X I bet Charles Darwin doesnt know that ;D
Printable View
X I bet Charles Darwin doesnt know that ;D
It's Darwin's bicentenary. That's why the programme got made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Why do you have an appendix?
KANSAS CITY, KS (KL News Service)— As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
Somebody sent me this, I didn't come up with it myself.
BBC iPlayer - Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
This is the programme. Can people not in Britain watch this or download it?
Fuck me, What Ive been working on the last ten years has been a waste of time. According to that. Has Nassa been informed ;D
haha it's pretty funny but is actually the kind of thing the media would like people to think creationists actually believe. Probably half the people reading that wouldn't even realise it was a joke as proponents of intelligent design get lampooned so much in the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
As for having an appendix, the idea that it is merely vestigial and useless has long since been discredited. It is part of the immune system and is active during pregnancy and the development of a featus. It's not a useless organ at all.
Also if none of our body parts should exist unless they are vital for life then explain to me why men have nipples?
When in our evolutionary past do you suppose that men were involved in suckling their young? I presume you must do as we have them and they are clearly vestigial as they serve no purpose in males. Yet no scientists believes that men used to suckle their young it's a silly idea, but becuase we have a coccyx it's used as evidence we once had a tail? :confused:
Nine mucscles attach to the coccyx it is a neccessary part of the human body.
These pieces of observational evidence are just ridiculous, a platypus has a duck's bill so it must have once been a bird right? What about a chameleon, they have hands that can grasp like ours, must be a relation right?
These bogus evolutionary pieces you put up just highlight a few chosen examples and ignore the rest. There are no vestigial organs in the human body, it's just an attempt by evolutionists to look for evidence to support evolution.
If gradual transitional evolution over millions of years actually occured the amount in vestigial and transitional organs and appendices in nature would be overwhelming. Likewise if random mutation within the DNA copying process led to new species of animals being created and creatures evolving into other things then both the fossil record and the modern world would be full of millions of examples.
They wouldn't need to find a prehistoric bird that had teeth and trump that as their best and pretty much only proof of a transitional fossil.
Kirkland, they only touched on some of the findings on the show it was information what was known ten years ago. They know more now as regards Human anatomy and Gravity as regards exercise. Plus teyve found practicaly all the missing Links.
Nikolay Valuev has been scientificaly verified to be totally human, he's no longer seen to be a missing link except in popular cultureQuote:
Originally Posted by Scrap
Nice one. That was worth the watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
The last 10mins, when he explained how everything came to be, makes it understandable why people like Bilbo get bothered by these programs.
I wonder how many years it will be - after we are long dead - that that program will be viewed as totally dated?
I've not watched it yet Fenster, what happened in the last 10 minutes?Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterNice one. That was worth the watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
The last 10mins, when he explained how everything came to be, makes it understandable why people like Bilbo get bothered by these programs.
I wonder how many years it will be - after we are long dead - that that program will be viewed as totally dated?
I just watched the last 10 mins now and you are right mate, I don't really like it all. The elements of evolutionary theory such as natural selection, speciation and the idea that animals change and adapt over time are indeed proven beyond doubt, and actually essential to creationist theory as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterNice one. That was worth the watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
The last 10mins, when he explained how everything came to be, makes it understandable why people like Bilbo get bothered by these programs.
I wonder how many years it will be - after we are long dead - that that program will be viewed as totally dated?
But the jump to macro evolution, and the wonderful story told in the last 10 minutes is sheer conjecture and mythology, not based on any empirical evidence.
An organism is basically like a computer program. The DNA within it allows for great variation and change within an organism, size, shape, colour, behaviour for example can all be modified to suit the enviroment just as Microsoft Windows can be personalised, user defined backgrounds, wallpaper, sounds, font sizes, disability features, the addition or removal of programs for example. You can taylor Windows to suit your needs and preferences but it will always be Windows, it cannot become Linux, or the latest GTA game as the coding required for that simply isn't containted within the windows program.
This is EXACTLY like life on this planet. A creature cannot do anything or evolve anything that wasn't already coded within its DNA to begin with. There is not a shred of factual evidence or a known hypothesis to substantiate this claim that entirely new information, like the instructions to build a wing can be added to the DNA of a dog for example over time.
So although all the ideas presented regarding evolution, natural selection, adaptation, the survival of the fittest etc are all excellent observations and have been documented to be true, this leap of faith into life spontaneously appearing 3.8 billion years ago and then evolving over millions of years into all the diversity of life we have today is just a belief system, a religious story and that's what I object to.
