19th century. Notice that many of their theories did not survive
>> skeptical inquiry. However, many have. Natural selection is one of
>> them. Hell, you can observe it your self with a jar full of fruit
>> flies.
>
>
> YES ... that's my point. "natural selection" is NOT much of THEORY is it?
>
> Get married, have children ..... shit the children loook like the
> parents ... NOT much of a theory is it?
>
> The species is not immutable ............... WOW like how obvious is
> that in the first place?
It is only obvious now after 150 years of science. Just like it is
obvious now that the earth is not at the center of the universe.
>
>
>>>
>>> I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile
>>
>> What is odd, is how you can cling to medieval myths in the light of
>> evidence. The earth is round, it rotates around the sun, and life
>> evolves.
>>
>> Though your own mindset suggests that not all life evolves at the same rate.
>
>
> STRAW MAN ..... get over yourself, and read what I am saying and not
> what you IMAGINE I am saying.
You may benefit from reading a book on rhetoric. On the other hand,
you may better off with tapes on the subject -
http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/4294.asp?id=4294&d=Argumentation%3A+The+Study+of+Effective+Reasoning%2C+2nd+Edition&pc=Philosophy%20and%20Intellectual%20History
--
~Stu
Sean
>
> You may benefit from reading a book on rhetoric. On the other hand, you
> may better off with tapes on the subject -
I find it odd that you'd only mention this info to myself, whilst ignoring
the most inane level of rhetoric from the athiest brigade over the last
several weeks. Though, I am not surprised.
Thanks awefully for the wisdom of your insights. For someone apparantly
worthy of awards in the arts area, I find it even more odd the level of
observation and insight your unable to gain from my little notations to
individuals about specific issues. Of course, that must be "my" rhetoric
that is the problem here. Couldn;t possibly be anythig else surely. LOL
c'est la vie.
Lizz Holmans
<santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Yes Stu. Sure.
>
>Christians = 1 billion
>Muslims = 1 billion
>Buddhists = 1 billion
>other theists/supernaturalists = 1 billion
>Chinese communist/athiests = 1 billion
>other/impoverished starving uneducated = 1 billion
>
>Fantasy Group = 4 billion = 66%
>Communist/Athiest = 1 billion = 16%
>Other/near dead irrelevant group = 1 billion = 16%
>
>
>Why do folks such as yourself have to assume that anyoine in the Christian /
>thiest camp automatically denies evolution or the valid aspects of darwin's
>150 y.old opinions as a physical reality in the world?
Beats the hell out of me. Almost all Christians I know accept
evolution as a fact.
Lizz 'including me' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Albert van der Horst
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
>
>During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
>evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
>the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
>processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
>strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
>exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
>argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
>atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
>facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
>writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
>form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
>posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
>reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
>selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
>processes.
>
Paraphrased:
Darwin was led to his discoveries by a sort of "atheist intuition".
Since then this intuition has been vindicated a million-fold.
So?
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
John Baker
<santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:P370g.7176$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
>> Sean wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>
>>> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
>>> that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
>>> better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
>>> that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
>>> the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those
>>> determining the birth and death of the individual.
>>
>> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent creation
>> of species?
>
>straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist ....
Asking for evidence to support a claim is not a straw man.
>ask Darwin .... people
>blindly accept his theory
No, we don't. Blind acceptance is more a theist thing.
>and within his theory he uses the term "laws
>impressed on matter by the Creator"
>
> and
>
>There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
>originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
>whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
>gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
>wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
>
>Charles Darwin
And your point would be?
Like most Brits of his day, Darwin was a "good Christian" in his
youth, but in his later years, and at the time of his death, he was no
longer a believer.
>
mimus
I'm not sure you can say that, although he certainly wasn't the Pat
Robertson/ Jerry Falwell/ James Dobson kind of Christian.
Did he ever, in writing or recorded conversation, explicitly disavow theism
completely?
--
In the previous number, the cattle rustlers (post-
Hegelian dogma) had trapped Professor Dewey in an
abandoned mine shaft (Jamesian pragmatism) and had
ignited the fuse leading to a keg of dynamite
(neo-Newtonian empiricism).
< S. J. Perelman
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
He described himself as agnostic later in life. But remember, the word
doesn't mean the same thing to agnostics that it means to theists.
In his youth he was planning a career in the church - but in Britain
even then that didn't mean what American Christians expect of their
ministers.
Over time he lost his belief.
Gandalf Grey
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:28n742lcarm4rrgig...@4ax.com...
More importantly, the religious right presumes that Darwin's theory covered
the origin of life. It didn't. "The Origin of Species" confuses the
religious right because they don't understand what the theory is intended to
explain. Darwin had no thoughts on the beginning of life. He was
interested in explaining its evolution.
>
> >
cliff...@yahoo.co.uk
When a person goes out to dine, for example, no one ever says, "Wow,
that's good food. I just have to meet the cook! Whether the food is
good or not has nothing to do with whether or not you like the cook. He
might be a Muslim. He might be a Mormon. He might be an athiest. He
might not pay his child support. Nobody cares.
Yet the Bible Thumpers continue to find new and innovative ways to
attack the messenger. They must work night and day for weeks or months
on end concocting this garbage.
Fooj
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
>
>
> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
>
> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
>
>
> Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
>
>
> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
> influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
> how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
> 'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
> wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
> website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
> subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
> about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
> Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
> atheism.
>
Perhaps it is better to expose Darwin's weak scientific background. He
was afterall only a moderately good biologist.
Fooj
Les Hellawell wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2006 10:56:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
> >>
> >>
> >> Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
> >>
> >> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
> >>
> >>
> >> Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
> >>
> >>
> >> There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
> >> Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
> >> influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
> >> how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
> >> 'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
> >> wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
> >> website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
> >> subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
> >> about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
> >> Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
> >> atheism.
> >>
> >> Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
> >>
> >> http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
> >>
> >> Synopsis
> >>
> >> During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
> >> evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
> >> the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
> >> processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
> >> strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
> >> exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
> >> argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
> >> atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
> >> facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
> >> writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
> >> form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
> >> posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
> >> reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
> >> selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
> >> processes.
> >
> >evolution is valid.
>
> It's an old principle. Attack the messenger not the message.
What message? Darwin clearly had nothing of the sort.
> Les Hellawell
>
> Greetings from:
> YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
John Baker
And all for naught, since only those who are already like-minded would
take them seriously for even a second.