The Day the Music Died

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 16, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the age of on-line entertainment and instant information it was, perhaps, possible to live without knowing about the carnage going on around us, but the video of evolutionist Deborah Nucatola casually and callously explaining the crushing of innocent babies and harvesting their young bodies leaves us forever without excuse. Between gulps of red wine and bites of salad we learn that “a lot of people want liver” and that “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver …” We are also told how to play games with the law so the harvesting of human body parts can proceed efficiently: Read more

Comments

So you won’t attempt an answer.
I would have bet the ranch on that. :-)goodusername_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PST}

Zachriel Zachriel
Here’s a simple thought-experiment. There’s a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there’s the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save?
Irrelevant to the question of murder. Abortion is clearly murder.StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PST}

harry: Here is another thought experiment. So you won't attempt an answer. We're not justifying anything, but pointing out the obvious. You would turn towards the crying baby.Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PST}

harry: From time immemorial a pregnant woman was known to be “with child.” A common reference to "with child" is from Luke 2:5. However, the Greek word "egkuos" actually means swelling from within, and doesn't have an etymology related to child. Rather , it is a euphemism for pregnant. As for "with child",
Phrase with child "pregnant" (late 12c.) http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=child
Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PST}

Zachriel, Here is another thought experiment. Thousands of children are being brutally dismembered daily in our midst. Instead of acknowledging the horror, injustice and immorality of this reality, some people respond to it by coming up with stupid thought experiments in an incredibly feeble attempt to justify these atrocities. What do you choose to tell such people?harry_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST}

harry: From time immemorial a pregnant woman was known to be “with child.” Abortion has been known and practiced since time immemorial. (ETA: Consider that fornication was punishable by stoning even in the time of Jesus.) Different societies have had different traditions. One such tradition was waiting until seven days after birth to recognize the child. More recently, it was the time of 'quickening'. In the modern U.S., it's viability, but the state can regulate it before that point. harry: That common sense was the reason Americans outlawed abortion in the first place. American abortion laws coincided with modern medicine, which was largely under the control of men. harry: And don’t tell me taking the life of the child in the womb isn’t murder because it isn’t “unlawful” homicide since the U.S. Supreme Court “legalized” it. That wasn't our argument, but that most people don't consider a zygote to have the same moral value as a baby. Here's a simple thought-experiment. There's a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there's the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save?Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PST}

Zachriel,
Your are conflating abortion with murder. -- Zachriel Mur´der Pronunciation: mûr´d?rd n. 1. The offense of killing a human being with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied; intentional and unlawful homicide. The killing of their children had, in the account of God, the guilt of murder, as the offering them to idols had the guilt of idolatry. -- Locke -- http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Murder
From time immemorial a pregnant woman was known to be "with child." That is what pregnancy was called, being "with child." That common sense was the reason Americans outlawed abortion in the first place. You refuse to acknowledge there is such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong. You abuse language. All in attempt to defend the indefensible. And don't tell me taking the life of the child in the womb isn't murder because it isn't "unlawful" homicide since the U.S. Supreme Court "legalized" it. The killing of innocent, defenseless children cannot be made legal any more than the Earth can be made flat by judicial decree. This is because humanity precedes the state and brings it into existence. The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. It is humanity that bestows and withdraws the state's right to exist, not the reverse. Roe not only abruptly withdrew the protection of law from the most innocent and defenseless among us, it withdrew civilization from humanity, returning us to barbarism, where the powerful trample upon the powerless. Caesar can only pretend to legitimize this. Only fools will be fooled by this.harry_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: Those should not be considered part of the ‘spontaneous’ miscarriage since they’re chemically induced. So, I wonder if that factors into the 50% number. No. The studies are women who are open to fertility and sexually active.Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PST}

Zach
Huh? Are you referring to birth control that may prevent implantation?
Those should not be considered part of the 'spontaneous' miscarriage since they're chemically induced. So, I wonder if that factors into the 50% number.Silver Asiatic_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PST}

