Some Evidence Against Evolution

Neo-Darwinism is the description of a mechanism by which life, once in existance, can diversify into a large number of different life forms. It is not and has not been from Darwin's original statments in the "Origin of Species" a description of how life may have come into existance in the first place. It is taken as the starting point.So saying that it IS the explanation for the origin of life is streching into another area of scientific study which is closer to chemistry than biology.

Could you copy the part of your source that defines scientism. I have read a little on the subject and it has always followed the 2nd definition that I pulled from that dictionary.It seems your source is making up some new definition and, for some reason, taking one branch of science.As I understand it "scientism" is a description of an attitude that any individual may have. It is not particular to any branch of science and is not pervasive in any particular way to any one branch.Paleontology is only one branch of what you are worried about and is more interested in what happened than the theoretical details of how. You have rather a lot of different disciplines all jumbled up in your head.Your concern with paleontology, evolutionary theory and, I presume, physics and geology, is that the seem to be in conflict with your rather primative interpretation of the Bible. They can not be held responsible for your problems with that.

Well logidemic must be well hidden as it does not appear in the national cancer institute advanced search engine in the U.S. nor the cross cancer institute here in Alberta.Can you give us a reference to where you found this word Willowtree?

Individual scientists include or exclude God in their world view as they see fit. About 40% of scientists profess belief.They do not include it in their science for reasons that have been given in this forum again and again. Science is a process for learning about the universe around us. The natural world. It is not a process for learning anything about the suprenatural world.By the definition most people seem to use, God is explicitly not of this world. He is not testable in a way that science can use. Therefore it is not science or individual scientists which exclude Him. It is the basic definition of what God is that excludes Him.If you wish to make God an object that is subject to scientific scrutiny you may find yourself in disagreement with many (or most) theologins. Given the rather stringent rules for performing good science you may not want to do that nor may you like the results.Those scientists who do take God as the prime source for all things also believe that we learn about His methods by studying his handiwork. There has been, here and there, discussions of the idea of a prankster God. The only answer to this seems to be that "we just don't understand". In that case we may preface all scientific statements about what we conclude from this study of His handiwork with "God has, for mysterious reasons, made it appear that..." and go on from there. Eventually most folks might get tired of that and just take it that God did more than just make it "appear".

The problem is that it is clear that you haven't had ND101 yet. It is just down the hall. When you've covered that and some geology and physics then maybe you can make more statments about what science is and isn't and does and doesn't say.

Do you take this statement as being accurate?It seems to be saying that evolution has happened but that the mechanism proposed is wrong. Is that what you believe? That would be in strong conflict with almost everyone who calls themselves a creationist.Since he wishes to toss out the existing mechanism, could you elaborate on what mechanism is wants to replace it with?By the way, since I don't know much about ID and I suspect that you might be supporting that could you explain something?Just what, in detail, is being suggested? Is it that every so often God steps in and rearranges the genome of some animal to produce the big jump that can't be covered in small evolutionary steps? If so, isn't this right back to the multiple separate creations that were suggested at one time when it was recognized that the single one week of creation idea was not viable?Do you know how many of these are suggested? How can we tell them from the "normal" evolutionary changes that we know occur?Or are you against ID-type evolution too? If you're not then your thread title should have been something like "Some Evidence against the Neo-Darwinian ToE -- replacing it with the ID and ND ToE mix"

The irony being, of course, that every one of my horrendously 'logidemic' words is ready currency among anyone who knows a bit about evolution. Put any of them into Google and I guarantee that hundreds of sites will drop out.There's a difference between using the common words of a discipline and deliberate obscurantism. I hereby find Willow guilty of the latter.I am, incidentally, still awaiting Willow's actual replies to my posts. It seems he/she would rather change the subject.TTFN, DT

Willow, let's cut all this pseudointellectual crap. And leave religion (which I’m sure you’d rather discuss) on one side, for now.You demanded to know where all the fossils are that demonstrate human evolution. I have told you, and shown you some, and given you links to plenty more.You have claimed not to dispute the facts of science, only their interpretation. So bloody well do so. Present an argument as to why the scientific interpretation -- that humans and apes share a common ancestor -- is wrong.You might start by actually answering some of my questions. How about whether 'Turkana Boy', the fossil catalogued as KNM-WT 15000, is ape or human? I have given you a link so you can see it; I have explained why it is exactly the sort of thing that evolution predicts, and which creation denies can exist.You have lost my patience, and most of my good will. It’s time put up or shut up.[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-10-2003]

quote:

