Science vs. Creationism

[VINYLONE]

Indoctrination works both ways.

Do you believe that people that consider darwinistic evolution were indoctrinated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[slc]

Do you believe that people that consider darwinistic evolution were indoctrinated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everybody gets indoctrinated .
Religion indoctrinates it's members.
Gov't indoctrinates it's citizens.
Business indoctrinates it's consumers.
Science indoctrinates it's students.

 

[♪alt13]

...what does my basketball avatar have to do with this discussion and debate about evolution? I chose that avatar way back when hip hop basketball and the "AND 1" league were in there heyday....and I thought it was funny!

Because it is named cj_avatar2.gif and it is stored on the Uof U site and phillips directory. It makes me think that CJ is just your sick alter ego.

 

[♪alt13]

carolinajazz has been posting on Jazzfanz, in whatever form, since 1999, and his posts have not changed substantially. Whatever his connection to Philip, he is not a 20-or-so college junior.

Yeah I can't believe that that that page was put up after 1999 though. It looks like no one realizes it's still there.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah I can't believe that that that page was put up after 1999 though. It looks like no one realizes it's still there.

Yes, the avatar is much more recent. 15 years of the same thing is a little long for just trolling.

 

[One Brow]

The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less! What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record?

It also supports evolution. The insects of 100 million years ago are different from the insects of today. The insects of 200 million different from both.

If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE!

We have the sort of fossils predicted by evolutionary theory.

The problems only get worse for the evolutionist. Not only is there no sign of evolution leading up to the complex invertebrates, but also missing in action are the enormous number of transitionals that must have existed to bridge the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates.

The earliest vertebrates go back to the Cambrian. that's when animals first started developing cartilage and bone. We don't have earlier fossils because there was so little to fossilize.

The nightmare gets worse for the evolutionist when we consider that the wide diversity of body plans that suddenly appear in this brief 2 to 3 million year window are markedly distinct morphologically from each other.

Which window is that? If you mean the Cambrian, it was over 80 million years that these various body plans appear in the fossil record.

This disparity of body plans is followed by stasis, where there are no incremental alterations to the body plans through the entire history of the fossil record up to the present!

False. Beings with already-establish body plans maintainthem, as evolution predicts, but those without boay plans occasionally develop novel plans in the intervening time.

This is the rabbit in the hat for the evolutionist. The bulk of this sliver is made up of fish, where we again find no sign of evolution whatsoever.

Again, the fish of 300 million years ago look little like today's fish.

 

[carolinajazz]

Do you believe that people that consider darwinistic evolution were indoctrinated?

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY WITHOUT QUESTION OR DOUBT!

Why is evolution so popular and accepted by so many as the only explanation for life on earth? One reason is that it is the orthodox view taught in schools and universities, and woe betide you if you dare to express any doubts. Behe states: “Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe.” He adds: “To understand both the success of Darwinism as orthodoxy and its failure as science at the molecular level, we have to examine the textbooks that are used to teach aspiring scientists.”

“If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. .*.*. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”

“I MYSELF am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” Those were the words of British broadcaster and writer Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-90) in lectures he gave at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He added: “I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example.”

 

[carolinajazz]

...and then you can add this!

Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2*Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.

For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.

Such lack of evidence causes T.*H.*Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr.*Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.

Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”

 

[carolinajazz]

...and then you can add this!

Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2*Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.

For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.

Such lack of evidence causes T.*H.*Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr.*Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.

Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”

 

[MVP]

...

For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.

London underground mosquito says hi again.

 

[MVP]

Whats the point in bringing these old quotes, some of them from dudes deceased 50 years ago as some kind of reliable arguments? Behe is a joke and been dismissed from any law court he was involved. Even his own university disagrees with his views. This single discussion is enough to laugh and admire how Behe is destroyed by real scientist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bFQLpUfwx7M

 

[MVP]

All of these dudes from Discovery institute is a fraud trying to cover their true intentions behind "science".

A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

 

[One Brow]

Behe states:

Behe is the guy who said, under oath at a deposition, that astrology is a form of science.

 

[Zulu]

We "know" no such thing.

We know all these different animals have wings.

Then we have your speculation that wings were spontaneously generated from a random mutation or multiple random mutations that occurred on speculative ancestors who didn't have wings.

I'm simply answering your questions!!!

You ask me a question and want me to explain it as it is explained by modern theory of evolution...

Feel free to constantly use the same diction to undermine the answers you expressed you want to hear!!

Just relize I'm not here mocking your beliefs, but just sharing my knowledge of evolution as I have studied and taught itthe past ten years!!!

 

[One Brow]

founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.

Founded on the evidence those events left behind, actually.

For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms;

Yes, we have.

They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life;

Not a part of evolutionary theory.

 

[PearlWatson]

I've simplified the different beliefs on origins:

From molecule to man by genetic mutation

by an intelligent force (ID)
or
by spontaneous generation​

gradual (Darwinism)
not gradual (Punctuated Equilibrium-to match the fossil record)​

We also have kinds were designed "whole cloth" in different periods (creationism)

I don't have to choose another theory to see that gradual spontaneous generation doesn't fit what we are seeing.

What the different fields of science are saying about the Darwinism:

Information theory: chance with or without necessity is incapable of CSI

Biochemisty: biological systems are irreducibly complex

Genetics: "Microevolution" involves a decline in genetic information.
"Macroevolution" requires an increase in genetic information.

Paleontogy: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’"

 

[PearlWatson]

London underground mosquito says hi again.

Professor of Genetics Says 'No!' to Evolution

being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them. In fact, it was my teaching of population genetics, coupled with the discovery that my children are being taught evolution in secondary school on the claim that population genetics provides evidence for it, that made me enter the debate publicly.

I had been taught that palaeontology gives the bulk of the evidence for evolution. To my surprise, I found that evidence is lacking not only in genetics but also in palaeontology, as well as in sedimentology, in dating techniques, and in fact in all sciences. However, here I shall restrict myself to a review of the arguments for evolution drawn from my field, genetics.

Perhaps the most evident misinformation in textbooks is the suggestion that microevolution is a small-scale example of macroevolution.

MICROEVOLUTION

The example used to support this is usually the story about the grey or black moths (Biston betularia) living on the bark of trees, the population adapting in colour to the colour of the bark — darker in industrial, polluted environments, and lighter in cleaner ones.

The misinformation lies in concealing the fact that select, adapted populations are genetically poorer (fewer alleles1) than the unselected natural populations from which they arose. We find the same in forest trees. In polluted environments, the surviving trees have fewer alleles than in non-polluted ones. Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact. Populations adapt to specific environments with the more successful alleles increasing in numbers and others declining in frequencies or disappearing altogether. Change can also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in small isolated populations. Both amount to decline in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its increase.

POSITIVE MUTATIONS?

A useful mutation (e.g. an orange without seeds) is not the equivalent of a positive mutation. I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example. There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one.

Genetic literature on the subject often confuses mutations with alleles, or even mutations with recombinations. The finding of an allele that is useful for some purpose is not the equivalent of demonstrating a positive mutation — similarly when the find concerns a useful recombinant of alleles existing in the gene pool.

Variants of alleles in a gene pool are a fact of life. How they came to be is another matter. Some, usually neutral or excessively deleterious, arise from mutations. Some are introgressants from other species. Still others are within the population since its origin — however that came about.

Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.

 

[babe]

Founded on the evidence those events left behind, actually.



Yes, we have.



Not a part of evolutionary theory.

I suppose you get tired sometimes. . . . .

In this thread, I posted once about how the old medieval notion of "Spontaneous Generation", circa the time of Spinoza as I think I recall. . . . .

If I remember correctly, somebody put some horsepoop in a jar and sealed it, and marveled at how flies hatched "from nothing". While Darwin indubitably imagined his theory was more advanced than that, it is actually exactly the same idea.

"Evolutionary Scientists" expanded the scale and the duration of the phenomenon beyond any practical possibility of observation, and asserted that a closed system with some energy inputs like the sun, volcanos, lightning etc. acted on a murky sea with lots of ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, reduced carbon chemicals such as oils and whatever else there is, and voila the building blocks of "Life" tangled themselves together, achieving step by step the complete set of necessary capacities inherent in "Life".

Missing from this theory is a coherent defintion of what "Life" is, as well as any truly scientific demonstrations of any of the alleged steps. It's always a very weak demonstration of a merely chemical sort of behavior producing something that still behaves like "dead" stuff, and nobody has ever demonstrated in any material way any nonliving "stuff" following the Second Law of Thermodynamics acquiring the capacity to transcend the Second Law by being properly arranged as a "living" particle which can propagate itself, or even having the capacity to maintain a "steady state" by repairing the decay or damage accruing from the operation of the Second Law, as all "Living Things" are known to do in "Life".

So, despite the extended axiomatic assumptions necessary as "a priori" conclusions in the "Science" of "Evolution", the theory of evolution is in no way different from believing that inert, non-living crap left in a jar in a warm sunny place is capable of producing living things.

 

[♪alt13]

I suppose you get tired sometimes. . . . .

In this thread, I posted once about how the old medieval notion of "Spontaneous Generation", circa the time of Spinoza as I think I recall. . . . .

If I remember correctly, somebody put some horsepoop in a jar and sealed it, and marveled at how flies hatched "from nothing". While Darwin indubitably imagined his theory was more advanced than that, it is actually exactly the same idea.

"Evolutionary Scientists" expanded the scale and the duration of the phenomenon beyond any practical possibility of observation, and asserted that a closed system with some energy inputs like the sun, volcanos, lightning etc. acted on a murky sea with lots of ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, reduced carbon chemicals such as oils and whatever else there is, and voila the building blocks of "Life" tangled themselves together, achieving step by step the complete set of necessary capacities inherent in "Life".

Missing from this theory is a coherent defintion of what "Life" is, as well as any truly scientific demonstrations of any of the alleged steps. It's always a very weak demonstration of a merely chemical sort of behavior producing something that still behaves like "dead" stuff, and nobody has ever demonstrated in any material way any nonliving "stuff" following the Second Law of Thermodynamics acquiring the capacity to transcend the Second Law by being properly arranged as a "living" particle which can propagate itself, or even having the capacity to maintain a "steady state" by repairing the decay or damage accruing from the operation of the Second Law, as all "Living Things" are known to do in "Life".

So, despite the extended axiomatic assumptions necessary as "a priori" conclusions in the "Science" of "Evolution", the theory of evolution is in no way different from believing that inert, non-living crap left in a jar in a warm sunny place is capable of producing living things.

cut and paste response

Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml

 

[babe]

Professor of Genetics Says 'No!' to Evolution



Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.

No doubt by dawn there will be some kind of a smear laid down here discrediting the Prof quoted above.

Let's hope we get more specific information that "He's a crackpot" and "Reputable Scientists have exposed him" as a fraud, a dupe, or a schemer hell-bent on re-writing high school textbooks