Discussion:
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
(too old to reply)
Peter Watson
2005-08-12 23:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
Peter, read my lips, there is NO missing *link* humans ARE a species of
ape, in laymans terms, a member of the ape family. Peter you are an
ape, yeah I know that probaby hurt Peter, but its true.
Speak for yourself

That which distinguishes us from apes is the ability to reflect.
You appear to think I am consumed with fear with your terribly clever
answers. I am not.

And apes generally don't know how to prepare cooked food.
There is no *missing link* between fish, a snapper and a gold fish have
no missing link, a buffalo and a domestic cow have no *missing link*.
Uh huh
Evolution means ongoing, eg it is a fact that since the west have had
an influence in Asia, especially Japan, it is a fact that the average
Japanese face is now longer than it was 100 years (only four or five
generations) due to the development of stronger jaw muscles to eat red
meat.
Right.////////////////
and..................................................
My personal belief is that God was created by evolution.
The mystic's (Peter's) god is no more than a creation of the mystic's
mind.
Yep. You sure are right then. So you must be ok. Huh?
Who made you then?
--
Peter Watson
Peter are you now saying everything needs a maker, what made your god?
Nothing. He always was.
What made the matter that your god made the universe with?
He did.
What does it matter anyway Peter?
I could ask you the same thing/.
Why do YOU *need* a god (your crutch) for Peter?
Because i am unable to see any purpose otherwise/

It is a choice between nihilism or hedonism./
Michael Gordge
bye
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-12 23:17:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:06:15 +0100, Peter Watson
"Darwin on Trial is unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have
ever read. Professor Johnson combines a broad knowledge of biology with
the incisive logic of a leading legal scholar to deliver a brilliant and
devastating attack on the whole edifice of Darwinian belief. There is no
doubt that this book will prove a severe embarrassment to the Darwinian
establishment."
Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
and author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"Darwin on Trial shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an idol
of the contemporary tribe, and how deeply philosophical and religious
ideas enter into its status as part of the intellectual orthodoxy of our
day."
Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy
Notre Dame University
"Darwin on Trial is both an excellent and highly readable presentation
of the difficulties that Darwinians have yet to provide a convincing
answer to, and an eye-opening history of some of the recent attempts by
Darwinians to control the terms of the debate. I recommend it very
highly."
Peter van Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy
Syracuse University
"Phillip Johnson has done extremely well in making himself familiar with
evolutionary theory and biological ways of reasoning .... This book is
highly recommended as an introduction to the current controversy on
evolution."
Dr. Siegfried Scherer, Faculty of Biology
University of Konstanz, Germany
"Darwin on Trial is more than just a brilliant critique of the
neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. It is also an insightful analysis of
the strong philosophical bias for faith in evolution held by many of the
theory's leading advocates."
Dr. Walter Bradley, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University
"In all the vast literature on Darwinism, evolution, creation, and
theism, one will likely not find a treatment so calm, comprehensive, and
compellingly persuasive as Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial. I
recommend it with enthusiasm."
Richard John Neuhaus, Editor, First Things
"Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the great intellectual
superstition of modern times. It does the soul good to see a Berkeley
professor attack it."
Tom Bethell, The Hoover Institution
Behe was enough to convince me that Darwinism is valuable but
inadequate to explain the origin and development of the species.
Nobel Laureate Sir James Crick believes the species were seeded by
extraterrestrials. I agree with him since it is the simplest
explanation of how intelligent design could come about.
Let's just hope that we aren't food for them.
Or as I have maintained we are the result of alien left overs from a
extra terrestrial picnic ;~) It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
mimus
2005-08-13 00:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Or as I have maintained we are the result of alien left overs from a
extra terrestrial picnic ;~) It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
Pratchett and Adams both?
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-13 01:40:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-13 08:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
AlanG
2005-08-13 11:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:20:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
Loading Image...
e***@gmail.com
2005-08-13 11:54:41 UTC
Permalink
It's a THEORY. Everything in science (even the poorly-named Gravity
Law) is only a theory..... to be expounded upon & enhanced as we
experiment & gain more knowledge.



The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.

troy
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 00:25:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.

It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.

When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.

