There is no proof for evolution, there is only the appearance of a proof. I find it extremely interesting, for example, that Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils that produce actual soft tissue remnants could possibly be 60 160 million years old. The idea is utterly preposterous given the timelines of evolution but there you have it: soft tissue has indeed been found in the thigh bones of T-Rex. I could care less whether the world is 5 billion years old or 300,000 years old but I do think that any scientist worth his or her salt would question the common timelines of evolution with the discovery of soft tissue in T-Rex bones. Have you heard a peep in this direction? Of course not.
Epistemology relates to the science of knowledge, specifically how you know anything. Modern day evolutionists embrace a radical uncertainty principle when it comes to morality but when it comes to their beliefs, there is no uncertainty whatsoever. The religion of evolution is NEVER to be questioned. If we know anything, we know that soft tissue cannot possibly survive the timelines indicated by evolution. The timelines may have to be re-thought based on the kind of hard evidence that is now being discovered in fossils previously found and shelved, but don’t expect it to come from the pro-evolution crowd, which can’t stand any evidence to the contrary when it comes to their religion. And what is their religion?-- the most magnificent fairy tale every concocted: that everything in the universe happened accidentally–that there is no organizing principle in a universe that is obviously highly organized.
Life operates in actual opposition to the laws of thermodynamics. It winds things up and nobody, absolutely nobody can figure out why. Life and the principles of life seem to have escaped the academic boneheads who ignore the most astonishing thing of all–that they don’t know how life really works, that they don’t know where the energy of life comes from and they have no idea as to why the cellular mechanisms that control the appearances of life cannot be manipulated to produce life in a test tube. No scientist has ever created life from scratch because what it is conveniently ignored is that to manipulate life is not to create it. They are looking in the wrong places. They are like savages examining a television set who try to reach into the screen to extract the images by hand. Without a concept of broadcast and reception, scientists keep playing with the receiver, like hottentots, never looking for or conceiving of a broadcast mechanism. Perhaps a Farside cartoon is in order.
4 comments:
Where's the evidence? Have you never heard of a link? I've never heard this soft tissue stuff, so it sure would help if you linked to something so I can read more about what you're talking about. But I guess this post was only written for people who already think you're right, so you don't need to bother with facts or evidence or anything.
But I went ahead and did a search on this and found this story from 2005. It says the thighbone is 70 million years old and that the tissue was found when they were forced to break the extremely dense thighbone, and that it's likely they'd find more soft tissue inside certain bones, were they to break them open. And that calls into question your entire post, but I guess that's yet another of those pesky dots that don't need to be connected.
Secondly, how can you say that evolution can't be questioned? Scientists do it all the time, which is why the Theory of Evolution continues evolving, and why different scientists have different theories regarding the specifics of it. That's how this is supposed to work. Creationists often poke holes in Darwin's old theory, yet he'd be considered quite ignorant by modern scientific standards. Science is always about questioning theories to learn more.
Finally, the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of life or the origins of the universe. The fact that you conflate all three ideas together is some indication that you are entirely ignorant about any of these three fields of study. This is like asking why baseball players don't score more touchdowns. They're not related subjects. I repeat, these are not related subjects. Evolutionists do not need to explain the origin of life or the universe, because they are not related subjects.
Perhaps you enjoy arguing religion with people entirely ignorant of the subject, but I've always found it better to learn about things before talking about them. I know, that takes time, but it sure beats looking like an idiot, and on your own blog, no less. And then once you're done, you can get back to connecting the dots that you were too busy to learn in the first place.
Man, you sure don't know what you're talking about.
Science has to do with things you can prove, at least tentatively. We can prove that evolution has been going on for untold billions of years. Sure, there's always something that might not fit; something could pop up anytime that would show evolution in a different light. But the underlying premise is as sound as anything can be in this tentative world.
As for the "organizing principla" you write that we lack when it comes to understanding the history of the universe, well, there are all kinds of "organizing principles" and they're called "scientific laws". I think what you're complaining about is not that science hasn't come up with "organizing principles" but rather that scientists aren't talking about God. Intelligent design, I know, that's what you people you're writing to call it. But whether God had a hand in setting the universe going, and in keeping it running smoothly is most emphatically NOT science, it's theology. You can't prove or disprove God's hand in the universe, and thus, the question is not a scientific one.
For the record, I am a devout, but liberal Protestant Christian, and I take my faith seriously; that's why I don't want God dragged into science: it ruins any chance of objective inquiry, which we need for science to work, and it screws up religion, by turning it into highly emotionally charged fight (Do you believe in evolution? Yes? Then you're a bad Christian! Should schools teach intelligent design? No? Then you're a bad Christian!), and dragging it away from moral questions and things having to do with how we lead our lives.
A lot of conservative, fundamental Christians have been using this tactic for years. It's easier to get people to follow you if you charge things up this way than it is if you ask them to help the poor and all that other wimpy, unmanly, Jesus-y stuff.
So keep your religion out of science, please.
What on earth does this mean?
"and that it's likely they'd find more soft tissue inside certain bones, were they to break them open. And that calls into question your entire post, but I guess that's yet another of those pesky dots that don't need to be connected."
This is one of the most disconnected thought patterns I have encountered in awhile. I have no idea as to what sort of conclusion you are reaching for or why. The fact that you hadn't previously heard about soft tissue being found in T-REX fossils suggests that the issue may not have been given the attention it should have by the scientific community. There is simply no way that soft tissue could survive for 70 million years by all known standards for fossilization. Ergo, there MAY be something wrong with the timelines but if anyone raises this issue they get tarred an feathered with creationism or poor science. Ask yourself why you want to believe in evolution.
Evolution is in fact an accounting of the origins of life. Scientists may play a kind of sleight of hand by saying that they are only accounting for the process precipitated by mutation and natural selection but Stephen Jay Gould, a noted proponent of evolution has stated publically that evolution disproves the existence of God. How scientfic is that? The fact of the matter is that people conflate meaning all the time and the biggest conflation of meaning that all liberals conveniently ignore is that if there is a God directly responsible for the process of evolution or the creation of new life forms (not their appearance) then that God might have some moral claim on mens' minds.
Scientists use evolution all the time to disprove creationism--that isn't science--that is opinion. I personally don't give a shit whether or not the universe was created in a few days or over a 9 billion year period. What I object to is type of closed mindedness that tries to divorce wholesome inquiry from science. Yes, intelligent design is not pure science but it is something that science could take as a basis, a hypothesis for further speculation. You find what you look for.
The whole issue about teaching intelligent design in public school is a shibboleth. There is nothing wrong about teaching intelligent design as a historic theory. Any belief in God is a form of intelligent design and any investigation into the history of belief and culture must look at this issue, otherwise it is neither history nor factual. Likewise it is absolute foolishness not to teach religion as the history of ideas so that students might compare and evaluate issues. Render unto science what belongs to science and render to God what belongs to God.
Overall the issue of consistent blogs is a bit self serving. I have written and edited many books. I am not interested in presenting complete thoughts in a blog. I am more interested in baiting hooks and seeing what I catch.
"But I went ahead and did a search on this and found this story from 2005. It says the thighbone is 70 million years old and that the tissue was found when they were forced to break the extremely dense thighbone, and that it's likely they'd find more soft tissue inside certain bones, were they to break them open. And that calls into question your entire post, but I guess that's yet another of those pesky dots that don't need to be connected."
Oh this cracks me up.
"For the record, I am a devout, but liberal Protestant Christian, and I take my faith seriously; that's why I don't want God dragged into science: it ruins any chance of objective inquiry, which we need for science to work, and it screws up religion, by turning it into highly emotionally charged fight"
A devout liberal Protestant is a contradiction in terms from the point of view of orthodox Christianity. When you say you are liberal does that mean you support gay marriage and abortion? If so, shame on you. Anyone who might read the bible could only conclude that a man who claimed that if he looked upon another man's wife with lust "had already committed adultery" could hardly be thought of as supporting homosexuality or liberalized sexuality at all. As for abortion, did he not say, "suffer not the little one to come unto me. For he who corrupts one of these it would be better if he had a millstone put around his neck and drowned." Hadly the soothing words of liberalism but then it all goes back to the most famous liberal quotation of all time. "It depends on what you mean by is."
I agree that a relative separation between science and religion is necessary but an absolute separation is akin to a lobotomy. Einstein himself indicated that the passion of his life was knowing what the Old One (meaning God) thought.
Post a Comment