Dr. JDD
Us Westeners like to think we are so civil and moral, judge the harsh penal systems of Muslim countries for example whilst we happily allow and proactively support the murders of millions of innocents every year.
Right you are. It is so easy to lament the sins of others while we wallow in our own. Islamists murder infidels in the name of God; secularists murder babies in the name of self.StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PST}

Zachriel
It’s difficult to detect fertilization in humans, for obvious reasons, and various studies have found pregnancy loss to be anywhere from 30% to over 50%.
So far, that seems to be correct. Stay tuned.StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PST}

SB: Based on my ongoing research and your continuing input, I would say that the miscarriage rates are 10-20% [known pregnancy] and 30-50% [from conception to the end]. Zachriel
Which is consistent with our original statement.
I agree. I was using numbers based on known pregnancies. You were using numbers based on known pregnancies and unknown pregnancies. At this point, I am waiting for a final answer from someone who is directly involved in the research.StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST}

StephenB: neither of which supports the claims that you and Zachriel are making, namely that 50% or more of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. It's difficult to detect fertilization in humans, for obvious reasons, and various studies have found pregnancy loss to be anywhere from 30% to over 50%. That's why our statement was phrased as "up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion". In any case, even if we accept that about one in four conceptions are lost without notice on the part of the woman, there's an incongruity. When someone dies, people make great efforts to recover and respectfully dispose of the remains — not so with the one in four conceptions that are naturally lost before implantation. StephenB: Based on my ongoing research and your continuing input, I would say that the miscarriage rates are 10-20% [known pregnancy] and 30-50% [from conception to the end]. Which is consistent with our original statement. Mung: Zachriel seems to be arguing that in the first week of a pregnancy a human caused abortion is virtually indistinguishable from one that occurs due to other factors. Huh? Are you referring to birth control that may prevent implantation? Mung: I thought science had the answer to everything. Actually, that's the amazing thing about science. Science can give us reasonably reliable (albeit tentative) answers to some questions, while the vast majority of the universe is shrouded in darkness.Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST}

From the Judeo-Christian perspective, the Torah makes it clear that an unborn baby is a "life". It seems also clear to be relevant when a woman knows she is pregnant. Given that even without modern technology a woman usually knows she is pregnant in a relatively short period of time and secondly that modern permissible abortion can take place for an extended period of time after a woman would know, the decision to abort is one of willfully taking life, I.e. murder. It is impossible to extrapolate to determine the "true" spontaneous abortion rate if you wish to include from conception so including that stage and quoting 50% as factual is pure speculation and often driven by in vitro experiments and observations which cannot be directly correlated to the in vivo scenario. Let us also not forget many of the loudest materialists (Dawkins, Harris et al) have even made the clear assertion that there could be justification for termination of ex vivo born babies based on genetic or other illnesses that they perceive to be burdening or discomfort to the child. Of course, this is the natural place that materialist logic will take you. Why allow weaker genes to be passed on? It will only hinder evolutionary progress. Etc. Us Westeners like to think we are so civil and moral, judge the harsh penal systems of Muslim countries for example whilst we happily allow and proactively support the murders of millions of innocents every year.Dr JDD_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PST}

I just don't understand why in this modern age science cannot even tell us if a woman is pregnant or not. I thought science had the answer to everything. Silly me.Mung_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PST}

StephenB, I would say that that is probably on the low end, but not unreasonable as there is still a lot to learn about how often fertilization takes place and the success rate of implantation. One thing to keep in mind when studying miscarriage rates is that - and this would be surprising to most people - the medical community is divided on the definition of "pregnant". Many define it as the moment when fertilization begins, but many others define it as the moment when implantation takes place, about a week after fertilization. That's one reason why stats on miscarriage vary so much - many don't count the death of an embryo during the first week. (Perhaps they should compromise and just say that they're a "a little bit pregnant" ;-)goodusername_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PST}

Zachriel seems to be arguing that in the first week of a pregnancy a human caused abortion is virtually indistinguishable from one that occurs due to other factors. Therefore human caused abortions are perfectly natural.Mung_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PST}

goodusername
But studies are showing that about half or more of miscarriages occur by this point. So it appears that in these particular studies, that they don’t even recognize that the woman is pregnant until the most dangerous part of development is already over.
Based on my ongoing research and your continuing input, I would say that the miscarriage rates are 10-20% [known pregnancy] and 30-50% [from conception to the end]. I have a good inside resource that I can contact on Monday that will provide a more authoritative answer.StephenB_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PST}

