As you are fond of saying, complete nonsense. I'm no scientist, but common sense dictates that if the underlying processes proposed in support of a theory are in question then the theory itself must also be in question. How else would one refute a theory if not by refuting it's proposed underlying processes?
As for your other unsubstantiated allegations, You would need to take that up with Dr Crick or Dr McLaughlin since Crick died 2004, but not with me.
Speaking of deluding the ignorant, I believe you have simply restated what I said with the added assumption that the formation of such complex molecules commonplace and predictable. This assumption is not as axiomatic as you would have one believe, but please don't take my word for it.
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August, 1954.
How is that for scientific reasoning? He concedes that what you imply was a common and predictable process is indeed "impossible" yet still "believes" that it happened.
If you care to read about why it is impossible check out the article at
or for a more rigorous presentation
I hope you don't seriously believe that Dr Crick had the sinister ulterior motive "to delude the ignorant" when he wrote his book.
These articles only consider the spontaneous creation of protein molecules and not an immensely more complex living cell, but Dr Walds comment was referring to a living cell.
Uh Oh, more "complete nonsense" If anyone really believes the nonsense that there is no debate on darwinism among legitimate researchers I suggest you google "evolution debate" and check out some of the about 411,000 hits generated, but be sure to take a look at this list
Here's another quote probably taken out of context. :)
Dr Steven J Gould - Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University "There have been more than 100 debates between evolutionist and creationists. We should stop debating these people(creationists) because we have lost all 100 of the debates."
An odd thing to say in any context given the "fact" that there is no debate on darwinism.
I do not claim anything, I simply restate what qualified scientist have said. Check some of those 411,000 google hits for more info.
Uh, the point was that he gave credit for that 1st living cell to God. C'mon now, pay attention. Btw means "by the way" and is generally used to inject a minor point of fact. I have to admit that I suspect you were aware of my point, ignored it, and concentrated on a point of trivia just for an opportunity to shoot the messenger. Just a suspicion mind you.
Interesting though, by your logic, since I studied physics in college then I would be qualified to formulate a new string theory. An obvious absurdity!
Oh dear, another declaration of "complete nonsense" with no evidence supporting it, so ok, explain this:
L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.) "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" - Introduction to The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)
and this
Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:- "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).
and this
"With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of their characteristic features present". Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University (Kemp, 1999. Fossils and evolution, p. 253).
and this
Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to point out:- "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.
and this
Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution scientist in Great Britain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution. "evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."
I could go on, but I think these people have made the point.
Indeed a true statement, but alas, you missed the point yet again. You really need to pay attention. I did not say that the actual "evolution" should have taken place in the last 150yrs. What I did say was that no proof that such an evolutionary process has occurred in the past has been found in the 150 yrs since Darwin wrote the origins. This is evident from the previous series of statements by reputable scientists.
You said that the concept of species is "artificial and to some degree fluid" then give examples of speciation to support evolution.
You refute a concept then use that very concept to support your position. I'm not sure how that works.
I'll not pretend to be an expert on darwinism, or that I can properly analyze field research. I must leave that to qualified people. I simply observe what such people have to say and to some extent, how they say it. I then base my conclusions on what seems most credible.
There are numerous examples of dissenting views by reputable scientists, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the darwinists. One has to wonder why this is.
Some of these scientists have even had their views suppressed by peer reviewed publications(see excerpt toward the end of this post for an example). One has to wonder why this is.
You know, to tell you the truth, personally I couldn't care less about different varieties of fish or flowers that may or may not be different species. I want to see proof that I came from anything other than God. As I have already shown, even the most staunch supporters of darwinism have lamented that such proof does not exist. Even some of the circumstantial evidence has been shown to have been faked. I refer you to Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices" toward the end of this post.
Wait a minute, I thought you said there was no debate. In any case Google doesn't care. If you search for "irreducible complexity" you'll get hits for both sides of the non existent debate.
Oops, you missed the point yet again, Go have a cup of coffee then read it again slowly. I did not say that I do not understand what "fit" means. What I understand or don't understand is irrelevant. I did say that blind natural selection cannot know what fits. Which is, by definition, absolutely true. I know what "fit" means in this context because I've played poker before and know the desired outcome. Again, I believe you understood my point, ignored it, and attempted to refute something I didn't say or even imply.
Do you realize that you tend to make harsh blanket statements with absolutely no proof presented in support of those statements? This is not an effective debating technique.
I have attempted to provide evidence in support of my position in the form of references to articles and books, and what reputable scientists are saying on the subject. You can accept or deny that evidence, but at least I presented it.
Btw, the theory is Intelligent design, not creationism.
Note: Btw is used here to inject a MINOR point of fact.
For a list of peer reviewed books and articles supporting the "so-called theory" of intelligent design go to the link below.
Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices".
Please read these articles. They are very revealing.
and
and
and
and
and
Dr Ken Poppe a 30 yr veteran science teacher, was forced to transfer to a different school because he simply mentioned in an elective class the fact that the intelligent design theory existed. This may have simply been the principals fear of the ACLU rather than intellectual dishonesty.
and
Consider the following excerpt from an article by Dr Jonathan Wells
The pro-Darwin bias in biology journals effectively excludes an alternative scientific theory such as intelligent design. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, pointed out in a 1996 book, Darwin?s Black Box, that some features of living things are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they function only when all of their parts are in place. Behe reasoned that such features could not have been assembled by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," as Darwin?s theory requires, since the intermediate steps would have been non-functional and thus could not have been favored by natural selection. According to Behe, irreducible complexity points to intelligent design, rather than Darwinian evolution.
Darwinian biologists have criticized Behe?s view in several peer-reviewed journals, including Nature, Trends in Ecology and Evolution and The Quarterly Review of Biology. Yet, peer-reviewed science journals have consistently refused to publish Behe?s responses to such criticisms. One journal editor, in refusing to publish one such response, cited a reviewer who wrote: "In this referee?s judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything useful to evolutionary science."
When Behe submitted an essay to another biology journal, the editor wrote back: "As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages." Since Behe?s essay dealt with evidence for his position (the hallmark of scientific reasoning), the phrase "other than scientific grounds" simply reflects the fact that for this journal, "science" is equated with "evolution."
So the rule is this: A theory such as intelligent design, that fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it can?t be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it?s not scientific because it hasn?t been published in peer-reviewed science journals. Catch-23!
Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California, Berkeley, and has published articles in several peer-reviewed science journals. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author of Icons of Evolution (2000)
In closing:
Evolution just didn't seem plausible to me, so I set out to see what I could learn about it since it wasn't even taught when I was in school. It turned out that there are quite a few reputable scientists who have the same doubts as I do. Wow, I didn't know that. Isn't the internet wonderful.
Some of those scientists attempts at publication have been suppressed or they have been intimidated into silence. This raised some red flags in my mind.
I also found out that evidence supporting evolution has been faked and even after discovery, was/is still in use in textbooks. Uh oh, more red flags.
I read irrational statements such the one made by Dr Wald and more red flags go up.
The ACLU is a staunch supporter of darwinism, maybe it's just their anti-religion bias showing through. In any case, more red flags! Ok, this is my world view showing, I admit it.
With so many red flags popping up, I have to think that there is something very very wrong here! What are these people so afraid of? Why do they go to such lengths to silence any opposition to their position? Why do they admit to the major problems with evolution yet still support it even to a dogmatic degree?
One has to wonder why this is.
I believe the reason is that darwinism is not a theory at all, but rather a dogma and some people will defend their beliefs to the bitter end using any means at their disposal. Creationism(not ID) on the other hand, is not and has never been touted as a scientific theory. Neither of these dogmas has been and probably never will be proved. The difference is that darwinists present their beliefs as scientific fact and creationists do not. Yes, it's a bit of a generalization, but for the most part a true statement. There are of course exceptions on both sides.
Mike
Prof David Albrooke - Univ of Australia evolution is "a time hononed tennant of faith."