It's a religion that elevates nature to the level of a deity and fundamentally alters how we perceive our place on this world. I certainly don't say people arn't welcome to that belief and that it shouldn't be taught, by I really hate the way they can just indoctrinate like Attenborough did in the those last 10 minutes with his wonderful humanist creation story.
It was no different to presenting the Biblical story as fact, with Adam and Eve, the expulsion from the Garden, the coming flood, the rebuild, Tower of Babel, the dispersion of man over the whole earth, the creation of the state of Israel, the reign of Judges and Kings, the warnings of the prophets and the prediction of the Messiah, the exile into Babylon and the rebuilding of the temple etc. All wondeful stuff, but a faith based story nonetheless and so not presented on television as matters of historical fact.
Yet the humanists can present their own 'creation' myth with the full endorsment of science and thus as real truth.
People watch it and assume it's just the way things happened and that's indoctrination and mind control imo.
The alternatives and all the problems with evolutionary theory, the total lack of transitional fossils, the problem of polystrate fossils, the abscence of any method of getting new information in an organisms DNA via mutation or any other means etc just don't get discussed.
Ah well never mind, as you said yourself in 50 years they will be telling another story and they will use the fact that their story has changed completely as powerful evidence that science is constantly updating its methods and discoveries and therefore 'reliable and to be trusted' :rolleyes:
Your immune system will work fine and your pregnancy will be equaly OK if you don't have an appendix. Every baby develops nipples in the womb before they develop sexual characteristics and men can and have breastfed babies. The coccxy attaches the same way in other tail-bearing mammals too. It does absolutely nothing necessary in humans, like the appendix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbohaha it's pretty funny but is actually the kind of thing the media would like people to think creationists actually believe. Probably half the people reading that wouldn't even realise it was a joke as proponents of intelligent design get lampooned so much in the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
As for having an appendix, the idea that it is merely vestigial and useless has long since been discredited. It is part of the immune system and is active during pregnancy and the development of a featus. It's not a useless organ at all.
Also if none of our body parts should exist unless they are vital for life then explain to me why men have nipples?
When in our evolutionary past do you suppose that men were involved in suckling their young? I presume you must do as we have them and they are clearly vestigial as they serve no purpose in males. Yet no scientists believes that men used to suckle their young it's a silly idea, but becuase we have a coccyx it's used as evidence we once had a tail? :confused:
Nine mucscles attach to the coccyx it is a neccessary part of the human body.
These pieces of observational evidence are just ridiculous, a platypus has a duck's bill so it must have once been a bird right? What about a chameleon, they have hands that can grasp like ours, must be a relation right?
These bogus evolutionary pieces you put up just highlight a few chosen examples and ignore the rest. There are no vestigial organs in the human body, it's just an attempt by evolutionists to look for evidence to support evolution.
If gradual transitional evolution over millions of years actually occured the amount in vestigial and transitional organs and appendices in nature would be overwhelming. Likewise if random mutation within the DNA copying process led to new species of animals being created and creatures evolving into other things then both the fossil record and the modern world would be full of millions of examples.
They wouldn't need to find a prehistoric bird that had teeth and trump that as their best and pretty much only proof of a transitional fossil.
A platypus is half reptile, half mammal (roughly speaking.) A living example of a transitional species. Everything is related to everything else if you go back far enough.
There are hundreds of species, probably thousdands, that have organs of various sizes and shapes at various poits of their internal systems that currently don't do anything for them.
And mutation isn't random, we're learning more and more about how it happens all the time as you can see from the piece below. There are plenty of people in public office in America who are quoted saying equally dumb stuff to the parody article I posted. Your post is a level above that but still stuff nobody with a basic grasp of the subject would bring up. It's almost like you did a google search and found a bunch of stuff on one of those nutty creationist websites.
A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered that chains of proteins found in most living organisms act like adaptive machines, possessing the ability to control their own evolution.
The research, which appears to offer evidence of a hidden mechanism guiding the way biological organisms respond to the forces of natural selection, provides a new perspective on evolution, the scientists said.
The researchers -- Raj Chakrabarti, Herschel Rabitz, Stacey Springs and George McLendon -- made the discovery while carrying out experiments on proteins constituting the electron transport chain (ETC), a biochemical network essential for metabolism. A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.
"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. "Our new theory extends Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness."
The work also confirms an idea first floated in an 1858 essay by Alfred Wallace, who along with Charles Darwin co-discovered the theory of evolution. Wallace had suspected that certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner "exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident." In Wallace's time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices.
Princeton University - Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective