• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An Honest Appeal

fff

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
ff said:
Red Robin said:
No, do you support evolutionists that lie to get Haeckel's gill slit chart in public school to support their evolutionist theories even though they were proven a lie over 50 years ago? They were in my text book and I would bet that a lot of others here saw those charts where human embryos as they were developing had gill slits like fish , or so the lie went. Evolution is a religion. It takes faith. You've never seen anything evolve.

Evolution is a growing and changing store of knowledge. That's why it's still a theory and not touted as a "fact." Unlike you who claim your religious claims are "fact" even though there's not a shred of evidence to back some of them up. I saw a documentary recently on the Dover/Gettysburg, PA court case against Intelligent Design in the schools. A George W. Bush appointed judge was deciding the case, so they had put the press in the jury box. They were primed and cocked for a real shootout between the two groups, intelligent design and evolution. But to their great surprise, the intelligent design people could only come up two "scientific" witnesses. And the only one who actually presented a claim to support intelligent design was totally blown out of the water by other scientists who tore his claims apart. The rest of the ID case was not really a case for ID, it was a case against evolution. But mostly it was an argument against things that no serious scientists claims as fact anyway. :roll: There is no scientific evidence to support ID. It's a faith based claim and should not be offered in public schools as an alternative to evolution. The media (press) were mostly astounded. They had been lead to believe that the ID people had tons of "evidence" to support ID.

I've never personally seen any Bush supporter admitting he lied to get us into Iraq either, but from news reports they are out there. :lol:

Maybe you didn't understand what I said and asked. Are you for telling lies to our public school students if those lies have no other purpose than to further the evolution "theory"? Haeckels theories where proven wrong decades before I saw them in school. As a matter of fact they were in text books up until fairly recently and might linger in some of them now. The science community knew they were lies. Some of the teachers and school systems knew they were lies yet they were still taught to our students. That's not an education, that's a religious indoctrination!

People who believe in evolution have no agenda. They don't have a building that they need to maintain, a preacher who needs a new car, or need more donations to send the kids off on a ski trip for spring break.

I don't know why Haeckel's drawings were still in your school books. You should talk to the school board or your science teachers should have stood up as the ones in PA did when the school board demanded ID be taught in school. But just because Haeckel was wrong doesn't mean evolution is wrong.

What does a textbook have to do to get an A? First, it may not use misleading drawings or photos. Wells has not shown that the photos used in any of these books are misleading at all. Second, it should not use the term "gill slit". This is a capricious requirement; there is nothing categorically wrong with that particular term.

Third, it should discuss dissimilarities at the earliest stages (which is a good idea, but may be impractical in an introductory text) and call this a problem for Darwinian evolution. There is a difficulty in meeting this last requirement, however. The differences may be a problem for a Haeckelian model of evolution, but they are not a problem for modern formulations of evolution. A book that suggested that the early differences are a problem would be straining to misinterpret the evidence.

Finally, his fourth requirement is that the book must consider Darwin's theory of vertebrate origins to be wrong. I presume by this that it must use observations of vertebrate embryos to somehow argue that different vertebrates did not evolve from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, this conclusion does not follow from the evidence. The deep similarities in the process of development for all vertebrates support the idea that they are part of a common lineage; furthermore, progress in the molecular biology of development has been steadily confirming even greater homologies-it is simply not an option to even suggest that these organisms did not have a common ancestor.

One of the textbooks which Wells gives a "D" grade is one I've taught from for a number of years, Campbell's Biology. I took a close look at the relevant section of this particular book. I immediately found one serious shortcoming: this section is all of two paragraphs long, with one figure. It would be good to see more substance on this subject, especially in a book that is 1175 pages long, but one recurrent problem in the books that Wells has targeted is that these are surveys of all of biology, from biochemistry to ecology, so it isn't too surprising that everything gets less depth of treatment than we would like. However, I found nothing in what Campbell has written which is objectionable. He begins with the point that "Closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development", and illustrates that with a photograph of an avian and mammalian embryo. This statement is correct, and the figure backs up the point. He ends the section by explicitly correcting Haeckel's ideas, saying that "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a 'fish stage', then an 'amphibian stage', and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution." This is entirely correct. I do not see any errors of fact in Campbell's treatment of the subject, although I do think it is unfortunate that so little space can be spared for it.

This is not to suggest that textbooks are without flaw. I agree with Wells that the contortions by Balinski in his 1975 text to rationalize the biogenetic law are deplorable. I also concur that textbooks that are already giving short shrift to this particular subject ought not to be wasting space with Haeckel's illustration, which is not good biological data and is only of historical interest. Wells goes too far, however. He tries to use one old (if influential) distortion to discard a host of perfectly valid observations in his attempts to discredit some logical conclusions that conflict with his biases.

This is too long to quote, so here's the link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Work Hard and Study Hard said:
And for that matter I will never vote for a president that's puts creationism above Evolution. Dinosaurs where here 2000 years ago???????? Give me a break. Don't believe in science, but when you get cancer just pray and take no chemo or radiation and will all go away right????????????????

It's easier for you to believe that everything you see now started from two carbon molecules that happened to rub against each other just right?

If evolution is correct, why did life just start once and then take off? Why hasn't it restarted from the same point? Surely the same molecules are still bouncing around.

Scientific study of evolution does not address the beginning of life. It addresses the evolution of life forms.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I'd rather have both taught, then my kids can sort thru the holes in evolution, and realize that creation is the only thing that makes sense. My kids are smart enough to realize that "everything" didn't come from "nothing" as evolution suggests.

Creationism is not a science, just as evolution is not a religion. Would you want cooking taught in math classes? It would be the same thing.
 

katrina

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
ff said:
So all those soldiers on the parade ground that don't remove their hats or put their hands over their heart when the National Anthem is played would never get your support?

That is a pretty silly and revealing comment considering that the soldiers are doing exactly as they are supposed to. You see, they have different procedurers and different roles (conflicting, it seems) than you. When the National Anthem is played, they are to stand at attention and salute. You are supposed to place your hand over your heart.

The conflicting part is that they fight for our individual freedoms and to keep out foreign invaders and you vote for those that would take those freedoms away and give our nation to the foreigners. It's kind of a Yin/Yan Good/Evil type of thing.

Katrina said very clearly that she wouldn't support anyone who didn't put their hand over their heart during the playing of the National Anthem. Yet, instead of getting on her case for insulting our troops, you get on my case for pointing it out? :lol: :lol:

FF, You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say.... I said I wouldn't vote for a president that would pay homage to the flag...... YOU are the one who used the low blow by comparing soldiers to Obama...... And I called you on it....... Anyone who has served our country no matter their beliefs have my respect.
WHSH: And you have a great day...... :D :D :D :D
 

fff

Well-known member
katrina said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
That is a pretty silly and revealing comment considering that the soldiers are doing exactly as they are supposed to. You see, they have different procedurers and different roles (conflicting, it seems) than you. When the National Anthem is played, they are to stand at attention and salute. You are supposed to place your hand over your heart.

The conflicting part is that they fight for our individual freedoms and to keep out foreign invaders and you vote for those that would take those freedoms away and give our nation to the foreigners. It's kind of a Yin/Yan Good/Evil type of thing.

Katrina said very clearly that she wouldn't support anyone who didn't put their hand over their heart during the playing of the National Anthem. Yet, instead of getting on her case for insulting our troops, you get on my case for pointing it out? :lol: :lol:

FF, You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say.... I said I wouldn't vote for a president that would pay homage to the flag...... YOU are the one who used the low blow by comparing soldiers to Obama...... And I called you on it....... Anyone who has served our country no matter their beliefs have my respect.
WHSH: And you have a great day...... :D :D :D :D


Spin, spin, spin, Katrina. It's right here what you said:

I won't for a man or woman that doesn't put his or her hand or their heart for the national anthem.... What's obama's view???

You didn't say "vote for a president that would pay homage to the flag." You said what you said. Now you're backpeddling and won't admit you opened your mouth and put your foot in it. Makes me very happy. :D
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
I'd rather have both taught, then my kids can sort thru the holes in evolution, and realize that creation is the only thing that makes sense. My kids are smart enough to realize that "everything" didn't come from "nothing" as evolution suggests.

Creationism is not a science, just as evolution is not a religion. Would you want cooking taught in math classes? It would be the same thing.
Evolution isn't science anymore than creationism. Here's an article from the norman transcript so it's not just my school that had haeckel's embryo drawing.


Published: January 26, 2007 11:33 am print this story email this story comment on this story

Creationism is not wrong
By Edward F. Blick
For The Transcript

I was amused reading Prof. Peter J. Lamb’s article in the Jan. 14 Norman Transcript. He implied that creationists (people of faith in Jesus Christ and His Creation) are responsible for the lowly economic status of Oklahoma. He implied that Christians endanger our excellence in country music and football. If all Okies believed in his religion of evolution we would be in economic nirvana and might even have beaten Boise State in that last Bowl game!

One of the 20th century’s most cultured and scientific countries, Nazi Germany, had evolution as their national policy. Hitler hated Christianity and was a ruthless hyper-evolutionist whose admiration of Darwinism and Nietzsche caused him to murder of millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and mentally defective people. Hitler’s evil book “Mein Kampf” is full of the word Entwicklung (evolution).

Our military (the “Greatest Generation”) were the victors over Germany and Japan in WW II. Their generation and mine were basically untainted by the teaching of evolution. Not until the 1960s was our culture hijacked by the religion of evolution. When the Russians launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957, biology professors joined the “hue and cry” that the “Russians were ahead of us in science.” They convinced the National Science Foundation in 1959 to give them $14 million of our tax dollars to cram a lot of evolution into biology books and also teach sex education and the need for legalizing abortion. Evolution has nothing to do with putting a satellite into orbit. I know because I taught rocket science at OU and was part of the design team at McDonnell Aircraft that built the Mercury capsule, our first manned space ship. It’s all based on thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and Newtonian mechanics.

By the early 1960s there was a full court press on teaching high school and college students evolution. As one newspaper columnist wrote, if you teach kids they evolved from animals they will behave like animals. That is the fruit of evolution. The U.S. Statistical Abstract from the early ’60s to the ’80s shows serious crime and social problems took off like a rocket. Serious crime went up over 500 percent, birth rates for young unwed mothers increased by about 190 percent, venereal diseases increased by about 350 percent, SAT scores fell from about 970 to 890.

Concerning Lamb’s statements of billions and millions of years for the age of the earth, man and dinosaurs. No one knows for certain any of the ages. I have in my book (“A Scientific Analysis of Genesis”) a list of over 80 Uniformitarian Estimates of the earth’s age, all are less than billions of years. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than 10,000 years old. Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. The total amount is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were billions of years old. Salt is pouring into the oceans much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not salty enough for it to be billions of years old. Radioactive dating methods have been found to be totally unreliable. Volcanic rocks formed in 1986 during the Mount St. Helens eruption were dated by the potassium-argon method to be 0.35 million years old. Similar anomalies were discoveries in other volcanoes in the Pacific.

In a stunning rebuttal of Lamb’s 65 million years for the youngest age of dinosaurs, Mary Schweitzer, of Montana State University found red blood cells and soft fibrous tissue in the leg bone of a T. rex dinosaur. (New Scientist, 24 March 2005). This blood and soft tissue could not have lasted more than a few thousand years.

There are no proofs of life arising from inorganic material. The Urey-Miller experiments were found worthless and discarded years ago. There are no proofs of macroevolution. Darwin tried. He came up with his gemmule theory, but no gemmules were ever found. The Nobel Prize winner for penicillin, Sir Ernest Chain, scornfully denounced his “Survival of the Fittest” theory as nothing but a truism and not to be taken seriously.

Haeckel (one of the founders of the Nazi party) in 1868 attempted to rescue Darwinism with his embryo drawings but they were discovered to be fakes. Prof. Richard Goldschmidt failed to prove macroevolution after 25 years of mutation experiments on fruit flies in Berlin and University of California. His book “The Material Basis for Evolution” (1940) literally tore to pieces the mutation theory of evolution. He proposed a new theory he called the “Hopeful Monster Mechanism” (i.e. an alligator laid an egg and a turkey hatched out!). Of course it had to happen twice in order to have male and female. Harvard’s Stephen Gould (1972) and John Hopkins Steven Stanley (1972) dressed up the “Hopeful Monster Mechanism” with more scientific names, “Punctuated Equilibrium” and “Quantum Speciation.” The Russians renamed it “Saltation Theory.”

The prize theory belongs to Sir Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule). He concluded the mathematical probability of DNA forming by chance was zero. Being an atheist, he gave up on evolution forming life on earth, and pushed it back to outer space. His theory, “Panspermia” (1981) assumed some unknown alien deposited sperm on some planet in outer space (Krypton?) and life formed there. They built a “Noah’s Ark” rocket ship and traveled a long journey to earth and unloaded people, animals, plants, trees, fish and birds on the earth. This sounds like the old Alf TV show.

Since evolution has never been proved scientifically, it must be believed by faith. Hence it is a religion. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum spent a lifetime studying fossils. In 1981 he stated that after 20 years of research he was ready to give up on evolution, because he had not been able to come up with one thing that proved it. Dr. Lynn Margolis, distinguish professor at the University of Massachusetts asked an audience of molecular biologists if they could name one unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by accumulation of mutations. Their answer … silence. Dr. Margolis predicted that history would judge neo-Darwinism as a minor 20th century religious sect.

Edward Blick is an adjunct professor of engineering. He taught his first class at OU in 1958. At various times he was the associate dean of engineering and a professor in engineering, medicine and meteorology. He published over 150 articles in these fields and two textbooks. He has given hundreds of lectures on Creationism versus Evolution and has participated in two debates (at OU and Iowa State).
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Work Hard and Study Hard said:
And for that matter I will never vote for a president that's puts creationism above Evolution. Dinosaurs where here 2000 years ago???????? Give me a break. Don't believe in science, but when you get cancer just pray and take no chemo or radiation and will all go away right????????????????

It's easier for you to believe that everything you see now started from two carbon molecules that happened to rub against each other just right?

If evolution is correct, why did life just start once and then take off? Why hasn't it restarted from the same point? Surely the same molecules are still bouncing around.

Scientific study of evolution does not address the beginning of life. It addresses the evolution of life forms.

Are you saying Darwin was not in the scientific realm? :roll:

February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
The original title of darwins book was the Origin of species and the Decent of man. Hitler loved it. Blacks , Jews, etc. were less evolved. Racist.
 

katrina

Well-known member
katrina wrote:
fff wrote:
Sandhusker wrote:
ff wrote:
katrina wrote:
I won't for a man or woman that doesn't put his or her hand or their heart for the national anthem.... What's obama's view???


So all those soldiers on the parade ground that don't remove their hats or put their hands over their heart when the National Anthem is played would never get your support?


That is a pretty silly and revealing comment considering that the soldiers are doing exactly as they are supposed to. You see, they have different procedurers and different roles (conflicting, it seems) than you. When the National Anthem is played, they are to stand at attention and salute. You are supposed to place your hand over your heart.

The conflicting part is that they fight for our individual freedoms and to keep out foreign invaders and you vote for those that would take those freedoms away and give our nation to the foreigners. It's kind of a Yin/Yan Good/Evil type of thing.


Katrina said very clearly that she wouldn't support anyone who didn't put their hand over their heart during the playing of the National Anthem. Yet, instead of getting on her case for insulting our troops, you get on my case for pointing it out?


FF, You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say.... I said I wouldn't vote for a president that would pay homage to the flag...... YOU are the one who used the low blow by comparing soldiers to Obama...... And I called you on it....... Anyone who has served our country no matter their beliefs have my respect.
WHSH: And you have a great day......



Spin, spin, spin, Katrina. It's right here what you said:

Quote:
I won't for a man or woman that doesn't put his or her hand or their heart for the national anthem.... What's obama's view???


You didn't say "vote for a president that would pay homage to the flag." You said what you said. Now you're backpeddling and won't admit you opened your mouth and put your foot in it. Makes me very happy.

ff are you having trouble reading? What's obama's view???
Nice try, He who laugh last, laughs the longest...... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Did you note the number of people that did not salute- or put their hand/hat over thier heart during the singing of the national anthem yesterday at the Super Bowl...I'll bet about 1/2 the crowd stood with their hands folded in front of them or at their sides.......Probably only 1 out of 10 of the players had their hand on their chest....

A 10 year old boy at the place I was at noticed it first and mentioned it- and then everyone was talking about it and the military folks behind the singer didn't either- which had one old 89 year old WWII vet steaming....