So Roy, I'm very glad that you do not hold that 'disgusting, vile, and despicable', position on abortion and the selling of body tissues. And truly am sorry that I attributed that position to you if you do not hold it. But you do realize, in Zach's overall defense of abortion in this very thread, that that is the exact position that Zach is ultimately defending? or did the little matter of the subject of the OP escape your notice when you decided to side up with zach? and, since you now apparently consider me 'vile and disgusting', (instead of being rightly disgusted that Zach would even attempt to defend such a morally vile position in the first place), does this mean that you are not going to retract your false statements as to Darwin being a 'foremost scientist' of his day which he certainly was not? Or is your dramatic over the top disgust of me, instead of the abortion issue itself, just a side issue to distract from the fact that you were wrong in your claim about Darwin's true rank as a scientist? A rank which was, in reality, of the 'stamp collecting' category of a scientist?bornagain77_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PST}

Roy, You'll say: "bornagain77, you are disgusting" but you wont say: "the crushing of baby’s skulls in the womb and then selling their tissues for money" is disgusting? ? Andrewasauber_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PST}

But then again roy, being an atheist with no objective morality, an atheist who condones the crushing of baby’s skulls in the womb and then selling their tissues for money, ...
bornagain77, you are disgusting. Your statement above is a vile, despicable, deliberate libel. I do not condone any such thing, and never have. You have no basis for that accusation other than your own bigotry, and no reason other than derogation to include it. You are beneath contempt. RoyRoy_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PST}

StephenB,
In any case, the very first sentence in the report is clear enough:
Well, it's not clear enough because that leaves out the fact that they don't detect miscarriages that occur before implantation. They touch on that a few paragraphs later when they write that "this method underestimates the miscarriage rate" because it doesn't detect the very earliest miscarriages. The method they are using to detect miscarriages is they test for the presence of human chorionic gonadotropin, and then continue testing to see if the hormone disappears (indicating a miscarriage). The hormone is made by the placenta. But the placenta doesn't even begin developing until after a successful implantation, about 8 days after fertilization. And then the placenta has to make enough of the hormone to be detected. But studies are showing that about half or more of miscarriages occur by this point. So it appears that in these particular studies, that they don't even recognize that the woman is pregnant until the most dangerous part of development is already over.goodusername_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST}

