Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seriously? A Gallup poll of US beliefs is your support for beliefs outside US? Why not just admit you have no support and retract the assertion?See Gallup poll already posted
Nevertheless, the data behind big bang model was accepted, and you won't find any mainstream cosmologists who don't accept it.
This suggests that the scientific method wins out over even the amount reluctance you assert (although I think you're exaggerating it).
Just like the primeval atom used to be for most in academia- explicitly for it's overt theistic implications.
And Hoyle stuck to that position till his dying day in the 1980's.
'several' blatantly and outwardly complained about the theory not conforming with their atheist beliefs, i.e. did not even attempt a facade of being impartial in this regard- that's not to say others didn't have a similar opinion- the tendency among academics towards atheism, v everyone else, is hardly a controversial observation!
And actually he was pretty moderate compared to Eddington- who explicitly called the entire concept of a beginning 'repugnant'. 'repugnance' is not a terribly objective scientific measure of truth!
That would be the point, the majority preferred atheistic/materialistic implications. Lemaitre certainly had to put up with plenty 'atheistic/materialist distractions' but still went out of his way to take the scientific high road, to disassociate his theory with personal beliefs- even telling the Pope to knock it off with all the gloating!
Isn't that how a scientist should operate? But it is the exception rather than the rule unfortunately- and this example of atheism v science is not an isolated one.
I'm not trying to 'surreptitiously suggest' intelligent design here, I'm deliberately pointing out a common feature of intelligent design; an inbuilt capacity to adapt to different conditions.
sorry- can you rephrase?
still controlling color- but aside from the hierarchy problems,
the overwhelming majority of random errors are deleterious to the function of any design- and observations of life support this- we see fish losing sight, birds losing flight- it's very hard to see examples of anything gradually gaining useful adaptations- not just directly but in the fossil record also. and that was the observation of David Raup- Chicago Field Museum, one of the world's foremost paleontologists.
the few 'advantages' we do see appearing generally come from a loss of function, not a new feature- just as anyone can create a faster race car by throwing out the spare tire and back seat... This is what we see in the 'evolution' of bacteria strains also- increased resistance also means a generally less varied and hence ultimately less fit population that has reduced it's options- not increased them- nothing new has been created.
absolutely I agree, after some 60 years, & I am old enough that I had a physics teacher who still considered the big bang religious pseudoscience.
and I certainly believe Darwinism will go the same way as steady state and Newtonian physics
Irrelevant. A watch is always evidence for design, no matter how it was produced.
here is one from wiki:
say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?
Strictly speaking, it already has.... I certainly believe Darwinism will go the same way as steady state and Newtonian physics...
Dawkins is well aware of how Darwinism has moved on to the Modern Synthesis and from there to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and so-on - it's his specialist field. Don't confuse his pro-science, anti-religious public stance with his expertise in evolutionary theory.Academic and pop science authority is still dictated by the likes of Dawkins, who attended 'Oxbridge' in the early 60's and was immersed in the political and ideological positions of that time and place. The information age 'ultraviolet catastrophe' facing Darwinian evolution flies entirely above his head.- not that he is not intelligent, just from another era of scientific understanding
I do...As for "Darwinism", biology has already progressed beyond that during the 20th century. I don't know why you keep fixating on it.
Creationist trolls are so yesterday...No, but Darwinism ...'Darwinism' yes...synthesis of Darwinism
And there it is - proof positive that we are dealing with a standard creationist troll.Piltdown man was an absolute cornerstone of human evolution for several decades
You might want to actually learn about how these systems actually operate in DNA rather than simply ascribing human computer code error checking to it.including sophisticated parity bit error checking systems as found in DNA
Yes, I'm rapidly tiring of this mendacious quote-mining, cherry-picking, and exaggeration.And there it is - proof positive that we are dealing with a standard creationist troll.
Amazing how he linked to and quoted Wikipedia - yet clearly only read what he felt he needed to - for a few paragraphs down from his quote:
"From the outset, some scientists expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together". In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere."
Following your lead, I found him banging on about Dawkins and Fred Hoyle over a year and a half ago in much the same way as he's done here - to an equally critical reception...FYI - ya'll might want to Google this guy - he's been making the rounds of forums like this since at least 2014.
Came across a gem in which he presented a picture of a bunch of cars with his comment - "repeatedly observed accidentally morphing from one to another?"
And in that same thread, he claims:
"Again, I don't think you acquire significant morphological advantages by accident, certainly not all the way from a single cell to a human being through 'random copying errors' that's mathematically problematic."
Two people then ask him to show his math.
He replied:
"the math which proves the negative? prove it can't be done or it's true by default?!
I would appreciate it if you showed me the mathematical algorithm which actually successfully solves the problems & models the theory, we can do this for things like photosynthesis, nuclear fission, gravitational redshift, but not for things like astrology, global warming or Darwinian evolution, why not?
Nobody has exact figures on the rates of beneficial v deleterious random mutations, we just know that deleterious ones would (if entirely random) vastly exceed beneficial ones.
As Dawkins noted, evolution/genetics has largely become a branch of information technology "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal"
Unnecessarily verbose way that creationists say "I made it up."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?