www.evolutioniscool.com

lol

This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact. Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.
How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?
The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No! Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

Ahhh... sigh...

The point of science is it tries to grapple with new evidence and understand how to make sense of it in terms of existing theories. Then, if you can't make sense of it you come up with a new theory, which still agrees with all the old evidence and the new piece, just discovered.

Ahh... sigh indeed...

Dadeeo, what you're inferring is that the first theory is always the most correct, the most complete, and best there ever was or will be. Of course this is just not true. MycroftHolmz is correct in that, as science develops better more advanced techniques and ways of finding new and more detailed explanations, so must the theories develop and evolve to include the new and better information.

The Sun going around the Earth is a perfect example. From the first evidence, of course you would theorize that the Sun orbits the Earth, how else would you interpret the evidence, especially in light of the moon's own motion. Not until we developed better and more accurate scientific evidence was the truth about the relationship between the Sun and the Earth truly revealed, and so science adapted the theory in light of the new evidence.

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact. Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.
How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?
The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".
Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No! Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

I can only hope that this is a poor attempt at irony, because I am fed up with undereducated morons saying that evolution is only a theory. If theory's are constantly changing maybe you could name a few? How about Copernican theory (Earth goes round sun etc.) which has been accepted for century's, even the church does not bother to contest anymore it despite contradicting the Bible.

Does this video prove evolution? No, but no one is claiming so. It is one of thousands of pieces of evidence supporting evolution via natural selection. The point of the video is that it disproves the IDist claims that the eye is irreducibly complex.

Quick quick, I must finish and publish my paper about artificial neural networks crossed with genetic algorithm and online learning !

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact. How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors....Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

He's right, people. Jesus is in the mitochondria. That's the secret that scientists DON'T want you to know.

And the nuclear force is really the Holy Spirit.

How about Copernican theory (Earth goes round sun etc.) which has been accepted for century's, even the church does not bother to contest anymore it despite contradicting the Bible.

Not to sound cheeky, but can you kindly point out where the bible states that the Earth revolves around the Sun? I've heard this before and it piques my interest because I know of no such passage.

>> ^Kraz:
Not to sound cheeky, but can you kindly point out where the bible states that the Earth revolves around the Sun? I've heard this before and it piques my interest because I know of no such passage.

It doesn't say anything about it, which is why the first popes took the most recent and celebrated work on geography and cosmology at the time, that of Ptolemy, as the base of their temporal doctrine. Later some Aristotle was thrown in retroactively by Thomas Aquinas, on the epistemological level. To make an analogy, this means that if the Christ would have been born in the 17th century, the first popes would have used Newton's Laws of motion and gravitation. They would have then condemned Einstein as a Heretic for his special and general Relativity.

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact.

Theories explain known facts and predict (as yet) unknown facts. Theories are not facts, but their predictions can be taken as such until proven otherwise by experiments.

Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.

Accepted scientific theories are never "defunct": they are expanded, generalized, etc. For example, euclidean geometry still has good predictive value under certain circumstances, as when the surface you examine is sufficiently flat. So are Newton's Laws of motion a good appromixation when speeds are not near the speed of light. Pythagoras' theorem still holds and his divisions of the octave still divide the octave.

How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?

Scientists admit their errors all the time. Einstein admitted that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life. When they're stubborn, death makes their outdated views irrelevant, as with Einstein vs. Quantum mechanics. In religions, being dead makes you a Saint, and your opinions that of God himself (or close enough).

The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Wow, postmodernism at its 1st century's best! It's true that ultimate, absolute knowledge by observation is now thought to be impossible, but careful observation over many centuries has shown that those who don't learn can't know and are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No! Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

Maybe they don't prove anything, but they don't need to, since empirical science doesn't need and can't have "proofs" in the same sense as logic and mathematics. There are facts and theories that explain the particular facts. The theory that explains all of the particular facts and that is consistent with the greatest number of other accepted theories in other fields of knowledge, is said to be the most adequate. It is not impossible that new facts should reveal a hitherto less adequate theory to now be the most adequate &mdash it happens &mdash and sometimes two or more theories will seem equally adequate. But not all theories can fit the facts and be globally consistent. Of course, if you reject all of science or all of empirical science, then you may as well go live with the Amish, 'cause it's not God that gave anyone the knowledge required to build the computers we both used to transmit these electronic messages.