You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate. Anubis made a stupid comment. I was just
demonstrating that he was wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 01:05:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:25:10 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.
It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.
When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.
Which is why you are an idiot. Cars don't travel at relativistic
velocities. Newton still applies within the limits.
Post by Trevor Wilson
You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate.
Nope. Within measurable limits, Newton is not wrong, moron.

Learn physics before you post something as stupid as "newton is wrong"
again.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Anubis made a stupid comment. I was just
demonstrating that he was wrong.
--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 07:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Anglesea™
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:25:10 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.
It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.
When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.
Which is why you are an idiot. Cars don't travel at relativistic
velocities.
**There is no reason to assume that an automobile could not travel a such
velocities. Given an adequate power source and absence of frictional losses.
I will certainly acknowledge that it would be impossible for a vehicle
powered by an internal combustion engine, travelling within the Earth's
atmosphere, to approach relativistic velocities. However, it is not
impossible, under appropriate circumstances, just very, very unlikely.

Newton still applies within the limits.
Post by Wally Anglesea™
Post by Trevor Wilson
You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate.
Nope. Within measurable limits, Newton is not wrong, moron.
Learn physics before you post something as stupid as "newton is wrong"
again.
**I know enough physics to realise that Newtonian physics are wrong. They're
adequately accurate, for most circumstances, but they're not correct. Only
an approximation of correct. And certainly adequate for NASA to get men to
the Moon, despite those provable, measurable inaccuracies.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anubis
2005-08-13 01:38:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong. It is limited. Relativity extends it.
The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty physics.
LOL

You are a very funny troll.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 03:45:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 05:59:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:45:32 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
You actually don't understand physics, do you?

Care to come into the sci.physics newsgroups, and tell us all why
Newton is wrong?

--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 06:20:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:25 +1000, Wally Anglesea™
Post by Wally Anglesea™
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:45:32 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
You actually don't understand physics, do you?
Care to come into the sci.physics newsgroups, and tell us all why
Newton is wrong?
BTW, I have no idea why I'm arguing with you :-)
--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Pakuranga Observer
2005-08-13 02:34:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:06:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Free will comes from quantum mechanics which decribes unknowable
aspects of physical processes. That actually leads to a better
Universe.
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong,
then you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of
grit will cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are
utterly random, nothing can make them more disordered. Complete
randomness at the heart of things is the most stable situation
imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
Would you rather be a drone?
Evolution is a farce.
Anubis
2005-08-13 06:37:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:34:33 +1200, Pakuranga Observer
Post by Pakuranga Observer
Evolution is a farce.
Not that bad. It does explain some phenomena. It's problem is that it
is insufficient to explain all the phenomena. It take a lot of
pontification, bluster and junk science to rationalize its
inadequacies.

The reason anyone even bothers defending it is because it is part of
the atheist agenda. To a man, zealous proponents of Darwinism are
atheists.
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-13 07:33:07 UTC
Permalink
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?


Michael Gordge
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 07:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Evolution is a physical force. It is provable through scientific
experimentation. It can be seen in the breeding of dogs and horses.
It can be seen in the ability of viruses to become resistant to
anti-biotics. There are a million billion pieces of evidence to
support evolution as a physical force.
Micro or macro? There is a big difference. You are only speaking of
adaptation.
Whether "evolution" is totally responsible for the existence of life,
however, is much more complex. But evolution is still the likeliest
explanation. There are millions of pieces of fossil to support it.
There are almost none. The fossil record is not going to help argue the
theory of macro evolution.
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
The missing link - The fossil record vs.
the Charles Darwin theory of evolution
**Whoops. Old Charlie biy has fucked up in the title. Charles Darwin did not
propose the "theory of evolution". Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of
Species. His theory was that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which
Evolution operated. Of course, old Charlie (Colson) would not want to let
some actual FACTS get into his little piece of fiction, would he?
by Charles Colson
Email article to a friend
A store specializing in vintage political paraphernalia displays a
campaign button that reads, "Ronald Reagan is the missing link." It's a
joke that scientists can appreciate, because a century and a half after
Darwin, the missing links in the fossil record are still...missing. The
missing link is the big hole in Darwinism.
**Nope.
And a book by biologist Jeffrey Schwartz recommends ditching Darwin
altogether, and looking for a new explanation of how life developed.
The standard Darwinian theory is that new species arise by the gradual
accumulation of tiny mutations.
**Nope. That is ONE possible explanation. There are others.