Times apparently are changing.....
 

fff

Well-known member
Gee, I had written a comment about your post, only to find out than an actual science professor, not an engineer had already refuted it. Outright lies, presented as proof of Christian beliefs. Such a shame. :cry:

CRITIQUE OF ED BLICK'S EDITORIAL IN T HE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT.
(published on 24 January 2007)
By Dr. Frank Sonleitner, Professor Emeritus of Zoology, University of Oklahoma
Ed Blick's editorial (HERE) is the most convincing evidence yet that creation science should not be taught in any school. His article contains virtually no accurate or truthful statements. In addition, Blick's comments should have been entitled "Evolution is Wrong." None of the things he said were evidence for creation. It is hard to imagine that an academic (even if he is only an engineer) could be so out of touch with reality.
BLICK: “Creationism is not Wrong”
"I was amused reading Prof. Peter J. Lamb's article in the Jan 14 Norman
Transcript. He implied that creationists (people of faith in Jesus Christ and His creation) are responsible for the lowly economic status of Oklahoma. He implied that Christians endanger our excellence in country music and football. If all Okies believed in his religion of evolution we would be in economic nirvana and might even have beaten Boise State in that last Bowl game! One of the 20th century's most cultured and scientific countries, Nazi Germany, had evolution as their national policy. Hitler hated Christianity and was a ruthless hyper-evolutionist whose admiration of Darwinism and Nietzsche caused him to murder of (sic) millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and mentally defective people. Hitler's
evil book "Mein Kampf" is full of the work Entwicklung (evolution)."
Answer: NOT! This is a major rewrite of Nazism. Hitler was not an evolutionist. Neither evolution nor Darwin is mentioned in English translations of Mein Kampf. (The same is true of My New Order (a collection of speeches) and Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations.) Hitler did talk a lot about the role God plays in his philosophy. Would the Nazis accept a theory that says the Master Race
descended from apes? No way. The Nazis creation mythology relied heavily on the works of the 19th century authors Gobineau and Chamberlain; both had a low opinion of Darwinism. God created the Master Race as the most perfect human race but later, through interbreeding, it "degenerated." The Nazis wanted to recreate the Master
Race through selective breeding, which is completely independent of evolutionary theory.
BLICK: “Our military (the "Greatest Generation") were the victors over Germany and Japan in WW II. Their generation and mine were basically untainted by the teaching of evolution. Not until the 1960's was our culture hijacked by the religion of evolution. When the Russians launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957, biology professors joined the "hue and cry" that the "Russians were ahead of us in science." They convinced the National Science Foundation in 1959 to give them $14 million of
our tax dollars to cram a lot of evolution into biology books and also teach sex education and the need for legalizing abortion. Evolution has nothing to do with putting a satellite into orbit. I know because I taught rocket science at OU and was part of the design team at McDonnell Aircraft that built the mercury capsule, our first manned space ship. It's all based on thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and Newtonian mechanics."
Answer: INDEED? It's a radically new idea that we and our allies won the war because all our soldiers were clear-headed creationists while the German soldiers' minds were besotted with evolutionary theory! Is Blick admitting that it's not all evolution's fault - that sex education and abortion are also responsible?
BLICK: "By the early 1960s there was a full court press on teaching high school and college student’s evolution. As one newspaper columnist wrote, if you teach kids they evolved from animals they will behave like animals. That is the fruit of evolution. The U.S. Statistical Abstract from the early '60s to the '80s shows serious crime and social problems took off like a rocket. Serious crime went up over 500 percent, birth rates for young unwed mothers increased about 190 percent, venereal diseases increased by about 350 percent. SAT scores fell from about 970 to 890."
Answer: SO? What kind of animals will the students behave like? Every species of animal has its own innate behavior patterns (which the creator bestowed upon them?) What animals have religious beliefs that require their adherents to torture, burn, and generally commit genocide against others of their kind? Commit murder on vast scales in wars with weapons of mass destruction? Behaving like humans is nothing to be proud of. Hey! Good old creationist Oklahoma is a leading state with regard to unwed mothers and teen-age pregnancies. So all the problems of the USA are due to teaching evolution! If a student takes biology in high school, the class spends about a week on evolution. Teachers would
be thankful if they had only a tiny bit of such influence on their students. Other religious authors blame our social problems on the Supreme Court's banning of prayer in schools.