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact. Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.
How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?
The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".


Science is the constant, incrementally and iteratively tested "frontlines of human knowledge". Wiki "scientific method". Evolution happens to be an area that has been studied for over a hundred years, and there is, as would be expected, a coalescing of consensus. This is especially true for many (not all) of the basic tenants Darwin put forward. Mountains of evidence compel those who choose to look at it with an unbiased eye.

Religion is exactly what you have described, without the change part.



Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No!
Slow down. This tidbit counters a specific creationist "arguement" that is incorrectly touted to disprove evolution. The example they present is one small part of evolutions supporting evidence. Evidence that is holistically cohesive, verifiable and thus worth mentioning.

Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

Who is trying to disprove god? The video did not ever state such a claim. People have better things to do with their time.

It is true that God does become collateral damage if you intelligently interpret the observations presented in the video. Which you have seem to have done of your own accord.

(Disclaimer: if this is a joke post, I did suspect as much)

The following dissertation on the eye is lifted from Chapter VI, Volume 2 of The Quest for Right, a 7-book series on origins based on physical science:

Difficulties of the Theory. Although the eye is chosen as the category to be entertained, the investigation could have chosen any one of a hundred other theories promoted in On the Origin of Species. The relative point is that, if the eye had evolved through fine graduations or modifications, the proof must lie with numerous intermediate fossilized specimens which could be laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Nothing else will suffice, as the fossil record is all inclusive.

Darwin penned: “LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.” In other words, if one is to believe in evolution, he/she has to disregard the facts; specifically, the indisputable assertion that all species are well defined in the fossil record.

Darwin continued: “These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads [that is, distinct topics or categories]: …why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms [in the fossil record]? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? …In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected [for example, the eye], we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors [found only in the fossil record]; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral [parallel] descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.”

Unable to find a transitional species; for instance, discovering a tiny break in the skull of any one of the several thousand species, which transitioned through minute variations to a full blown socket for the eye, Darwin looked to parallel descendents: a horse descending from a tapir, etc.

By Darwin’s own admission, geologists had not been unable to uncover a transitional species: “Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head [the subject of the evolution of the eye]. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous [containing fossils] stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected…

He [the reader] who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades [as supported by the fossil record]. His reason ought to conquer his imagination [that is, belief in a Creator]; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case...”

It is a fact that Darwin attempted to overcome legitimate objections to his theory by doing a song and dance; that is, an elaborate explanation intended to mislead the reader and throw him/her off the path of the truth. For instance, instead of Darwin elaborating on how the eye could have been perfected while leaving no trace in the fossil record, he immediately began rambling about: the larva of the dragon-fly, the fish Cobites, fish with gills, swimbladder in fishes, branchiae and dorsal scales of Annelids, wings and wing-covers of insects, Pedunculated cirripedes, Balanidae or sessile cirripedes, neuter insects, rays, electric organs in fish, tail of the giraffe, the tail as the organ of locomotion in most aquatic animals, green woodpeckers, trailing bamboo, naked head on the skin of a vulture, savages, webbed feet of the upland goose, seal, sting of the bee, etc. The introduction of trivia, thrown up to block a difficult question, was a familiar song and dance routine throughout The Origin.

Darwin depended on the fact that, after taking two dozen or so detours of unrelated, yet, interesting tidbits of information the reader will have forgotten the head or category at hand. Said tidbits were also introduced in an attempt to prove that his wisdom could be trusted even above that of the Creator. And lest you have forgotten the head category at hand, it is mainly this: numerous intermediate fossil specimens must be discovered and laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Anything less would be unacceptable.

In Chapter X: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings, Darwin attempted to justify the lack of “numberless transitional links” found in the “same great formation.” The naturalist lamented that the lack of missing links to prove his theory was owing to an “extremely imperfect” fossil record:

1. that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care;
2. that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state;
3. that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation.”

Not desiring to be outmaneuvered by the Creator, Darwin attempted to interplay other theories to shore up his theory of evolution. For example, he called upon the important part that migration must have played as the various species escaped supposedly "oscillating continents" which arose from the depths of the sea only to sink again. In Darwin’s mind, vast continents bobbed up in down in the oceans, sinking and, thus, causing mass migrations and covering any transitional links with sediment. The drowned continents then bobbed back to the top to start the process all over again. In a final attempt at one-upmanship, Darwin supposed that the damaging missing links, which must number in the billions, may "lie buried under the ocean." Why else could they not be found in the fossil record to support his theory?

An arrogant Darwin showed his true colors when he suggested that the reader ought to strive to cast down a belief in a Creator and accept his theory even if there was no proof. Darwin had done just that; he had cast God and religion from his mind, stating that “it was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."

In summary, Darwin conceded that the fossil record of the time, the ultimate guide by which the theory of protracted graduation was to be judged, was adverse to his concept, but not without just cause: it was simply the result of an "imperfect," or incomplete, record. Darwin used the term “imperfect” as a crutch over a dozen times—one grows weary of reading it. Darwin's only hope of vindication was that one day intermediate links would be discovered.

Note: Every fossilized skull that has ever been unearthed possessed sockets for the eyes; there is no exception. Any trip to a museum proves the point.

>> ^Kraz:
How about Copernican theory (Earth goes round sun etc.) which has been accepted for century's, even the church does not bother to contest anymore it despite contradicting the Bible.
Not to sound cheeky, but can you kindly point out where the bible states that the Earth revolves around the Sun? I've heard this before and it piques my interest because I know of no such passage.


Most Bible passages used to support a geocentric universe state that the earth is stationary eg;
1 Chronicles 16:30 but a few also claim that the sun moved for instance god made the sun stop moving for a day until the Israelis had killed all there enemies in 1 Joshua 10:12-13.

Note: Every fossilized skull that has ever been unearthed possessed sockets for the eyes; there is no exception. Any trip to a museum proves the point.


CDavidParsons:
That's great. still doesn't prove evolution is wrong. Nowhere is it suggested that the skull evolved before the eye, in fact it's the other way around. So if the eye came first, of course there wouldn't be any skulls without sockets. I see you don't mention fossils with eyes that don't have skulls?

And can you guys stop using Darwin's theory and Darwin himself as the end all and be all for evolution? The theory of Evolution has grown and expended so far over the last HUNDRED YEARS that I'm not sure Darwin would've recognized it. again, to the whole point of this post, the first theory is NOT always the best or last. Science is ever changing, correcting, and improving; unlike any religion I know of.

>> ^CDavidParsons:
The following dissertation on the eye is lifted from Chapter VI, Volume 2 of The Quest for Right, a 7-book series on origins based on physical science:

I skimmed over your comment but as right of the bat you quote from a creationist and a rather biased text book I think I get the idea. For one it seems odd for a science text book to call Darwin arrogant but anyway.

One of the claims is that Darwin over played the fossil evidence in fact the opposite is true and now days most evidence is from molecular biology and other both points are in this piece by Pharyngula here.
Any other points you were trying to make should be condensed, my attention span is quite short.

Alright Dave, I will bite.

Before I read your comment I will give you some basic advise: keep it short. Make your points clear and outline them simply.

1. Delineate your thoughts and your points with 'returns'.
2. If you cite a source, leave a link.
3. Don't copy and paste without quotes.

This is an internet forum, and people like me have short attention spans. Make it easy for people to engage your comments and raise counter points. I am downvoting your comment for these reasons.

>> ^CDavidParsons:
The following dissertation on the eye...

Ladies and Gentlemen. I presume we have the real C. David Parsons in our midst. He is the author of 'The Quest for Right', a book which step by step rewrites every field of science, apparently.

so he quoted his own book series and he's calling Darwin arrogant?

affirmative ghost rider...

"He [the reader] who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades [as supported by the fossil record]."

Runon hellloooooo... Dave, you need a new editor. This is merely another example of one of a slew of poorly crafted and convoluted sentences that permeate your text. After writing several published papers and now a book chapter myself, I realise the trick is to keep it simple. A text isn't done when there is nothing left to add; it is finished when there is nothing left to take out. Sentences should be simple, and each should convey one or two points. More importantly in scientific papers, journals, and books, it is quintessential that you establish logos by referencing existing peer reviewed literature.

You might be upset, but hopefully you see my points. I am trying to explain to you that in science there are rules. If you want to set creationism up as an alternative theory, or understand science through a biblical lens, then you are absolutely doing a disservice to your cause by not using rhetorical appeals. It is also a disservice to write poorly, which you do. Really, how can you expect people to learn your thoughts with such magnificently horrible writing?