The theory predicts that the fossil
record will reveal hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils linking
each species to the next one.
**Nope. Fossils form only under the most extraordinary circumstances.
But the fossil record shows no such thing. Instead, new species appear
suddenly--virtually overnight. As Schwartz puts it, fins turn into legs
suddenly, without a trail of intermediate forms. Similarly, he says, "You
don't see gradual evolution of feathers. You either have feathers or you
don't."
**You don't see a gradual evolution of feathers, for several reasons:
* Feathers do not survive fossilisation.
* Fossils are rare.
Even eyes appear out of nowhere. The Darwinian idea "that an eye evolves
slowly over countless generations through painstaking accumulations of
tiny mutations--that's wrong," Schwartz says.
**Points:
* I don't believe that Darwin ever said such a thing.
* Rudimentary light sensitive organs are found on many animals.
* Animals which live underground often don't have eyes.
No wonder he entitles his book Sudden Origins. And no wonder he's in hot
water in the scientific community.
**Huh? Hot water? With whom?

Ever since Darwin, many biologists
have clung to the hope that the gaps in the fossil record would eventually
be filled in, the missing links discovered. But Schwartz is saying that
the gaps will never be filled in--because the missing links never existed.
He urges biologists to start searching for a new theory to explain the
sudden origins of organic structures.
**Biologists are ALWAYS searching for ways to explain evolution. That is the
nature of science. To question. It is the nature of fundies to accept abject
nonsense, from people who seek to exploit their stupidity.
Schwartz himself thinks that he has found such a theory based on the
action of so-called "homeobox" genes--regulatory genes that switch on and
off during the development of embryos. The theory is that even a small
mutation in a homeobox gene at early stages of development would lead to
major changes later on, as the organism grows.
But most biologists find Schwartz's theory implausible. "It seems a pretty
wild hypothesis," says biologist William McGinnis. Mutations in the
homeobox genes do result in drastically different forms within a species,
McGinnis says, but most often these animals die or are very sick.
You see, to originate a new species by mutations would require a huge
number of coordinated changes all at once.
**No, it would not.

A fish that suddenly develops
lungs, for example, had better develop legs at the same time or it will
simply drown.
**Are you familiar with Axolotls, or lungfish?

A giraffe that develops a long neck must at the same time
develop a specialized heart to pump blood up its long neck.
**Actually, the giraffe has specialised valves, to control blood flow
through its neck. More importantly, however, is that a giraffe has EXACTLY
the same number of vertebrae as a human. We are related species.
But in Schwartz's naturalistic theory, there's no directing force to
coordinate all those changes, so the new forms of life would go
nowhere--except to a graveyard.
Schwartz does do us a favor by pointing out the failure of Darwinism, but
his substitute theory of evolution is no better. Living things exhibit
levels of engineering and design that scientists are only beginning to
grasp--which logically suggests that they are the creation of a great
Engineer, a Divine Designer.
**Nonsense. Living things are not evidence of a "Divne Designer". Living
things are evidence of the power of the DNA molecule.
The theory that best fits the facts is one that starts with an intelligent
cause behind the wonderful complexity of living things
**Nope. The theory that best fits, is the one which looks at all the
available data.
On the other hand, "creationism" or "intelligent design" has virtually
no evidence whatsoever to support it.
That is simply untrue.
**An opinion you are entitled to.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm
more there than you could deal with in a lifetime
The only "evidence" is a bible
story, which may have even been a metaphor.
Not true
**Yes, true. None of the people who wrote the Bible had any scientific
training.
My personal belief is that God was created by evolution.
Who made you then?
**I can't speak for the other respondent, but my parents made me. If you
know of another system, let us know.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Paul Hyett
2005-08-13 08:17:30 UTC
Permalink
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Hey, back up - if you'd bothered to read beyond the first sentence,
you'd have found he was actually *supporting* science!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
e***@gmail.com
2005-08-13 11:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
It's a THEORY. Everything in science (even the poorly-named Gravity
Law) is only a theory..... to be expounded upon & enhanced as we
experiment & gain more knowledge.



The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.

troy

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...