Getting Beyond Evolution -- Moving On
Jesse976
we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science. Surely,
its zealous adherents will cling to it, for at least the tenure of their
publicly-funded sinecures. But, the science community must pick up
the pieces and move on --even if leaving the lecture halls resonating
with talk of aquatic apes, transmuting whales, self-organizing spontaneous
generation of life, and other worthy themes.
So, after a century and half of trying to apply Victorian philosophies
into the realm of Science, we now return to the realization that Life
and Man are products of a creation by Intelligent Design.
Thamus
> Just as Phlogiston, The Aether, Geosyncline and other passe theories,
> we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science.
Where do you see that? And who is "we"?
> Surely,
> its zealous adherents will cling to it, for at least the tenure of their
> publicly-funded sinecures. But, the science community must pick up
> the pieces and move on --even if leaving the lecture halls resonating
> with talk of aquatic apes, transmuting whales, self-organizing spontaneous
> generation of life, and other worthy themes.
???
> So, after a century and half of trying to apply Victorian philosophies
> into the realm of Science, we now return to the realization that Life
> and Man are products of a creation by Intelligent Design.
Who are you including in that "we"? Was the purpose of this
"Intelligent Design" to make it look like evolution has occured?
http://www.thamus.org/News/science/humans_link.html
--
Thamus
The OnlineNewspaper Gazette: http://www.thamus.org/News/
"The stories are real. Only the names, facts and events
have been changed."
(Remove my pants to email)
Aron-Ra
Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011128210339...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> Just as Phlogiston, The Aether, Geosyncline and other passe theories,
> we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science.
As ever, I find creationist anti-thought infinitely confusing. How the Hell
did you deduce this???
> So, after a century and half of trying to apply Victorian philosophies
> into the realm of Science, we now return to the realization that Life
> and Man are products of a creation by Intelligent Design.
And exactly how have we "realized" this?
Aron-Ra
C. Thompson
Yippee. Don't gotta work no more. It's the dole for me, courtesy of
Jesse's tax dollars. Thanks Jess.
huh?
--
Remove the obvious spam-gagger when replying please.
mel turner
[Jesse976] wrote...
>
>Just as Phlogiston, The Aether, Geosyncline and other passe theories,
Like YEC Special Creationism? Oh, right, that never even got
as far as ever becoming a scientific theory...
>we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science.
We do, do we? Who's "we"? All those friendly voices...?
"Utterly failed"? You wish. On the contrary, it's
succeeded admirably:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/other-links.html
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/other-links-gensci.html
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/other-links.html#evolution
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html
http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=darwinsring;list
>Surely,
>its zealous adherents will cling to it,
We're over here. That's a mirror.
>for at least the tenure of their
>publicly-funded sinecures.
"The tenure of their publicly-funded sinecures"? Gosh, you
do write funny... [and don't call me Shirley..]
>But, the science community must pick up
>the pieces and move on
Pick up what pieces and move on how to where? Back to some 17th
century version of YEC biology, perhaps? To some dressed up ID
version of much the same? Why should "the science community" ever
do something like that?
>--even if leaving the lecture halls resonating
>with talk of aquatic apes, transmuting whales, self-organizing spontaneous
>generation of life, and other worthy themes.
You seem to have a silly idea of what "lecture halls"
really resonate with.
>So, after a century and half of trying to apply Victorian philosophies
>into the realm of Science, we now return to the realization that Life
>and Man are products of a creation by Intelligent Design.
Those "we" again. Nope. We don't.
So, what actual scientific evidence leads you to this "realization"?
Got a real scientific theory of "creation by Intelligent Design"?
Anything at all?
Didn't think so.
cheers
Adam Marczyk
This guy reminds me of Erik back in his YEC days - a cocky loud-mouth
braggart who knows nothing whatsoever about evolution and thinks his own
personal ignorance defines the upper limit of human knowledge. Oh well, Erik
isn't a YEC anymore; maybe this kid won't be either. When you hang out on
t.o. a little bit of knowledge is bound to get into you, no matter how hard
you try. ;)
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
rich hammett
I see, replacing Victorian philosophies with Bronze Age ignorance.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Todd S. Greene
<20011128210339...@mb-cp.aol.com>):
Hi, Jesse.
