Happy bicentennial to two great men who changed the world! One changes the course of history for our union, the other our fundamental understanding of the natural world.

Darwin has promoted the worst science since alchemy, and probably the biggest waste of tax-payer dollars on research. All tautology and conjecture.
Even pro-evolution academics are catching on,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/scienc...wanted=all

Quote:Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity

And debunking evolutionary theory further,
http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2009/01/t...inism.html

(02-12-2009 11:17 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  Happy bicentennial to two great men who changed the world! One changes the course of history for our union, the other our fundamental understanding of the natural world.

Lincoln was one of the worst presidents in history. He presided over the deaths of 600,000 Americans. He trampled state's rights and individual liberty. He didn't free the slaves...any of them. The 13th amendment did that after he was dead. He was incredibly racist too. He said he would have kept the slaves as slaves if he could do it and keep the union together. Basically he was a tyrant, but his side won so they got to write history.

(02-12-2009 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/scienc...wanted=all

Pretty damning criticism, indeed.

Quote:Only when we fully acknowledge the subsequent century and a half of value added can we really appreciate both Darwin’s genius and the fact that evolution is life’s driving force, with or without Darwin.

These threads are a great litmus test for determining the value of different posters' opinions.

Interesting to read how Charles Darwin has been demonized. I guess if you can't beat them, make them evil.

(02-12-2009 12:42 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  Interesting to read how Charles Darwin has been demonized. I guess if you can't beat them, make them evil.

Oh get real .....

They have found everything from Testicles on Sperm to the 15th Planet in our Solar System ....

YET - - they have not been able to even hint upon a trace of Darwin's Missing Link.

Now why is that ??

That's what I thought.

.

(02-12-2009 12:42 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  Interesting to read how Charles Darwin has been demonized. I guess if you can't beat them, make them evil.

I have no idea what this means.

(02-12-2009 11:54 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-12-2009 11:17 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  Happy bicentennial to two great men who changed the world! One changes the course of history for our union, the other our fundamental understanding of the natural world.

Lincoln was one of the worst presidents in history. He presided over the deaths of 600,000 Americans. He trampled state's rights and individual liberty. He didn't free the slaves...any of them. The 13th amendment did that after he was dead. He was incredibly racist too. He said he would have kept the slaves as slaves if he could do it and keep the union together. Basically he was a tyrant, but his side won so they got to write history.

Total nonsense, Jack-a-nut. Lincoln's choice was to allow slavery on a state by state basis or abolish the owning of one human being by another. He died for his belief.

(02-12-2009 01:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-12-2009 12:42 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  Interesting to read how Charles Darwin has been demonized. I guess if you can't beat them, make them evil.

I have no idea what this means.

It is pretty much the underlying idea of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/scienc...wanted=all

The term "darwinism" has been given a negative conotation by those that feel offended by the theory of evolution. Since the publishing of Darwin's book the discoveries and research concerning evolution have moved the theory of evolution beyond his original ideas that the term "darwinism" doesn't really accurately describe modern evolutionary theory.

(02-12-2009 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Darwin has promoted the worst science since alchemy, and probably the biggest waste of tax-payer dollars on research. All tautology and conjecture.
Even pro-evolution academics are catching on,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/scienc...wanted=all

Quote:Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity

And debunking evolutionary theory further,
http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2009/01/t...inism.html

I'm curious what you'd think about an entire issue of Scientific American that talks about evolution - I think it's the February issue. Pretty large number of scientists in there, none of whom dispute Darwin's basic ideas, and although Darwin wasn't entirely correct about everything, what do you expect? The guy did his research over 100 years ago! Newton wasn't totally correct either. By and large, natural selection is a large part of evolution. Evolution can happen faster than Darwin thought. Big deal.

Why do we keep getting links to articles on science from business publications, instead of from science publications?

Funny how people, especially liberals, can believe in Darwinism in the animal planet, but not as it applies to humans. We have to prop up the "weak" ones while punishing those that are prosperous.

(02-12-2009 03:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm curious what you'd think about an entire issue of Scientific American that talks about evolution - I think it's the February issue. Pretty large number of scientists in there, none of whom dispute Darwin's basic ideas, and although Darwin wasn't entirely correct about everything, what do you expect? The guy did his research over 100 years ago! Newton wasn't totally correct either. By and large, natural selection is a large part of evolution. Evolution can happen faster than Darwin thought. Big deal.

Why do we keep getting links to articles on science from business publications, instead of from science publications?

Scientific American is far from honest on this subject, and I have conversed w/ them first hand. They have explicitly violated standard protocols in book reviews when they don't like the book. And frankly, when they started publishing Shermer regularly, I gave up on them. I like New Scientist and MIT Technology Review far better.

Anyway, there are big holes in current evolutionary theory...and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories...not for someone else to disprove them. The current approach lacks most of the rigor of accepted science...so the debate needs to be addressed by outside skeptics, b/c the internal review process has failed.

The real science is genetics (and genomics/proteomics) and it's a world ripe for discovery. Stop wasting resources on some meta-science topic like evolution.

(02-12-2009 03:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-12-2009 03:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm curious what you'd think about an entire issue of Scientific American that talks about evolution - I think it's the February issue. Pretty large number of scientists in there, none of whom dispute Darwin's basic ideas, and although Darwin wasn't entirely correct about everything, what do you expect? The guy did his research over 100 years ago! Newton wasn't totally correct either. By and large, natural selection is a large part of evolution. Evolution can happen faster than Darwin thought. Big deal.

Why do we keep getting links to articles on science from business publications, instead of from science publications?

Scientific American is far from honest on this subject, and I have conversed w/ them first hand. They have explicitly violated standard protocols in book reviews when they don't like the book. And frankly, when they started publishing Shermer regularly, I gave up on them. I like New Scientist and MIT Technology Review far better.

Anyway, there are big holes in current evolutionary theory...and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories...not for someone else to disprove them. The current approach lacks most of the rigor of accepted science...so the debate needs to be addressed by outside skeptics, b/c the internal review process has failed.

The real science is genetics (and genomics/proteomics) and it's a world ripe for discovery. Stop wasting resources on some meta-science topic like evolution.

I can't imagine they're worse than Newsweek and Investor's Business Daily. And how are they supposed to prove their theories without doing research on them?

(02-12-2009 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't imagine they're worse than Newsweek and Investor's Business Daily. And how are they supposed to prove their theories without doing research on them?

You got a spare time machine?

Evolution is meta-science...not science. A tired 19th C theory that despite what they say at the AIP, has not withstood the test of two centuries.

So what are you saying, that animals (and humans, and plants) don't evolve at all? Were we all created 3000 years ago?

(02-12-2009 04:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Evolution is meta-science...not science. A tired 19th C theory that despite what they say at the AIP, has not withstood the test of two centuries.

And the National Academy of Science, NSF, etc. Everybody is wrong except Mr. Behe.

(02-12-2009 03:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Anyway, there are big holes in current evolutionary theory...and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories...not for someone else to disprove them. The current approach lacks most of the rigor of accepted science...so the debate needs to be addressed by outside skeptics, b/c the internal review process has failed.

The holes that exist are continually being filled with additional research and discoveries. None of the holes is so big that it undermines the veracity of the theory such that it should be scrapped in favor of pseudoscience like intelligent design.

Skepticism is welcome. The skeptics will, of course, be held to the same scientific standards that everyone else is held to - a challenge which they have failed to meet in all encounters to date.

(02-12-2009 03:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I like New Scientist and MIT Technology Review far better.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/darwin-200

I guess you won't read New Scientist anymore.

Lincoln was a eloquent statesman,tyrant and murderer. I don't worship people that do harm to others.

Darwin's theory was brilliant, but it is still a theory yet proven. I believe eventually it will.