Science is Dogma...

[revelarts]

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MQeNgocaoDQ?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>




Richard Dawkins said: "…it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.*"...
"What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists....
It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene – a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something – unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.*"

..........
"For 40 years, ever since Susumu Ohno introduced the term in 1972, they have been waving ‘junk DNA’ in the face of creationists, asking why their Creator God would have produced DNA with only 5% that had any function. Now they know, or are beginning to find out, that it wasn’t that it was without function, but simply that they knew too little about it to be aware of what it did. In fact this mirrors exactly the blunder they made 100 years ago or so, when they claimed over 100 human organs were vestigial: remnants of our evolutionary past that were no longer functional. They were wrong with vestigial organs 100 years ago, and they have been wrong for the past 40 years with junk DNA. Will they never learn?"

And here's something to consider,
the fact that scientist ASSUMED evolution is true and they EXPECT to find junk, that somethings are NOT going to be needed because evolution MEANS you have evidence of tranformation of purpose of parts over time. BUT honest "discovery" of the lack of useless parts and DNA is MORE evidence of a designer. Not of accidental change over time by environmental pressures.
the belief of evolution has slowed the progress of real science here. It closed the mind to what continually being revealed by research. that biology at every level appears designed and the parts of every organism have current functions and purpose.

[Noir]

I'd go so far as to say there are no scientific dogmas (dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.)

There are a few Mathematical Dogmas, but they are logically underpinned, and at the very least are as true as anything can ever said to be true. The rest is carved and woven by constant hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation....

[revelarts]

I'd go so far as to say there are no scientific dogmas (dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.)

There are a few Mathematical Dogmas, but they are logically underpinned, and at the very least are as true as anything can ever said to be true. The rest is carved and woven by constant hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation....

So, chemicals to microbes to man evolution is NOT 'incontrovertibly true', correct?
And is open to question, right?

[Noir]

So, chemicals to microbes to man evolution is NOT 'incontrovertibly true', correct? And is open to question, right?

Ofcourse its open to question. The theory of evolution can be challenged just as easily as the theory of gravity, or electromagnetism etc.

As Tim Minchin once quipped "They always say "But evolution is only a theory!&rdquo;, which is true, it is a theory, it&rsquo;s good that they say that, I think, it gives you hope, doesn&rsquo;t it? Hope that maybe they feel the same way about the theory of gravity&hellip; and they might just float the fuck away."

[revelarts]

Ofcourse its open to question. The theory of evolution can be challenged just as easily as the theory of gravity, or electromagnetism etc.

As Tim Minchin once quipped "They always say "But evolution is only a theory!”, which is true, it is a theory, it’s good that they say that, I think, it gives you hope, doesn’t it? Hope that maybe they feel the same way about the theory of gravity… and they might just float the fuck away."

Ok so with gravity we can test it and verify TODAY. We can do experiments and measure it repeat it TODAY. and showing something floating we could start to question the theory of gravity. but we can empirically see and measure gravity in full operation TODAY. even if the theory might need adjustment IF items began to float.
With evolution however
can you SHOW ME chemicals becoming alive experimentally? the answer is NO.
can you SHOW me a single celled Microbe transforming and gaining the molecular information to create a human, or even an slug. the answer is NO.
to compare the theory of Gravity and electromagnetism with evolution is doing disservice to them.
they are measurable experimentally verifiable repeatable.
where as evolution is speculative, psudo-historical and depend on a bunch of unverifiable stories and assumptions about events imagined in the deep past, and imagined creatures assumed to have lived, and ideas that often change to suit what ever data come ups while ignoring data that blows holes into it as big as Texas.
some scientific theories have much less going for them than others Noir . evolution is a piss poor theory and it doesn't get points just because other theories are sound. It has to stand on it's own legs, which it can not.

[Noir]

Ok so with gravity we can test it and verify TODAY. We can do experiments and measure it repeat it TODAY. and showing something floating we could start to question the theory of gravity. but we can empirically see and measure gravity in full operation TODAY. even if the theory might need adjustment IF items began to float. With evolution however can you SHOW ME chemicals becoming alive experimentally? the answer is NO. can you SHOW me a single celled Microbe transforming and gaining the molecular information to create a human, or even an slug. the answer is NO. to compare the theory of Gravity and electromagnetism with evolution is doing disservice to them. they are measurable experimentally verifiable repeatable. where as evolution is speculative, psudo-historical and depend on a bunch of unverifiable stories and assumptions about events imagined in the deep past, and imagined creatures assumed to have lived, and ideas that often change to suit what ever data come ups while ignoring data that blows holes into it as big as Texas. some scientific theories have much less going for them than others Noir . evolution is a piss poor theory and it doesn't get points just because other theories are sound. It has to stand on it's own legs, which it can not.

You can only test gravity after you make a huge wave of assumptions and speculations, and indeed these assumptions totally break down when it comes to quantum mechanics, and the physics of the singularity etc, and if you ask a scientist to explain magnetism and how a particle can create and permeate its own field, but only in certain circumstances, your answer will not be one of certainty at all.

That is not to say any of these are bad theories, they're the best we have, and getting better all the time, but saying something as daft as 'if items begin to float' is the real disservice.

[revelarts]

You can only test gravity after you make a huge wave of assumptions and speculations, and indeed these assumptions totally break down when it comes to quantum mechanics, and the physics of the singularity etc, and if you ask a scientist to explain magnetism and how a particle can create and permeate its own field, but only in certain circumstances, your answer will not be one of certainty at all.

That is not to say any of these are bad theories, they're the best we have, and getting better all the time, but saying something as daft as 'if items begin to float' is the real disservice.

floating was suggested in your quote, i just ran with it.

and it does apply in the abstract sense i meant it, because again a Law or a theory of science is subject to TESTING.
yes theories have assumptions but those are still being experimental tested.
While evolution is not base on testing so much as it's largely speculation based on fossils (which don't support it) and guess work on imagined relationships (that have no solid experimental base) and assumptions of unknown and unseen biological processes in supposed deep time. And other assumptions in biology and botany (many proven thread bare or false).
Saying "it's the best we have" is not an excuse why it shouldn't be rejected out of hand. Since there's plenty of evidence that falsifies the theory OUTRIGHT at several points.


if you want to compare evolution to other scientific theories, try one like the theory of spontaneous generation. Scientist used to believe it as well, but when experiments were done that disproved it, the scientific community slowly accepted the fact. Chemicals to man Evolution is similar to THAT defunct scientific Theory, not to the theories of gravity and the like.

abiogenesis is so far outside of scientific possibility that Fransis Crick proposed and Richard Dawkins allows for the idea of Extraterrestrials seeding the earth some time in the distant past as a solution to how life began here.
Dawkins added that, but abiogenesis of course happened ...sometime ... somewhere in space... somehow.

now that's DAFT, and a true disservice to the concept of a serious scientific theory.

[pete311]

if you want to compare evolution to other scientific theories, try one like the theory of spontaneous generation. Scientist used to believe it as well, but when experiments were done that disproved it, the scientific community slowly accepted the fact. Chemicals to man Evolution is similar to THAT defunct scientific Theory, not to the theories of gravity and the like.

Wonderful, that is how science works. Right now, there is not one experiment or observation that disproves evolution. Find one and you win the nobel prize. All you do is find gaps which we will eventually fill in (and do every year).

[Missileman]

if you want to compare evolution to other scientific theories, try one like the theory of spontaneous generation. Scientist used to believe it as well, but when experiments were done that disproved it, the scientific community slowly accepted the fact. Chemicals to man Evolution is similar to THAT defunct scientific Theory, not to the theories of gravity and the like.
.

There isn't even a slight similarity between spontaneous generation and evolution. However, there is a very strong resemblance between your post and this guy...

[revelarts]

Breaking the evolutionary Dogma just a bit.

the 3rd Way: Neo-Darwinism... inconsistent with empirical evidence

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Twenty highly-credentialed anti-creationists scientist have created the The Third Way forum. They explicitly acknowledge that neo-Darwinism and its natural selection cannot account for the diversity of life. These scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like MIT, Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton and others.

the 3rd way[/B]]...The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. (dogma?) There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.

...The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations...

As Creationist have been pointing out for decades.

So here we go,
the public face of Scientific consensus on evolution is beginning to crack after decades of scholarly admissions that refute the basic premises of Evolution.

random mutations and natural selection CAN NOT produce the changes we see in the various living organism.

It is scientifically impossible for Random Mutation + Natural Selection to produce any life or evolve any new species, organs or NEW features. And more basically there's no known scientific mechanism for materialism to produce life even in 100 billion years.