Roy, Darwin was certainly not a "foremost" scientist during his day. You might want to look up the definition of foremost before you accuse me of lack of integrity:
fore·most most prominent in rank, importance, or position. before anything else in rank, importance, or position; in the first place.
Darwin's achievements were trivial and even wrong compared to Faraday's and Maxwell's 'foremost' achievements in science during that time. For instance, Zach states:
Here is a list of Darwin’s primary scientific output: * The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * The Breeding of Animals * The structure and distribution of coral reefs. * Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers
As to zoology, although Darwin collected many specimens during the voyage and should be noted for that achievement, Alfred Wallace himself can be argued to be foremost in that area during Darwin's day since he did far more field work than Darwin ever did. Moreover, zoology is 'stamp collecting' as far the real science practiced by Maxwell and Faraday is concerned!
"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." -- Ernest Rutherford
As to his claimed achievement of,,,
"Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle"
Darwin is now known to have been dead wrong on a prediction that he had made concerning the 'Natural history and geology' of a country he had visited in South America on the Beagle. The following video is very interesting for it shows a geological formation that is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic flood, yet Charles Darwin himself had 'predicted' the geological formation was formed 'gradually':
Where Darwin Went Wrong - geology video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o
Being dead wrong in a specific prediction about the history and geology of a geological formation DOES NOT make one 'foremost' in that area. As to his claimed foremost authority in "The Breeding of Animals" All I have to say is, 'You have got to be kidding'! Breeders of horses in Kentucky during Darwin's time had far more knowledge about animal husbandry than Darwin ever did. If Darwin would have been 'foremost' in that area (i.e. in animal breeding, which farmers and ranchers had been doing for thousands of years before Darwin was even born by the way), Darwin would have soon realized to there are limits to the amount of variation that you can expect to get out of a specific kind of animal through selective breeding,,,
“Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) “This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create…. (Quoted in “Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She’s Not Controversial, She’s Right,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).) THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT - IGOR POPOV - 2009 Excerpt: There are limitations to variability. "The real number of variations is lesser than expected one. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. ...However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability... The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism." http://www.ludusvitalis.org/textos/32/32-11_popov.pdf GMO Bulls Now A Reality - January 11, 2014 Excerpt: "Due to genetic selection and experiments, the Belgian Blue is a humongous species of Bull, packed with muscles and meat. ...There is a gene that regulates the growth of muscles in cattle, These cows have been selectively bred from animals that contain a copy of this gene that doesn't work, as a result their muscles grow far larger than normal [They have a deletion mutation that prevents control of muscular growth = loss of genetic material]. ..Their uninhibited muscle growth presents a lot of health hazards, calves can develop enlarged tongues and stiff legs which make it difficult for them to eat and move, leading to an early and painful death." http://naturalhealthwarriors.com/gmo-bulls-now-a-reality/ K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems - June 11, 2010 Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” (1) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/k%C2%B4necting-the-dots-modeling-functional-integration-in-biological-systems/ "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies,, in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-evolutionary-tree-continues-to-fall-falsified-predictions-backpedaling-hgts-and-serendipity-squared/#comment-392638
And Darwin, if he were truly 'foremost' in this area of animal breeding, would have also soon realized that inbreeding presents insurmountable problems for his theory, and would have thus never published his theory.
Inbreeding - Pros and cons Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm 100 Years of Breed “Improvement” – Comparison photos of Pure Breds from 100 years ago to today – Sept. 2012 Excerpt: "Several "pure bred" dogs are now so incredibly inbred they have many genetic problems that severely reduce their quality of life." The dogs on the left are from the 1915 book, ‘Breeds of All Nations‘ by W.E. Mason. The examples on the right are modern examples from multiple sources (which show the progressive genetic deterioration of the pure breds). http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/ “When first cousins marry, their children have a reduction of life expectancy of nearly 10 years. Why is this? It is because inbreeding exposes the genetic mistakes within the genome (slightly detrimental recessive mutations) that have not yet had time to “come to the surface”. Inbreeding is like a sneak preview, or foreshadowing, of where we are going to be genetically as a whole as a species in the future. The reduced life expectancy of inbred children reflects the overall aging of the genome that has accumulated thus far, and reveals the hidden reservoir of genetic damage that have been accumulating in our genomes.” Sanford; Genetic Entropy; page 147
Far from being foremost in animal breeding, Darwin's ignorance of animal breeding is clearly revealed because he ignored those two insurmountable problems for his theory, (i.e limits to variation and inbreeding), problems which are commonly known to people well versed in animal husbandry, but Darwin published his book anyway. As to the two other claimed 'foremost' achievements by Darwin in science:
* Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers
Although both those examples are clearly examples of intelligent design (references given upon request), I consider both those examples relatively trivial as far as hard science itself in concerned. i.e. Can you say 'stamp collecting'? As axel so aptly put it, Darwin 'was just another bumbling Mr Magoo' To summarize roy,,, you and zach both, through your lack of integrity, have greatly overstated Darwin's contribution to science, and have both overlooked gargantuan mistakes that he made in his 'science', just so to support your atheistic bias. And no, considering the lack of integrity I see from atheists day in and day out, I do not expect you to retract your statements. But then again roy, being an atheist with no objective morality, an atheist who condones the crushing of baby's skulls in the womb and then selling their tissues for money, means never, ever, having to say you are sorry does it not?bornagain77_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PST}

goodusername
Trying to detect such early pregnancies with hormones is very difficult – and so when the same type of study was done 5 years later, but with newer more sensitive methods – the number jumped to 31%: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07.....riage.html
I am aware of that study, but I do not have access to it. In any case, the very first sentence in the report is clear enough: "Thirty-one percent of all conceptions end in miscarriage, usually in the early months of pregnancy and often before women even know they are pregnant." So, we have now considered two pieces of evidence, one direct reference to a study (mine) and another indirect reference to a study (yours), neither of which supports the claims that you and Zachriel are making, namely that 50% or more of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Still, I will do more research over the weekend to solidify the point either way.StephenB_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PST}