Yes, 150 years is about right. Back in the mid-19th century, Charles
Hodge, and later his son Archibald Alexander Hodge, both conservative
theologians, accepted the fact that the idea of young earth creationism
had been demonstrated by geological science to be a false idea. (Young
earth was the earliest geological theory. But it failed as empirical
science.)
Here we are about 150 years after the time of the Hodges, and the
zealous adherents of young earth creationism - a *Pre*-Victorian
philosophy - are still plugging away. This self-delusion is really a
most fascinating thing, isn't it!?
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
en|ckma
*THEORY* of Evolution - but suppose 'creation by Intelligent Design' was a
reality? How exactly would you propose we gather "scientific evidence" to
prove it?
[Calm down, it's just a question, don't flame]
Nick.
=======================================
en|ckma
www.sp30.cjb.net
AMTCode(v2): [Regular][TĘ][A5][L ][Sx][B+][FD][P][C*]
=======================================
"mel turner" <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:9u49oi$5k2$1...@news.duke.edu...
Andrew Glasgow
"en|ckma" <eni...@enickma.cjb.netNOSPAM> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'm neither for the *THEORY* of Creation, nor for the
> *THEORY* of Evolution - but suppose 'creation by Intelligent Design' was a
> reality? How exactly would you propose we gather "scientific evidence" to
> prove it?
That no one has ever managed any description of how to do this, is why
creationism -- even ID creationism -- is not a theory.
Are you for the *THEORY* of Gravity, by the way?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> Note: address in header munged. |
|"It is quite obvious that, like a trite archetype of the "scumbag lawyer", |
|Johnson thinks he can force reality to conform to his wishes by out-debating|
|everyone who disagrees. Reality is unimpressed. -- Eric Gill in talk.origins|
Carl M
en|ckma wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm neither for the *THEORY* of Creation, nor for the
> *THEORY* of Evolution - but suppose 'creation by Intelligent Design' was a
> reality? How exactly would you propose we gather "scientific evidence" to
> prove it?
>
> [Calm down, it's just a question, don't flame]
First, start with a lawyer.
Add a pinch of mathematician and a tablespoon of biochemist.
Soak in salt water for 7 days to remove any smell of Creation Science.
Serve cold to an unsuspecting public.
--
** Remove obvious spam block from the email address
TomS
<m%lN7.383997$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "en|ckma" stated..."
>
>Don't get me wrong, I'm neither for the *THEORY* of Creation, nor for the
>*THEORY* of Evolution - but suppose 'creation by Intelligent Design' was a
>reality? How exactly would you propose we gather "scientific evidence" to
>prove it?
>
>[Calm down, it's just a question, don't flame]
Before we get to the evidence, how about you tell us just what
the "theory of creationism" or "theory of creation by intelligent
design" says.
That is, something *positive*, rather than "somehow, something
is wrong about (macro)evolution".
The only definitions or descriptions of creation that I have
heard of are consistent with the findings of evolutionary biology.
That is, other than those which are simply negative, something
like, "I don't know anything about creation, except that God did
it sometime in the last 10,000 years, and whatever He did, He
couldn't have created evolution."
Tom S.
howard hershey
----------
In article <20011128210339...@mb-cp.aol.com>, jess...@aol.com
(Jesse976) wrote:
More whistling in the clueless dark.
Frank J
caricature of evolution promoted by creationists. Belief in "intelligent
design" is entirely consistent with the real theory of evolution.
Unfortunately ID has not provided anything scientifically useful, so it is
at best superfluous, at worst misleading, in that its chief advocates have
adopted all the rhetorical tricks of YECs and OECs and have added some ones
of their own. Although they usually evade the issue, ID advocates have
officially endorsed an old earth and common descent. They are the ones who
need to move on.
Michael Altarriba
(which dates as being three billion years old) buried under the
Antarctic ice shelf, with symbols engraved on every side that decode to
"Hi! We created life on this planet, and as proof here is your
approximate genetic sequence [data follows]. Come visit us at this star
[more data] when your technology advances that far... oh, and here's how
to build a warp drive [yet more data].
Something like this would convince me. Nonsense like "irreducible
complexity" or pointing towards the unknowns within our understanding of
abiogenesis won't cut it.
Can anyone else think of an example of convincing proof?
Frank J
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9u5g5...@drn.newsguy.com...
evolution. IDCs have admitted an old earth and common descent, and have
added nothing scientifically useful.
Ann Broomhead
> Just as Phlogiston, The Aether, Geosyncline and other passe theories,
> we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science.
Gosh. This sounds just like the claim that we have entered the
post-feminist era, so all those pushy broads should just sit down and
shut up.
Riiight. Pull the other one.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
TomS
<ZZsN7.269059$5A3.10...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Frank stated..."
[...snip...]
>of their own. Although they usually evade the issue, ID advocates have
>officially endorsed an old earth and common descent. They are the ones who
>need to move on.
>
Do you have a reference for "officially endorsed an old earth
and common descent"?
I am not sure about some of the ID advocates, whether or not
they believe in an old earth.
Tom S.
Henry Barwood
Michael Altarriba wrote:
>
> Proof of ID? How about the discovery of a mile-high titanium ziggurat
> (which dates as being three billion years old) buried under the
> Antarctic ice shelf, with symbols engraved on every side that decode to
> "Hi! We created life on this planet, and as proof here is your
> approximate genetic sequence [data follows]. Come visit us at this star
> [more data] when your technology advances that far... oh, and here's how
> to build a warp drive [yet more data].
>
> Something like this would convince me. Nonsense like "irreducible
> complexity" or pointing towards the unknowns within our understanding of
> abiogenesis won't cut it.
>
> Can anyone else think of an example of convincing proof?
For me, proof could consist of detection of sudden genetic variation
somewhere in the fossil record. Of course, this probably would only be
detected by the discovery that there were multiple genetic lines in
existing life. I'm not a biochemist, but it seems like a completely
radical gene structure in at least one phyla would sort of imply that at
some point something was introduced (alien visits earth -dinosaur scares
alien - alien leaves behind expelled waste - bacterial transfer (?)
introduces alien protein into life on earth). Perhaps not exactly "God
did it", but close enough.
Barwood
RHertz
Surely,
its zealous adherents will cling to it, for at least the tenure of their
the pieces and move on --even if leaving the churches resonating
with talk of flood geolgy, altering radioactive decay rates or the speed of
light, Intelligent design, and other worthless themes.
So, after a two thousand years of trying to apply ancient tribal
philosophies
into the realm of Science, we now return to the realization that Life
and Man are products of Evolution and Natural Selection.
Bill Hudson
<ebon...@hotmailnotexcite.com> wrote:
> Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011128210339...@mb-cp.aol.com...
>> Just as Phlogiston, The Aether, Geosyncline and other passe theories,
>> we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science.
>> Surely, its zealous adherents will cling to it, for at least the tenure
>> of their publicly-funded sinecures. But, the science community must
>> pick up the pieces and move on --even if leaving the lecture halls
>> resonating with talk of aquatic apes, transmuting whales,
>> self-organizing spontaneous generation of life, and other worthy
>> themes.
>>
>> So, after a century and half of trying to apply Victorian philosophies
>> into the realm of Science, we now return to the realization that Life
>> and Man are products of a creation by Intelligent Design.
>
> This guy reminds me of Erik back in his YEC days - a cocky loud-mouth
> braggart who knows nothing whatsoever about evolution and thinks his own
> personal ignorance defines the upper limit of human knowledge. Oh well,
> Erik isn't a YEC anymore; maybe this kid won't be either. When you hang
> out on t.o. a little bit of knowledge is bound to get into you, no
> matter how hard you try. ;)
>
Damn that knowledge seeping in! my cranium needs more weatherstripping.
--
Bill
syvanen
> we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science
I am sure you are aware of the experiments that caused the abondonment
of the phlogiston and aether theories. Could you describe how these
theories were disproved and provide us with the observations that
cause you to doubt current evolutionary theory.
Mike Syvanen
John Wilkins
This is a useful insight. What IDism denies is the efficacy beyond some
(as yet undefined) limits of natural selection. It does not oppose old
earth, common descent, descent with modification, or (if it is smart)
any biological facts. As Frank notes, with that caveat it *is* the
theory of evolution, slightly skewed, though.
Creationism, on the other hand, does not deny that natural selection can
work within (entirely vague and subjectively defined) limits, but it
does deny descent with modification outside those limits, common descent
outside those limits, and it ignores, misinterprets or plain denies a
host of biological and other facts.
While they are soulmates, let us not conflate the two...
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
mel turner
In article <m%lN7.383997$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
eni...@enickma.cjb.netNOSPAM [en|ckma] wrote...
>"mel turner" <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
>news:9u49oi$5k2$1...@news.duke.edu...
>>
>> So, what actual scientific evidence leads you to this "realization"?
>> Got a real scientific theory of "creation by Intelligent Design"?
>> Anything at all?
>>
>> Didn't think so.
>Don't get me wrong, I'm neither for the *THEORY* of Creation,
As far as we know, there's no scientific theory there. What would
it take for there to be one?
>nor for the *THEORY* of Evolution -
Antievolutionists often misconstrue what a "theory" means in
science:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html
>but suppose 'creation by Intelligent Design' was a
>reality? How exactly would you propose we gather "scientific evidence" to
>prove it?
That's rather the question, isn't it? That's what proponents of any
'Creation by Intelligent Design Theory' need to explain. They also
need to show that some such evidence actually exists, and show how
the evidence fits their theory better than it does evolutionary
theory. [And they also need to get much more specific about the
processes and mechanisms of "Creation by Intelligent Design"] Until
then, they won't have a "scientific theory"...
>[Calm down, it's just a question, don't flame]
Me? I'm generally pretty calm, and much prefer needling
to flames...
cheers
David Fritzinger
Didn't you post this a couple of days ago as Jesse ### (I don't
remember the numbers, and, quite frankly, you aren't worth the trouble
looking them up). Why don't you peruse some of the answers you got
then.
Dave Fritzinger
David Fritzinger
So, that will teach me not to fully read the post. Now, because you
copied Jesse's style so well, I've made a complete fool of myself.
Damn, I hate it when I rush into these things without fully reading
the post.
Dave Fritzinger
RHertz
it would actually make sense!
No offense taken.
"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Jon Fleming
<ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote:
>Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011128210339...@mb-cp.aol.com...
>> Just as Phlogiston, The Aether, Geosyncline and other passe theories,
>> we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science. Surely,
>> its zealous adherents will cling to it, for at least the tenure of their
>> publicly-funded sinecures. But, the science community must pick up
>> the pieces and move on --even if leaving the lecture halls resonating
>> with talk of aquatic apes, transmuting whales, self-organizing spontaneous
>> generation of life, and other worthy themes.
>>
>> So, after a century and half of trying to apply Victorian philosophies
>> into the realm of Science, we now return to the realization that Life
>> and Man are products of a creation by Intelligent Design.
>
>This guy reminds me of Erik back in his YEC days - a cocky loud-mouth
>braggart who knows nothing whatsoever about evolution and thinks his own
>personal ignorance defines the upper limit of human knowledge. Oh well, Erik
>isn't a YEC anymore; maybe this kid won't be either. When you hang out on
>t.o. a little bit of knowledge is bound to get into you, no matter how hard
>you try. ;)
I admit it's hard to tell, but I think Jesse's stupider than Erik. At
least Erik started with some vague conception that evidence and the
scientific method existed.
Frank J
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1f3oeah.scom091haoumbN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Frank J <FN...@home.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > >
> > In so many words the theory of creation (or ID) *is* the the theory of
> > evolution. IDCs have admitted an old earth and common descent, and have
> > added nothing scientifically useful.
>
> This is a useful insight. What IDism denies is the efficacy beyond some
> (as yet undefined) limits of natural selection. It does not oppose old
> earth, common descent, descent with modification, or (if it is smart)
> any biological facts. As Frank notes, with that caveat it *is* the
> theory of evolution, slightly skewed, though.
Not to get into Clinton semantics of "is", what I mean is that it's the only
one that would work.
(snip)
Frank J
> "On 29 Nov 2001 11:00:48 -0500, in article
> <ZZsN7.269059$5A3.10...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Frank stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >of their own. Although they usually evade the issue, ID advocates have
> >officially endorsed an old earth and common descent. They are the ones
who
> >need to move on.
> >
>
> Do you have a reference for "officially endorsed an old earth
> and common descent"?
AFIK only Behe has stated both openly, and has been doing damage control
ever since.