It takes new INFORMATION to produce new features and there's NOTHING in nature that adds complex information to create an integrated eye, muscle, brain cell, etc. and there ARE NO transitional legs or eyes or livers in the fossil record. they all basically appear FULLY formed and functional.

the obvious conclusion is that SOME Intelligence loaded information into the living systems we see. There is NO other known source in the universe for complex information than Intelligence. period.However since atheist can't have.... that, BUT they are realizing that they HAVE TO begin admitting that evolution as explained to school children and PBS audiences everyday is impotent, They are LOOKING FOR a "3rd way" not the evolution that many here have tried to defend. Because that ain't gonna work. just as creationist have been saying for decades. But folks still don't want to embrace creation.

"There MUST BE SOME OTHER WAY! oh God help us.. uh oopps.. um.. forces of nature guide us to get a new idea we can pass off to the public so we can be 'intellectually fulfilled atheist' (Dawkins) still, amen."

evolution is dead.
most folks just don't know it yet, or just won't "believe" it.

Soo here's what they're tossing out as an options since they now KNOW that random mutation and Natural selection won't cover it.

....We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.

Genomes merge, shrink and grow, acquire new DNA components, and modify their structures by well-documented cellular and biochemical processes....

well documented? but you can't come to a consensus on the process. why? Maybe because the evidence does not show how the information that the DNA and RNA use arose from those processes. but only explains what it does with the info it already has from ...some where.
If someone can show me mistaken please do point to the process asserted by ANYONE that explains where the information came from on a molecular level that would define the growth of the billions of different living parts and integrated body systems.

...The goal is to focus attention on the molecular and cellular processes which produce novelty without divine interventions or sheer luck. (HA!) Evolution is a complex subject, and projections and hypotheses will need to be based on documented empirical results...

Empirical results? in evolutionary science? you mean a good story is not good enough? So just SAYING that whales evolved withOUT solid evidence is NOT good enough? Just saying that birds came from dinosaurs and putting feathers on old ratty dinosaurs displays is not enough?
Empirical results you say? hmm. OK that does seem more scientific i guess.
But they still are ASSUMING Evolution Rather than following the evidence where it takes you.

in a murder case if your main evidence for one killer falls apart completely you don't just assume you STILL DO have the right killer but you were ONLY mistaken on the, method, weapon, time and motives so you PRESS on with the investigation. If your honest, you accept all the evidence and move in the direction it leads.
Ah, but that's Criminal science, this is EVOLUTIONARY "science" it's suppose to be circular i suppose.

Look, to still ASSUME that evolution is true somehow in the face of the fact that they already KNOW that it's proven empirically impossible is just denial. And not science at it's best. It's better than before by a bit, but they're not really "OPEN". They are just trying ti find away out of the box God has placed them in.

[revelarts]

All of the new approaches they assert still have the same hurdles to jump.

-the random unguided process, if it's guided it's guided by information which they have to account for.

-the problem of negative effects, one option promoted is virus transfers of dna parts, yet the virus bring death and illness to the creature and is again unguided so, FAIL.

-one option they toss around is a version of the old hopeful monster Idea. That is new creators being formed by popping outta nowhere. like a lizard laying a chicken egg. or a slug metamorphosing into another insect never to change back. do they have evidence of this? no. just "theory".

[Gunny]

All of the new approaches they assert still have the same hurdles to jump.

-the random unguided process, if it's guided it's guided by information which they have to account for.

-the problem of negative effects, one option promoted is virus transfers of dna parts, yet the virus bring death and illness to the creature and is again unguided so, FAIL.

-one option they toss around is a version of the old hopeful monster Idea. That is new creators being formed by popping outta nowhere. like a lizard laying a chicken egg. or a slug metamorphosing into another insect never to change back. do they have evidence of this? no. just "theory".

Here's an idea for you to toss around. I've watched these science vs God threads for years. And you'll have to excuse me if this has been covered, I got tired of reading once the insults started.

Science as a set of physical laws and principles is what it is. There's no denying that. Man's ability to explain the world in which Man lives. I'm fine n dandy with THAT.

But you can't explain God. Scientific THEORY tries to explain Him away, but what's the difference between scientific theory and creationism? Most scientific theory is crap. Guesswork.

On the the other hand, every bit of life is perfect. The only thing that intervenes in that is Man. But it "just happened"? Out of the entire universe, we just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Some primordial ooze turned into us. That would be the entire universe that is infinite yet expanding, right?

We're no accident and nothing scientific theory has to say is going to explain THAT fact away.

[revelarts]

Here's an idea for you to toss around. I've watched these science vs God threads for years. And you'll have to excuse me if this has been covered, I got tired of reading once the insults started.

Science as a set of physical laws and principles is what it is. There's no denying that. Man's ability to explain the world in which Man lives. I'm fine n dandy with THAT.