“Seriously?” Yes seriously! I don’t care how many atta-boys Darwin may have been awarded from his colleagues before he published his book. Darwin certainly was NOT a “foremost” scientist of his day such as say Maxwell or Faraday. Not even close to being in their “foremost” league!
The members of the Royal Society committee, who were familiar with Darwin's earlier works, considered Darwin to be one of the most important contributors to science at the time. I see no reason to reject their view for your less-informed one. I doubt Zachriel does either.
The main point is to actually look at his theory and recognize it for the tea-leaf reading pseudo-science that it actually is!
I understand why you might want to distract from your ignorance of Darwin's achievements prior to publication of Origin, but in this specific case his theory of evolution is completely irrelevant. The main point here is his earlier work. Your insistence on attempting to divert elsewhere merely confirms you have nothing to offer. Roy P.S. Some-one with integrity would have withdrawn their accusation against Zachriel when faced with facts that support his viewpoint.Roy_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST}

harry: You never answered my question: Because you were using the question to sidestep our own question concerning your claim about "engineering". harry: Do you think it is wrong that children are routinely murdered in the U.S. who are older and more viable than many patients routinely cared for in modern newborn intensive care units? Your are conflating abortion with murder. Late-term abortion is not routine, and is rarely elective.Zachriel_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PST}

Zachriel, You never answered my question: "Do you think it is wrong that children are routinely murdered in the U.S. who are older and more viable than many patients routinely cared for in modern newborn intensive care units?" In the NICU wanted children are precious babies. Outside of it, older, more viable, but unwanted children are "tissue" to be parceled out and sold for a profit. This is irrational. While human body parts apparently have some commercial value, the value of a human life is inestimable; it is infinitely greater than the sum total of its merchandisable body parts. The value of a human life is not rooted in its being wanted by another, whether that be living and whole or dead and in pieces. Since, in another discussion on this site, I couldn't get you to acknowledge that there was such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong, I suspect you approve of this situation in spite of its irrationality. Either way, please explain your position and the principles upon which it is based.harry_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PST}

"Seriously?" Yes seriously! I don't care how many atta-boys Darwin may have been awarded from his colleagues before he published his book. Darwin certainly was NOT a "foremost" scientist of his day such as say Maxwell or Faraday. Not even close to being in their "foremost" league! Moreover, leading scientists of Darwin's day mocked Darwin for his unscientific theory that he promoted in his book. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-day-the-music-died/#comment-572455 Which is the main point anyway. i.e. Darwinism is, as leading scientists of his day pointed out to him, a pseudo-science! The main point is not about artificially propping up Darwin's reputation to see if he had the esteem of his friends in the societies that he joined, as you atheists would like to pretend it is. The main point is to actually look at his theory and recognize it for the tea-leaf reading pseudo-science that it actually is! https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-day-the-music-died/#comment-572465 As I said before, "when history is finally written, Darwin will be remembered as one of the worst charlatans of pseudo-science ever." Of note, Maxwell and Faraday, whom no one would dispute as to being the 'foremost' scientists of Darwin's day, were both devout Christians. The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell - Ian Hutchinson http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwellbornagain77_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PST}

Zachriel states: “Darwin was a already a foremost scientist of his day” That claim is a lie.
Seriously? Even the most cursory research would disclose that before Origin was published Darwin was already a fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal Zoological Society and the Linnaean Society; had been vice-president of the Geological Society of London; and had been awarded a Royal Medal for one of the "most important contributions to the advancement of Natural Knowledge". RoyRoy_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PST}

StephenB: No, the correct number is 15%. The source of your information is unreliable. The National Institutes of Health is one of the world's foremost medical research centers, and a valid authority on questions of medical science.Zachriel_{July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply