Darwin's Apparatchiks

[SGT_Kat]

I have no problem with, in a way, joining Christianity with science. I view science as a way of explaining how God created everything. They do not have to be at odds with one another. In fact they complement each other. However, I will point out that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There are aspects of the theory that can be scientifically proven and there are aspects that are questionable. A good scientist will still question the entire theory until it can be completely proven (100%) and therefore changed into a scientific law. I maintain an open mind to new ideas.

 

[Steven_R]

I have no problem with, in a way, joining Christianity with science. I view science as a way of explaining how God created everything. They do not have to be at odds with one another. In fact they complement each other.

I have no problem with that. In fact, in many freshmen science texts the author will point out that both science search for answers, although what the question is (why vs. how), what the answer is, and what the methodologies are different.

However, I will point out that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.

No. A scientific theory has a specific definition. From the National Academy of Sciences:

Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science*​

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

When you say the theory of evolution is just a theory, you are using the wrong definition of the word theory.

There are aspects of the theory that can be scientifically proven and there are aspects that are questionable. A good scientist will still question the entire theory until it can be completely proven (100%) and therefore changed into a scientific law. I maintain an open mind to new ideas.

An open mind if great, but science doesn't prove, it explains. It points to how things work which explains the evidence. Nothing is ever really proven and can always be modified, revised, or outright discarded should new evidence be found.

That said, we're at the point that certain things in science just aren't going to be discarded because we know they are right. We know cell theory is right. We know the heliocentric model is right. We know atomic theory is right. We're not going to accept alternate views of those issues in science because we know the explanations we've developed are solid and aren't going to be over turned. Evolution is in the same boat. The science is there, biologists accept evolution because it explains the evidence at hand and has stood up to a century and a half of testing and observations.

 

[SGT_Kat]

I have no problem with, in a way, joining Christianity with science. I view science as a way of explaining how God created everything. They do not have to be at odds with one another. In fact they complement each other.

I have no problem with that. In fact, in many freshmen science texts the author will point out that both science search for answers, although what the question is (why vs. how), what the answer is, and what the methodologies are different.

However, I will point out that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.

No. A scientific theory has a specific definition. From the National Academy of Sciences:

Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science*​

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

When you say the theory of evolution is just a theory, you are using the wrong definition of the word theory.

There are aspects of the theory that can be scientifically proven and there are aspects that are questionable. A good scientist will still question the entire theory until it can be completely proven (100%) and therefore changed into a scientific law. I maintain an open mind to new ideas.

An open mind if great, but science doesn't prove, it explains. It points to how things work which explains the evidence. Nothing is ever really proven and can always be modified, revised, or outright discarded should new evidence be found.

That said, we're at the point that certain things in science just aren't going to be discarded because we know they are right. We know cell theory is right. We know the heliocentric model is right. We know atomic theory is right. We're not going to accept alternate views of those issues in science because we know the explanations we've developed are solid and aren't going to be over turned. Evolution is in the same boat. The science is there, biologists accept evolution because it explains the evidence at hand and has stood up to a century and a half of testing and observations.

I stand corrected on the use of the word theory. With that said, if a new concept or an improved concept on the current theory of evolution comes along it should not be dismissed simple because the current theory is so well established. Science builds on itself and once completely accepted ideas are improved. Einstein did not disprove Newton, but he questioned some things and eventually improved on some concepts.
http:// csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html

 

[Steven_R]

That's not the issue. There are many questions still to be answered in evolution and there will be some hypotheses that will pan out and some won't and some will be replaced by something better down the line. It's the same way Newton took the work by Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler and made advances in our understanding of what gravity is and how it works but didn't go far enough. Then came Einstein and Higgs.

What is the issue is people who don't like what science is finding because it makes them uncomfortable (generally because it comes up against their religious views) and who want to simply throw away the science. That's what we've got here with the anti-evolution movement.

 

[SGT_Kat]

That's not the issue. There are many questions still to be answered in evolution and there will be some hypotheses that will pan out and some won't and some will be replaced by something better down the line. It's the same way Newton took the work by Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler and made advances in our understanding of what gravity is and how it works but didn't go far enough. Then came Einstein and Higgs.

What is the issue is people who don't like what science is finding because it makes them uncomfortable (generally because it comes up against their religious views) and who want to simply throw away the science. That's what we've got here with the anti-evolution movement.

That’s just frustrating to me. Why is it so hard for some to stop separating the two? Science doesn’t disprove God and God doesn’t disprove science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's not the issue. There are many questions still to be answered in evolution and there will be some hypotheses that will pan out and some won't and some will be replaced by something better down the line. It's the same way Newton took the work by Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler and made advances in our understanding of what gravity is and how it works but didn't go far enough. Then came Einstein and Higgs.

What is the issue is people who don't like what science is finding because it makes them uncomfortable (generally because it comes up against their religious views) and who want to simply throw away the science. That's what we've got here with the anti-evolution movement.

That’s just frustrating to me. Why is it so hard for some to stop separating the two? Science doesn’t disprove God and God doesn’t disprove science.