BLICK: "Concerning Lamb's statements of billions and millions of years for the age of the earth, man and dinosaurs. No one knows for certain any of the ages. I have in my book ("A Scientific Analysis of Genesis") a list of over 80 Uniformitarian Estimates of the earth's age, all are less than billions of years. The earth's magnetic field is decaying so fast that it couldn't be more than 10,000 years old. Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. The total amount is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were
billions of years old. Salt is pouring into the oceans much faster than it is
escaping. The sea is not salty enough for it to be billions of years old.
Radioactive dating methods have been found to be totally unreliable. Volcanic rocks formed in 1986 during the Mount St. Helens eruption were dated by the potassium-argon method to be 0.35 million years old. Similar anomalies were discoveries (sic) in other volcanoes in the Pacific."
Answer: CREATIONIST FABLES: Most of Blick's 80 Uniformitarian Estimates of theEarth's age are "strawman" calculations made by creationists based on highly flawed assumptions. Few of them come within orders of magnitude of the creationists' claims that the earth is only 6 to 10,000 years old. Why? The earth's magnetic field is not decaying. It is changing its shape preparatory to reversing itself; the dipole moment energy is going into the nondipole features. Even creationists such as Russell Humphreys admit the reality of such reversals. Recent studies indicate that polar winds can blow charged Helium nuclei out of the top of our atmosphere. Even the solar wind can do it during magnetic field reversals. But these arguments are moot because the young earth creationists have recently discarded this Helium argument for one that claims there is too much Helium in the Earth's crust. During the Flood, God allowed for a supernatural burst of
radioactivity which resulted in the long ages given by the radioactive dating methods. But there hasn't been enough time for the Helium to escape! (Much radiogenic Helium remains locked in the crystal lattices of the rocks. All of our commercial Helium comes from natural gas wells.)
The creationists Austin and Humphreys claimed that sodium is accumulating in the oceans faster than it is escaping but they both underestimated and omitted consideration of mechanisms of salt removal. Detailed studies by competent geologists indicate that all the dissolved salts in the oceans are in equilibrium. Creationists claim contemporary lava flows in Hawaii (not Mount St Helens) were dated to be millions of years old but those researchers were dating old inclusions in the lava flows, not the lava flows themselves.
BLICK: "In a stunning rebuttal of Lamb's 65 million years for the youngest age of dinosaurs, Mary Schweitzer, of Montana State University found red blood cells and soft fibrous tissue in the leg bone of a T. rex dinosaur (New Scientist 24 March 2005). This blood and soft tissue could not have lasted more than a few thousand years."
Answer: IN REALITY: Schweitzer and her colleagues found highly modified fossilized traces of blood cells and fibrous tissue. Maybe Blick should have read the original publication instead of just a news article.
BLICK: "There are no proofs of life arising from inorganic material. The Urey-Miller experiments were found worthless and discarded years ago. There are no proofs of macroevolution. Darwin tried. He came up with his gemmule theory, but no gemmules were every found. The Nobel Prize winner for penicillin, Sir Ernest Chain,
scornfully denounced his "Survival of the Fittest" theory as nothing but a truism and not to be taken seriously."
Answer: OK, BUT: Recent studies have vindicated the Miller-Urey experiment. (Urey was a Nobel Laureate.) The goo that formed on the walls of the glass vessels has been identified in meteorites, and the atmospheres of Jupiter and Titan by means of its spectral signature. Other recent studies have shows that the early earth's atmosphere really was reducing in character. And interstellar space is full of complex organic molecules. Darwin's gemmule theory was one of hereditary transmission, not of macroevolution. Survival of the Fittest was an alternate name for Natural Selection, not a definition of the process. Hence Chain's argument about it being a truism is irrelevant. (Even Answers in Genesis lists this argument as one creationists should
not use!) Incidentally Chain shared that 1945 Nobel Prize with Fleming and Florey. That these are the only two arguments (and they have nothing to do withmacroevolution) that Blick can think of to discredit macroevolution only shows his incredible ignorance of the subject. Actually, there are mountains of empirical evidence for macroevolution.
BLICK: Haeckel (one of the founders of the Nazi party) in 1868 attempted to rescue Darwinism with his embryo drawings but they were discovered to be fakes. Prof. Richard Goldschmidt failed to prove macroevolution after 25 years of mutation experiments on fruit flies in Berlin and University of California. His book "The Material Basis for (sic) Evolution" (1940) literally tore to pieces the mutation theory of evolution. He proposed a new theory he called the "Hopeful Monster Mechanism" (i.e. an alligator laid an egg and a turkey hatched out!) Of course it had to happen twice in order to have male and female. Harvard's Stephen Gould (1972)and John (sic) Hopkins Steven Stanley (1972) dressed up the "Hopeful Monster Mechanism" with more scientific ames, "Punctuated Equilibrium" and "Quantum Speciation." The Russians renamed it "Saltation Theory."
Answer: TAKE A DEEP BREATH: Haeckel was not a founder of the Nazi party. He died in 1919. The Nazi party was formed by Hitler and six comrades at Munich in 1920. Its original program comprised 25 points, one of which advocated "positive Christianity." In 1868 Darwin didn't need to be "rescued" by Haeckel. Also, Haeckel's embryo drawings contributed nothing to "Darwinism" that Darwin didn't already know. Darwin got his information on embryos that he used in The Origin from the creationists von Baer and Agassiz. The pictures of embryos that he used in The Descent of Man were taken from the works of Ecker and Bichoff, both of whom were outspoken critics of Haeckel's drawings. It's a stretch to say Haeckel's drawings were "faked." The general outlines of the early stages are inaccurate but most of the other details are correct.
Goldschmidt called his theory systemic mutation theory, not "Hopeful Monster Mechanism." It relied on structural changes in chromosomes, rather than mutations. Also, Goldschmidt was more known for his research on gipsy moths, not fruit flies. He never said an alligator egg hatched out a turkey. On p 395 of his book The Material Basis of Evolution he quotes the German paleontologist Schindewolf as saying
"The first bird hatched from a reptile egg." When an English translation of
Schindewolf's book became available, I discovered that Schindewolf in turn attributed that quote to the English biologist Garstang without giving a specific literature citation. For all I know, the quote may be a line from one of Garstang's humorous poems on evolutionary subjects! With regard to more than one hopeful monster arising, if a systemic mutation -
or any other kind of mutation for that matter - occurred in an individual's germ line, up to as many as half its gametes could possess it. If it were dominant, many such offspring might have resulted. Punctuated equilibrium is not the hopeful monster mechanism (it is based on Mayr's peripatric speciation), nor is Steven Stanley's Quantum speciation (speciation where most evolution was concentrated within an initial interval of time, brief relative to the longevity of the new lineage.) The Russians did not rename it "Saltation theory." Saltation theory, which involves macromutations, was around since Darwin's day and was a popular alternative to natural selection in the 19th century. St George Jackson Mivart championed it in the 19th century; Soren Lovtrup in the
20th.
BLICK: The prize theory belongs to Sir Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule). He concluded the mathematical probability of DNA forming by chance was zero. Being an atheist, he gave up on evolution forming life on earth, and pushed it back to outer space. His theory "Panspermia" (1981) assumed some unknown alien
deposited sperm on some planet in outer space (Krypton?) and life formed there. They built a "Noah's Ark" rocket ship and traveled a long journey to earth and unloaded people, animals, plants, trees, fish and birds on earth. This sounds like the old Alf TV show."
Answer: IS HE JOKING? Crick (another Nobel Laureate) never did any calculations about the probability of DNA forming by chance. Only creationists do those sorts of calculations. And Crick did not originate the Panspermia idea. It was first proposed scientifically in the 19th century by Lord Kelvin and later championed by anti-darwinian British cosmologists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. All three of those scientists are considered "heroes" by creationists. What irony! But there's even more irony. Panspermia's logical structure is identical to the God-did-it hypothesis. Thus, rather than castigating Crick for proposing an utrageous hypothesis, Blick should be praising him for almost getting it right!Crick 1981 book Life Itself (not Panspermia), which is an elaboration of a 1973 paper by him and Leslie Orgel appearing in the journal Icarus, envisioned a rather slow-moving automated spaceship seeding planets with packets of bacteria, rather than Blick's purely farciful account. What? they didn't bring reptiles and apes?
BLICK: "Since evolution has never been proved scientifically, it must be believed by faith. Hence it is a religion. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum spent a lifetime studying fossils. In 1981 he stated that after 20 years of research he was ready to give up on evolution, because he had not been able to come up with one thing that proved it. Dr. Lynn Margolis,(sic) distinguished professor at the University of Massachusetts asked an audience of molecular
biologists if they could name one unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by accumulation of mutations. Their answer ... silence. Dr Margolis(sic) predicted that history would judge neo-Darwinism as a minor 20th century religioussect."
Answer: SORRY, DR. BLICK: Science does not "prove" anything. That only occurs in math and logic where one can prove that certain consequences logically follow from a stated set of assumptions. Evolutionists have evidence. They don't need faith.Thus evolution is not a religion. Colin Patterson never said he had not come up with any evidence "proving" evolution. He did write a textbook on the subject full of evidence supporting evolution. Whatever Margulis' molecular biologists said or did not say, there is plenty of evidence for the formation of new species by mutation.
[Response written on 2 February 2007]

http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/CRITIQUE_OF_ED_BLICK.pdf
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I was wrong about Darwins title. Here it actually was
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

:lol:
Just because some science prof. believes in evolution doesn't mean it's true.
 

fff

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I was wrong about Darwins title. Here it actually was
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

:lol:
Just because some science prof. believes in evolution doesn't mean it's true.

But because some engineering prof doesn't believe in evolution means it's not true? Do you see how silly your arguments are? Believe it or not. I couldn't care less. But don't use my tax dollars to teach a religious belief in public school by pretending it's science. :mad: In his entire article, Prof Blick didn't offer one bit of proof about Creationism. He misrepresented, outright lied, skewed scientific fact to present his case for Creationism. Coming from someone claiming to be a Christian, IMO, that's shameful.

Evolution is responsible for new species. That's been shown over and over. But it doesn't explain the origin of LIFE. That's why it's called EVOLUTION.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
ff said:
So all those soldiers on the parade ground that don't remove their hats or put their hands over their heart when the National Anthem is played would never get your support?

That is a pretty silly and revealing comment considering that the soldiers are doing exactly as they are supposed to. You see, they have different procedurers and different roles (conflicting, it seems) than you. When the National Anthem is played, they are to stand at attention and salute. You are supposed to place your hand over your heart.

The conflicting part is that they fight for our individual freedoms and to keep out foreign invaders and you vote for those that would take those freedoms away and give our nation to the foreigners. It's kind of a Yin/Yan Good/Evil type of thing.

Katrina said very clearly that she wouldn't support anyone who didn't put their hand over their heart during the playing of the National Anthem. Yet, instead of getting on her case for insulting our troops, you get on my case for pointing it out? :lol: :lol:

If you're not smart enough to realize that Katrina was talking about showing respect, you're probably foolish enough to vote for Hillary
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
fff said:
Evolution is responsible for new species. That's been shown over and over. But it doesn't explain the origin of LIFE. That's why it's called EVOLUTION.
My arguments are silly? :lol2: You're the one that thinks that a tangerine could change into a wolf. :shock: I'm sure it'd take billions and billions of years though :lol: . I wonder where the genetic information came from to change a single celled organism into a thinking human? Got any clue? BTW you never did tell me whether you were for or against lying to students?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Work Hard and Study Hard said:
If you want to find a book of lies and half truths written to opress people for 2000 years don't look at text books look at your bibles. Creationism = home school brain washing.
You misspelled oppress whsh. Maybe home school would have improved your spelling.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
That is a pretty silly and revealing comment considering that the soldiers are doing exactly as they are supposed to. You see, they have different procedurers and different roles (conflicting, it seems) than you. When the National Anthem is played, they are to stand at attention and salute. You are supposed to place your hand over your heart.

The conflicting part is that they fight for our individual freedoms and to keep out foreign invaders and you vote for those that would take those freedoms away and give our nation to the foreigners. It's kind of a Yin/Yan Good/Evil type of thing.

Katrina said very clearly that she wouldn't support anyone who didn't put their hand over their heart during the playing of the National Anthem. Yet, instead of getting on her case for insulting our troops, you get on my case for pointing it out? :lol: :lol:

If you're not smart enough to realize that Katrina was talking about showing respect, you're probably foolish enough to vote for Hillary

Respect? Anyone can read what she wrote. I wouldn't even try to get into her warped, ugly mind and try to figure out what she actually meant. Let her admit it if she misspoke. :D
 

katrina

Well-known member
Respect? Anyone can read what she wrote. I wouldn't even try to get into her warped, ugly mind and try to figure out what she actually meant. Let her admit it if she misspoke.[/quot

I misspoke nothing, the fact is, that I was talking about Obama. Now who's ugly and warped?? :p :roll: Nice try that dog won't hunt....... :D :D :D
 

Latest posts

Top