But you can't explain God. Scientific THEORY tries to explain Him away, but what's the difference between scientific theory and creationism? Most scientific theory is crap. Guesswork.

On the the other hand, every bit of life is perfect. The only thing that intervenes in that is Man. But it "just happened"? Out of the entire universe, we just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Some primordial ooze turned into us. That would be the entire universe that is infinite yet expanding, right?

We're no accident and nothing scientific theory has to say is going to explain THAT fact away.

Gunny, I'm not sure I see exactly where you're coming from.
But I think i'd agree with a lot that .

[tailfins]

Gunny, I'm not sure I see exactly where you're coming from.
But I think i'd agree with a lot that .

Welcome back, Rev.

[revelarts]

University Silences Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery

because science is NOT dogma?

Quote:

07/23/2014 ​Los Angeles, CA—A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings. Pacific Justice Institute filed suit, yesterday, with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, against the board of trustees of CSU, Northridge, citing discrimination for perceived religious views. "Terminating an employee because of their religious views is completely inappropriate and illegal," commented Brad Dacus, President of PJI. "But doing so in an attempt to silence scientific speech at a public university is even more alarming. This should be a wakeup call and warning to the entire world of academia," he continued. While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago. According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!" Armitage, a published scientist of over 30 years, was subsequently let go after CSUN abruptly claimed his appointment at the university of 38 months had been temporary, and claimed a lack of funding for his position. This was news to him, and contradicted prior statements and documents from the university. Michael Peffer, staff attorney with PJI's southern California office said, "It has become apparent that 'diversity' and 'intellectual curiosity,' so often touted as hallmarks of a university education, do not apply to those with a religious point of view. This suit was filed, in part, to vindicate those ideals." - See more at: University Silences Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery - Pacific Justice Institute - Defending Faith, Family, and Other Civil Liberties

Quote:

foxnews Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs A California university says it is investigating religious discrimination allegations made by a prominent scientist and former employee who claims he was fired for his creationist beliefs. Mark Armitage, a scientist and evangelical Christian, claims he was fired from his job as a lab technician at California State University at Northridge because he published an academic paper which appeared to support his creationist views, according to a lawsuit filed last week. Armitage, who does not believe in evolution, was lauded by his colleagues and the science community after he discovered in 2012 the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Mont. Upon further examination of the fossils under a high-powered microscope, Armitage made a stunning find -- soft tissue inside the triceratops horn with bone cells, or osteocytes, that looked alive. Scientists who study dinosaurs have long believed that triceratops existed some 68 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago. Armitage's finding, however, challenged that assertion. He argued the triceratops must be much younger or else those cells would have "decayed into nothingness," according to the July 22 lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Armitage, a long-time microscope scientist who has some 30 published papers to his name, believes the bones are no more than 4,000 years old -- a hypothesis that supports his view that such dinosaurs roamed the Earth relatively recently and that the planet is young. On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position. According to Armitage's attorneys, the university claimed his 38-month employment had been "temporary" and that there was a lack of funding for his position. Armitage, however, claims he was called "permanent part-time" and allowed the full benefits package offered by the university. The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!" The complaint also claims that Armitage's creationist view was known to members of the university's biology department prior to his employment. When Armitage applied and interviewed for the position, he "informed the panel of CSUN personnel who interviewed him" that he "had published materials supportive of creationism," according to the complaint. "Because of plaintiff's exceptional qualifications, these publications did not disqualify him from the position," the lawsuit says. Lawyers with the Pacific Justice Institute, who represent Armitage, claim Kwok was not among those who hired his client and came on as his new supervisor when Armitage's old boss retired in June 2012. Neither Armitage nor Kwok were able to speak about the matter due to pending litigation. Jeff Noblitt, a university spokesman, told FoxNews.com that the school is in the process of investigating all allegations within the complaint. Though Noblitt would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said the university, "strictly forbids discrimination on the basis of religion and we do not base employment-related decisions on an employee's religious beliefs." "We have a long history of welcoming a diversity of perspectives and championing free thought and discovery within our academic environment," he said. Noblitt noted that Armitage served as an instructional support technician and was considered a "temporary employee." He declined to provide a reason for Armitage's termination. The discovery of soft tissue cells within dinosaur remains is controversial. When soft tissue was found in 2005 on the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex -- believed to be 68 million years old -- researchers last November provided a physical explanation for it: iron within the dinosaur's body had preserved the tissue from decay. FoxNews.com's Cristina Corbin contributed to this report. Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs | Fox News

audio interview

http://kgov.com/files/audio/bel/2014...905-BEL178.mp3