>
> I am not sure about some of the ID advocates, whether or not
> they believe in an old earth.
I have no clue as to what they each one believes. Ronald Bailey makes an
interesting case that they privately accept evolution but don't think that
the masses can handle the truth.
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml
>
> Tom S.
>
>
Mike Dunford
>Oh, I didn't copy the style, I copied the actual text. I then edited it so
>it would actually make sense!
>
The funny thing is that I did the same thing to one of John McCoy's
posts at just about the same time, and without having seen yours.
--Mike Dunford
Bill Pate
"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b82925bb.01112...@posting.google.com...
You're not a fool at all. You realized your error immediately.
A fool is one that will not realize or acknowledge an error no matter
how many times it's pointed out to him or her, as we have seen many,
many times here on talk.origins.
Ron Okimoto
This is something so insidiously dishonest that you won't get anyone
to admit to it. The point was not that the conservative thinkers that
are against Darwinism think that the masses can't handle the truth,
but that the masses will self destruct without the moral foundations
of religion. They are sure about their morals, but they are afraid
that the common man will make their society miserable if the common
people were allowed to believe the same things that they do.
I'd like to see Berlinski, Johnson, or even Behe admit to something
like this.
Ron Okimoto
>
>
> >
> > Tom S.
> >
> >
Andrew Glasgow
Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
And thought that both came from and were solely the product of a
spreadsheet (iPh33r the spreadsheet!), but yes, it was a start.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> Note: address in header munged. |
| "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from |
| opposition: for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that |
| reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine |
mvp54609
> we now see that Evolution has utterly failed as empirical science.
Examples please. Argument from assertion just is not enough
Care to provide us with more?
Good luck my friend
In Christ
I_Have_IT
I recommend Chuck Missler's 24 Hour Overview of the Bible.
"en|ckma" <eni...@enickma.cjb.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:m%lN7.383997$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Don't get me wrong, I'm neither for the *THEORY* of Creation, nor for the
*THEORY* of Evolution - but suppose 'creation by Intelligent Design' was a
reality? How exactly would you propose we gather "scientific evidence" to
prove it?
[Calm down, it's just a question, don't flame]
Nick.
=======================================
en|ckma
www.sp30.cjb.net
AMTCode(v2): [Regular][TÆ][A5][L ][Sx][B+][FD][P][C*]
=======================================
"mel turner" <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:9u49oi$5k2$1...@news.duke.edu...
>
> So, what actual scientific evidence leads you to this "realization"?
> Got a real scientific theory of "creation by Intelligent Design"?
> Anything at all?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> cheers
>
Nick Keighley
> Proof of ID? How about the discovery of a mile-high titanium ziggurat
> (which dates as being three billion years old) buried under the
> Antarctic ice shelf, with symbols engraved on every side that decode to
> "Hi! We created life on this planet, and as proof here is your
> approximate genetic sequence [data follows]. Come visit us at this star
> [more data] when your technology advances that far... oh, and here's how
> to build a warp drive [yet more data].
>
> Something like this would convince me. Nonsense like "irreducible
> complexity" or pointing towards the unknowns within our understanding of
> abiogenesis won't cut it.
>
> Can anyone else think of an example of convincing proof?
copyright notice found in human genome (actually *any* old genome)
--
Nick Keighley
John Wilkins
If we could but read them it's in the ALU repeats...
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally having fun for over 46 years...
June
Hmmm...I thought that was Zoe's theory. You can't take credit for it,
John!
--
My 2¢ ß-)
June
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 4 Dec 2001 18:28:08 -0500, junego...@earthlink.net (June)
wrote:
Unfortunaetly, when translated these merely say
"Sorry squire, the records stuck. Sorry squire, the records stuck.
Sorry squire, the records stuck. Sorry squire, the records stuck....."
Proving that the human genome was provided by Loki, Raven or Coyote
(or all three)
>Hmmm...I thought that was Zoe's theory. You can't take credit for it,
>John!
No, Zoe has the program there, John has the program notes :-)
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
John Wilkins
wrote:
Or John Cleese and friends.
>
> >Hmmm...I thought that was Zoe's theory. You can't take credit for it,
> >John!
>
> No, Zoe has the program there, John has the program notes :-)
Unfortunately, it just reads:
Sorry, squire, the record's stuck...