---

"what I said is neo- Darwinism 101"

---

Ever read Darwin? You know what topic he never discusses, except to occasionally say it's not his concern...The origin of life.So, referring to anything about the origin of life as "Darwinian" doesn't make much sense. Calling it "Neo-darwinian" doesn't work, either, as "Neo-darwinism" is simply the marriage of Darwinism and 20th century genetics, providing the proper mechanisms of inheritance for Darwinism.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-10-2003]

However, wouldn't this criticism apply to just about any field of endeavor? From experience, the more specialized a field the more esoteric the language - at least when practitioners speak amongst themselves. The accusation can apply to the gamut of specialties, from plumbers to computer programmers to cosmologists. In many truly modern cases - relatively "new" sciences like systematics or evolutionary ecology or exobiology - the jargon gets even farther from "common usage" because the practioners are actually making it up as they go along. For a probably familiar example, consider particle physics and quarks with color or humor. How about cosmology? I mean, just wtf does "brane" mean anyhow? Even my own, fairly prosaic field uses specialist terminology, like xeric habitats, cryptoturnover, metapopulation dynamics, etc.Paleontologists aren't any worse than the practitioners of any other discipline, with the exception of the sub-genre of systematists (who are some of the worst...). When they talk about bones, they are mostly using accepted terminology from anatomy, physiology, geology etc. Their naming conventions are latin, based almost entirely on a 300 year old classification system. I actually find them less cryptic, overall, than physicists or even "pure" geologists. If you try and follow one of the detailed geology threads on this board, you'll see what I mean.However, no scientists communicate "truths" in some kind of deliberately obscurantist secret language. They communicate amongst themselves in an idiom - call it a short hand - that describes tiny details or esoteric concepts through the use of specialist jargon. What's more, anyone - scientist or not - can learn what the terminology and jargon mean if they want to bother. That's quite a bit different from some kind of secret handshake or something used by people who are trying to hide what they're doing from the uninitiated.OTOH, I do think that more scientists should try and make the transition from their patois to "common language". Quite a few, including paleontologists like Gould and Leakey, have made the effort. There are an even larger number of science writers (like Zimmer, Quammen, Barlow, Weiner, etc) who have taken great pains to write in clear and accessible prose about what scientists - evolutionary biologists, ecologists, paleontologists, etc - are discovering and speculating. A number of very prominent scientists from other disciplines are also making an effort to communicate their ideas, findings and research to a general audience (like Diamond, Ehrlich, Knoll, Ridley, etc - is my life science bias showing here, or what?). The books are out there - all it takes is a bit of interest and a bit of reading. Creationists may believe (your words) this. That belief doesn't make the assertion true. Given that there are a large fraction of scientists, including paleontologists presumably, who are believers in some divine entity of one form or another, it would seem to render invalid your contention that science in general and paleontology in particular presuppose the non-existence of this entity. It is simply that science doesn't address things that are not natural or that don't conform to natural laws as we understand them. They don't say "it ain't", they simply say "I can't address the question". Science and scientists generally strive very hard to remain in the realms of the verifiable and empirically testable. When they stray, some other scientists will be more than happy (occasionally "gleefully" might be a better word) to point it out. Remember cold fusion? To lend validity to your criticism, you're going to have to document some specific cases where this bias colors the interpretation, or where paleontologists - or any other scientists - have used their field of expertise or the scientific journals in which they publish their findings in order to a) deny the existence of a divine entity OR b) transfer their "expertise from the field of paleontology TO the field of religion/divine."

quote:

---

I plainly told you where these words originate - from cancer researchers.