Actually, sarge, famed neo-Darwinist Stephen Gould said pretty much the same thing:
"Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap."
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[abu afak]

Yesterday, in "Comrade Darwin," http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html, the reason why
Darwin's theory of evolution, Unsupported by Evidence, is so immensely popular in academia and accepted by the mass of less than inform....

Dear Religious Zealots/CRACKPOTS/Asylum Escapees/Stupendously Ignorant,

There is Profuse Evidence for Evolution.
Millions of Fossils... all in the Right Geologic Strata around the globe.
As would Also be predicted by evolution, there are intermediate fossils to all extant and extinct species (including Us) and more being found daily.
Isotopic dating, like Carbon Dating (1949), Confirm age etc.
DNA Regression analysis also shows the progression of Life.
EVERY New area of science (of which any could debunk it) only Confirm it yet further... of course.

There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.

 

[Peterf]

That's not the issue. There are many questions still to be answered in evolution and there will be some hypotheses that will pan out and some won't and some will be replaced by something better down the line. It's the same way Newton took the work by Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler and made advances in our understanding of what gravity is and how it works but didn't go far enough. Then came Einstein and Higgs.

What is the issue is people who don't like what science is finding because it makes them uncomfortable (generally because it comes up against their religious views) and who want to simply throw away the science. That's what we've got here with the anti-evolution movement.

That’s just frustrating to me. Why is it so hard for some to stop separating the two? Science doesn’t disprove God and God doesn’t disprove science.

Actually, sarge, famed neo-Darwinist Stephen Gould said pretty much the same thing:
"Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap."
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once upon a time, say four hundred years ago, we didn't know very much and god or gods was a useful explanation for everything from rainfall to disease.

Science was born, grew and thrived. The space for blind superstition to flourish became ever more cramped. So science has not so much 'disproved' religion as removed the requirement for it to exist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yesterday, in "Comrade Darwin," http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html, the reason why
Darwin's theory of evolution, unsupported by evidence, is so immensely popular in academia and accepted by the mass of less than inform....

Dear Religious Zealots/CRACKPOTS/Asylum Escapees:

There is Profuse Evidence for Evolution:
Millions of Fossils... all in the Right Geologic Strata.
As would be predicted by evolution, there are intermediate fossils to all extant and extinct species (including Us) and more being found daily.
Isotopic dating, like Carbon Dating (1949), Confirm age etc.
DNA Regression analysis also shows the progression of Life.
EVERY New area of science (of which any could debunk it) only makes it More true.

There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.

If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid.


"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment"- Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).




And this subject is of personal importance to you 'cause you're the first in your family born without a tail?

 

[abu afak]

Yesterday, in "Comrade Darwin," http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html, the reason why
Darwin's theory of evolution, unsupported by evidence, is so immensely popular in academia and accepted by the mass of less than inform....

Dear Religious Zealots/CRACKPOTS/Asylum Escapees:

There is Profuse Evidence for Evolution:
Millions of Fossils... all in the Right Geologic Strata.
As would be predicted by evolution, there are intermediate fossils to all extant and extinct species (including Us) and more being found daily.
Isotopic dating, like Carbon Dating (1949), Confirm age etc.
DNA Regression analysis also shows the progression of Life.
EVERY New area of science (of which any could debunk it) only makes it More true.

There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.

If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid.

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment"- Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).
And this subject is of personal importance to you 'cause you're the first in your family born without a tail?

And you think that Snippet Refutes ALL my points!
The problem is you are Way Too Ignorant/Jesus-Freaked-out To debate and Dishonest besides.

You cannot address my points in your own words.
As always, YOU ARE NONCONVERSANT On this topic and you know it.. so you use/wear out these moronic Out-of-context snippets. Most classically with ie, Gould.

I repete, UNREFUTED even UNADDRESSED:
There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.

No outa context comparative snippet for that one?
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dear Religious Zealots/CRACKPOTS/Asylum Escapees:

There is Profuse Evidence for Evolution:
Millions of Fossils... all in the Right Geologic Strata.
As would be predicted by evolution, there are intermediate fossils to all extant and extinct species (including Us) and more being found daily.
Isotopic dating, like Carbon Dating (1949), Confirm age etc.
DNA Regression analysis also shows the progression of Life.
EVERY New area of science (of which any could debunk it) only makes it More true.

There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.

If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid.

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment"- Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).
And this subject is of personal importance to you 'cause you're the first in your family born without a tail?

And you think that Snippet Refutes ALL my points!
The problem is you are Way Too Ignorant/Jesus-Freaked-out To debate and Dishonest besides.

You cannot address my points in your own words.
As always, YOU ARE NONCONVERSANT On this topic and you know it.. so you use/wear out these moronic snippets.
The UNCONTEXTED/OUT OF CONTEXT snippet above is by Jerry Adler who BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION.

I repete, UNREFUTED even UNADDRESSED:
There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.

No outa context comparative snippet for that one?
`

Know what.....you need to use larger font....that will prove your nonsense.


And...the clever technique of bringing up Jesus Christ......not part of the thread in any way or form.
Your A.D.D. is showing.

You're just too stupid to realize that I have posted that supporters of Darwin are largely atheist communists.
Thanks for furthering my thesis.



And, this education for you:

1. About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is no evidence of intermediate forms.
“The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record.” (Bergman, Jerry, “The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish,” CRSQ, vol. 47, 2011, p. 291. )


2. “Absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution…. This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere”
(Strahler, Arthur, Science and Earth History, 1987, p. 408.).


3. “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)



Looks like you have the IQ of lint, doesn't it?


In evolutionary terms, you are proto-coprolite.

 

[Hollie]

Yesterday, in "Comrade Darwin," http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html, the reason why
Darwin's theory of evolution, unsupported by evidence, is so immensely popular in academia and accepted by the mass of less than inform....

Dear Religious Zealots/CRACKPOTS/Asylum Escapees:

There is Profuse Evidence for Evolution:
Millions of Fossils... all in the Right Geologic Strata.
As would be predicted by evolution, there are intermediate fossils to all extant and extinct species (including Us) and more being found daily.
Isotopic dating, like Carbon Dating (1949), Confirm age etc.
DNA Regression analysis also shows the progression of Life.
EVERY New area of science (of which any could debunk it) only makes it More true.

There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.

If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid.


"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment"- Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).




And this subject is of personal importance to you 'cause you're the first in your family born without a tail?

Um, sorry dear, but I've made the point to you repeatedly that (for a fee), I will make myself available to screen the "quotes' you cut and paste from Harun Yahya.

Once again, you're just too stupid to understand that your rabid cutting and pasting of phony "quotes", and repeatedly being exposed as a fraud for doing so would leave any rational, thinking human to reconsider such behavior.

It was bad enough when you cut and pasted "quotes" from a Canadian science fiction writer and tried to pass that off as authoritative on the subject of biology. But now, in your orgasmic embrace of The Stupid, you are once again "quote-mining" among the most discredited and just plain stupid of the bible thumpers.


You

Feaking

Moron



Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment -Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).

Quote #3.5

[There are no fossils showing transitions between species Representative quote miners: Evolution Cruncher: No Transitions --Only Gaps and Reason & Revelation: 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense

For the complete article, see talk.origins post [email protected].

The only "surprise" here is that creationists have so little shame.

Once again, this is an article about the (then relatively new) proposal by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge of Punctuated Equilibria. It was apparently so new to these magazine writers that they (perhaps abetted by some of Gould's and Eldredge's scientific opponents) confused it with Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" ideas, even though they note:

The paleontologists who have been in the forefront of the new theory don't necessarily believe in hopeful monsters. When they say that new species evolved rapidly, they are speaking in geologic terms. A single generation or 50,000 years is all the same to them. Either would be too short an interval for the intermediate organisms to appear in the fossil record.

In short, the article is nothing more than a report on the early arguments about Punctuated Equilibria. And the quote mine is just a snippet of the magazine writers' (not very clear) description of Gould and Eldredge's position, not a quote from any scientist.

In any case, the quote miners strangely fail to include the following:

While the scientists have been refining the theory of evolution in the past decade, some nonscientists have been spreading anew the gospel of creationism -- and the coincidence has confused many laymen . . . Having opposed Darwin for 120 years, fundamentalists tend to seize on any criticism of his theories as vindication . . . But the new theories are intended to explain how evolution came about -- not to supplant it as a principle. Says Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, . . . "Evolution is a fact, like apples falling out of trees."

The irony of the miner's use of this article in the face of the above is obvious and demonstrates more about the miners' honesty than it does anything about evolution.

 

[TheShinyOne]

The fossil record... Scientists have a peculiar understanding of just what exactly is a 'record', that they mock religion as if Christians are yet to evolve from vinyl to CD.

 

[bripat9643]

When you attack the theory of evolution, you put yourself firmly in the loony camp.

 

[rdean]

Now settled science is "communism".

You folks are hilarious.

PC will also be emailing applications for membership in the Flat Earth Society.

Why don't you ever confront the OP's?

Is it simply because you're stupid?

Or....you've come to realize that everything I post is absolutely, totally true.



But, between us..... How does it feel being an evolutionary cul de sac?

You recognizing stupid is a simpleton "guessing".

 

[Hollie]

If anyone is curious as to where (besides Harun Yahya), PC is stealing her cut and paste "quotes":


Large Gaps in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park

Yeah, drooling, Dark Ages wannabes at "genesispark".



And here is their "missionary" statement

About Genesis Park

The purpose of Genesis Park is to showcase the evidence that dinosaurs and man were created together and have co-existed throughout history.

Oh yeah, man and dinosaurs frollicking together in a world created 6,000 years ago.

What a joke.

I'm afraid that for fundamentalist, Flat Earth cranks, such as PC, not facts, not evidence, not reality itself can penetrate the twisted, fundamentalist mindset.