|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Donate Darwinism for a Tax Credit? Evolutionists Admit Their Field’s Failures An article in The Guardian by science journalist Stephen Buranyi represents something remarkable in the way the public processes the failures of evolutionary theory. In the past, those failures have been admitted by some biologists…but always in settings (technical journals, conferences) where they thought nobody outside their professional circles was listening. It’s like if a married couple were going through rough times in their relationship. They’d discuss it between themselves, with close friends, maybe with a counselor. But for goodness sake they wouldn’t put it on Facebook, where all marriages are blessed exclusively with good cheer and good fortune. Scandalous Admissions Well, the field of evolutionary biology has just done the equivalent of a massive Facebook dump, admitting that Jim and Sandy, who always seemed so happy, are in fact perilously perched on the rocks. In a very long article, top names in the field share with Buranyi what intelligent design proponents already knew, but few Guardian readers guessed. The headline from the left-leaning British daily asks, “Do we need a new theory of evolution?” Answer in one word: yes. The article is full of scandalous admissions: Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection…. This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading. For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.” There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact — and whether other forces might also be at work — has become the subject of bitter dispute. “If we cannot explain things with the tools we have right now,” the Yale University biologist Günter Wagner told me, “we must find new ways of explaining.”… [T]his is a battle of ideas over the fate of one of the grand theories that shaped the modern age. But it is also a struggle for professional recognition and status, about who gets to decide what is core and what is peripheral to the discipline. “The issue at stake,” says Arlin Stoltzfus, an evolutionary theorist at the IBBR research institute in Maryland, “is who is going to write the grand narrative of biology.” And underneath all this lurks another, deeper question: whether the idea of a grand story of biology is a fairytale we need to finally give up. “Absurdly crude and misleading”? A “classic idea” that “has so far fallen flat”? “A fairytale we need to finally give up”? Scientists locked in a desperate struggle for “professional recognition and status”? What about for the truth? This is how writers for Evolution News have characterized the troubles with Darwinian theory. But I didn’t expect to see it in The Guardian. A Familiar Narrative Buranyi runs through a familiar narrative: the modern synthesis, the challenge from the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the 2016 “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology” meeting at the Royal Society (which was covered here extensively), how some evolutionists condemned the conference while others embraced its revisionist messaging, efforts to prop up unguided evolution with exotic ideas of “plasticity, evolutionary development, epigenetics, cultural evolution,” etc. If you’ve ever owned an automobile toward the end of its life, the situation will be familiar: the multiple problems all at once, the multiple attempted fixes, the expense, the trouble, the worry about the car breaking down and dying at any inconvenient or dangerous moment (like in the middle of the freeway), all of which together signal that it’s time not to sell the car (who would want it?) but to have it towed off and donated to charity for a tax credit. Buranyi doesn’t mention the intelligent design theorists in attendance at the Royal Society meeting — Stephen Meyer, Günter Bechly, Douglas Axes, Paul Nelson, and others. He doesn’t mention the challenge from intelligent design at all. That’s okay. I didn’t expect him to do so. Anyway, readers of Evolution News will already be familiar with most everything Buranyi reports. Despairing Statements He concludes with seemingly despairing statements from evolutionists along the lines of, “Oh, we never needed a grand, coherent theory like that, after all.” Over the past decade the influential biochemist Ford Doolittle has published essays rubbishing the idea that the life sciences need codification. “We don’t need no friggin’ new synthesis. We didn’t even really need the old synthesis,” he told me…. The computational biologist Eugene Koonin thinks people should get used to theories not fitting together. Unification is a mirage. “In my view there is no — can be no — single theory of evolution,” he told me. I see. Evolutionists have, until now, been very, very reluctant to admit such things in the popular media. Always, the obligation was heeded to present an illusory picture of wedded bliss to the unwashed, which, if given some idea of the truth, would draw its own conclusions and maybe even take up with total heresies like intelligent design. Now that illusion of blessed domesticity has been cast aside in a most dramatic fashion. Read the rest of Buranyi’s article. Your eyebrows will go up numerous times.>> evolutionnews.org The Guardian article upon which this article is based is way too long to post in this thread, but it can be found here… www.theguardian.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Me to apatzer…<<Now you know how I felt when I was the target of a 10-week campaign of insults and hate by the founder and moderators of FIAT LUX II or FIAT LUX III (can’t remember which) for saying molecules-to-man evolution was garbage and Darwin was a fraud. And you didn’t say a word.>> L_S’ response… <<But you deserved that. No one treated you unfairly in FL over that. When you WERE unfairly attacked, Stalhandske came to your defense. More than once. As did I.>> Sounds to me like L_S is saying I deserved 10 weeks of insults, harassment, abuse and hate from stalhandske and his moderators because I said Darwin was a fraud and his theory of molecules-to-man evolution is garbage. Which Darwin was and which his crackpot theory is. And evolutionists like L_S are the ones who claim to be open-minded and tolerant. LOL |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic If so I must have missed that, oh and I am sure that you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, name calling or finger pointing. Leave me out of your fights with other people. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer And I was called a lot worse than what you cited by stalhandske and his moderators. But you see what you want to see, and you remember what you want to remember. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
@Thumper I don’t claim to know who is where after their physical deaths because I don’t know what they believed right before they died. But I can’t think of a worse feeling than an atheist who spent a lifetime trashing and mocking God and who then comes face-to-face with Him after his physical death. |
|||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer I couldn’t care less if you believe me. You’ve become very obnoxious in here in the past week or so. And because Art called you names? Like I said, Now you know how I feel. Actually, no you don’t. It’d have to go on for 10 weeks from four or five people before you knew that. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic I already expected the answer you just provided. Yes , I have become obnoxious, but I haven't lied or falsified information. I am just bringing up things people don't want to acknowledge or answer. and they have gone through contortions to avoid doing so. That has contributed to my ongoing obnoxiousess |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer Enjoy! m.gameknot.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic I'm not trying to change the subject here, and if I haven't adequately addressed what you brought up. Let me know. However I have to ask. Why so many accounts? coram_deo is the fourth one that I know of, VF and to an even larger degree Nothing, have all had multiple accounts. In fact I referred to them as children of many names. Just wondering why? Is it elo, reputation or just trying to start over? |
|||||||||||||||
|
I get fed up with the insults, lies, harassment and hate from atheists and evolutionists on here, figure being on here isn’t worth it and leave. Then months or years go by and I rejoin. I’ve never been kicked off of or banned from this site. I just get fed up with the hate from atheists and evolutionists who can’t stand to hear Darwin and his garbage theory questioned or criticized. And when they can’t refute criticisms backed up by evidence (often Darwin’s own words) they go on the attack. But that’s hardly confined to evolutionists on this site. It seems to be a common trait among many evolutionists in academia and science as well. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
I can respond to criticisms of Christianity all day long without resorting to insults, lies, harassment and attacks. Why can’t Christ-denying evolutionists? Because every evolutionist on here who frequently engages in personal attacks is an atheist or a Christ denier. Why do you suppose that’s the common denominator? |
|||||||||||||||
|
However we can't control what they say or do, only what we say or do. And that is even more applicable to me in this situation now. I came here with good intentions and the first time I'm really tested, I fold like a cheap suite. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
But this is one of his more disingenuous lies untethered to the object of his obsession. <<LOL. Andrew demands we limit any discussion of evolution to what Darwin knew in 1850. He feels mid nineteenth century science is as much challenge as he can deal with, save for the tiny handful of 21st century biologists whose work he can corrupt and hijack for his offense.>> Today’s theory of evolution (Neo-Darwinism) has undergone one minor change from the theory Darwin put forward in 1859. Darwin proposed that millions of species of plants and animals, and humans, were the result of an unguided, blind-chance process known as random variation and natural selection that began with a single-celled organism (I know, Oh my aching sides 😂) Today, Neo-Darwinism claims that millions of species of plants and animals, and humans, were the result of an unguided, blind-chance process known as random mutations and natural selection that began with a single-celled organism. The only difference between the unscientific theory Darwin proposed in 1859 and the unscientific theory as it exists today is Darwin’s “random variation” became “random mutations.” Neo-Darwinism, which is nearly identical to what Darwin put forward in 1859, is the unscientific theory I’ve objected to and criticized. If some other mechanism by which evolution is claimed to have taken place emerges **in a theory** I’ll be happy to offer my thoughts and opinion on it. But for now, Neo-Darwinism is the only theory on the table - and it’s garbage. Which is why more and more scientists are looking beyond it to try to explain the origin of species. |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 22-Jul-24, 12:04 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper How many people have you advised that failed to listen to you? February 7, 2020 youtu.be And youtu.be Do you know what he was telling you during that time???? He was advised, which is evident in the Woodward interview where he said it is more potent than the most strenuous flu's... |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Yes that’s comparing a year to nearly four years, but we also already had vaccines and measures in place during the Biden administration that had yet to be developed during the early days of the pandemic in the Trump administration. And Dr. Fauci at a press conference said Trump did everything he recommended. Meanwhile, Biden allowed millions of people to pour into this country from the southern border without getting any Covid tests, let alone security checks. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