---

And I understand that's where you said you got them. But could you point me to a single place where they're used? I can point you to tens of thousands of papers on cancer research online, written at all levels of technical knowledge - from the actual researchers themselves down to articles written for laypeople. Please, could you give me an example of a single place where they use the words?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

A short while ago I did a Google serahc of Logidemic, and the only hit I got across the entire WWW was Willow's post on evcforum.I re-iterate my point that Willow is still constantly evading questions and challenges put to him and in return merely using this forum as a means to promulgate his beliefs. His evidence against evolution are the words of a discredited source, Milton, he has no answer for the evidence of evolution put to him and he continually resorts to spouting about conspirarcy theories.The latter conspiracy theories remind me of those theories made up by similar totalitarianisms in history in order to instill fear and give followers their "Nemisis".I am again totally impressed by the responses to Willow's posts and the discipline shown by those who post them. I thank the similarly minded people responsible for producing talkorigins.com: I owe a debt to those guys and gals for liberating my mind from the intellectual opression I experienced growing up as a Revivalist Christian.I still try hard to maintain a personal experience with a divine character, but this is clouded by the lies and thought control techniques I endured for 18 years and the subsequent dissillusionment.I am hoping by studying as much as I can about the world around me that one day I might also be able to help people escape this intellectual, and spiritual oppression. As I stated above though, it will take me some time to develop your levels of patience and tolerance (these fools stole my mind and soul for 18 years).I thank you all so much.I'd like to think that Willow might also be able to reconcile his religion with reality. He states that is still at school (?), but responds like my old wizzened church elders used to: which makes me very suspicious. I remember the feigned air of tolerance to questions, total avoidance (or appeals to faith) of difficult ones, constant descent into intellectually useless apologetics, and extraoridanry evasiveness. I still remember the uncomfortable smiles, the condescending tones and I especially remember how quick they were to anger, being "men of God" as they were.Willow, could you ever acknowledge the chance that you have also been lied to for so very long?

ASGARA : Thank you for giving me further opportunity to explain before you respond.Bluntly said, atheism is a penalty from God for continually denying Him. If a person persists in refusing to answer God's urge at some point He gives you a push toward non-belief."but I don't believe in the existence of a Creator/God " The Bible teaches that the reason you possess that belief is because God has removed your ability to know, want, or recognize Him as a penalty for rejecting Him. If you do indeed have any desire for God {only you know that} then God has not given up on you. Desire for God can only originate from Him.If a person TRULY does not care about God or His word or what He thinks of you then these are the characteristics of a person who has committed the unpardonable sin. That sin {whatever it is } results in the violator NOT CARING a rats ass about God because God has removed their "receiver" as His ultimate penalty for continually denying Him.God can be likened to an Eternal Transmitter and when you piss Him off He removes your ability to relate to Him - He removes your "receiver" just like a cable company takes back its box when you cancel their service.Atheists can believe and cite any reason they want for not believing that God exists, God in His word says that He keeps track of every time a person rejects Him and at some point He gives up on a person.
Contrary to traditional bad theology everyone does not get the same amount of chances. Only God knows how many chances any given person gets. This truth is symbolized in the O.T. where the dimensions of the Mercy Seat are given - conspicuously omitted is the depth of the seat which signifies that only God knows how much mercy He will grant a person. The risk of trifling with God is the fact that no one knows when your resistance will trigger His response of removing your receiver.Creationists say that every evolutionist who uses the evidence of evolution to say that God doesn't exist is already suffering the penalty of receiver removed - and this is our quarrel.Source of theology knowledge: Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D.Stanford University}

I learned of there existence and meaning from Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D.Stanford University}He used them in the exact context that I did. His ultimate point was that very few ordinary persons can understand the complicated claims and evidence of science. This gives opportunity for scientists to intermingle there starting bias {atheism} into their evidence which the ordinary man will take their word on because of their lofty stature in life.

This will be the 17th post since Willowtree last posted. Can I assume he/she has given up trying to impress us with jargon that has no reference in any check throughout the entire web? I believe that they are trying to get some kind of handle on how to approach the level of understanding of evolution that this site has to offer. I am of the distinct impression that they have never had to put this level of effort into arguing their stance on the issue.
I do hope they are able to allow their ego to relax enough that they do not miss the chance to learn new things while at the same time maybe to let go of what they had been led to believe were the facts.