I don't think Darwin pronounced himself on erosion, Jojo. Erosion is a long-observed and understood phenomenon. Ask any farmer, or road builder.
The Biblical view requires faith and does not pretend to be scientifically provable. Erosion is based upon physical phenomena. Check out the Chesapeake Bay Watershed model if you are in any doubt about this. Cheers, Lawry On Aug 4, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field > of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is > rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, > anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire > edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is > also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry. > > Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of > any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a > prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. > That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to > many faulty conclusions. > > To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If > you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand > Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado > river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you > presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible > explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was > carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both > explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one > explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a > naturalistic explanation, it does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't > science to be about the search for the truth and the truth is wider than > Darwinian dogma. In this sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion > because people adhere to its precepts by faith without question, all afraid > to question it because they ran the risk of being "excommunicated" from the > field. > > My problem is not with science per se. My problem is the amount of BAD > science out there that masquerades as the truth. Hopefully, I can at least > make someone here at least consider that Darwinian Evolution is not the"hard > fact-based" science that it claims to be. > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Walker > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions > > Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> a écrit : > >> Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical >> characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes >> much to the confusion of the debate. > > What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of > evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you > seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic > points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, for > example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside physics > altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect that the > scientific method should be better applied to a handful of experiments that > have not been approached with a sufficient degree of objectivity. > > I defer to physicists on almost all topics relating to physics because I have > not made the effort to understand the intricacies of what they're saying and > feel it beyond my competence to assert a strong opinion in such matters, even > if I occasionally have questions here and there. I feel even less in a > position to tell physicists that they are confused about the field as a > whole. I find myself in a similar situation with regard to evolutionary > biology; having a vague sense of the limits of my understanding, I am happy > to defer to them on the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Here we are > talking about the hard sciences and not literature or the social sciences. > > What is the basis of your judgment that you have the requisite understanding > of evolutionary biology to set aside the main conclusions of the field and > call (Darwinian) evolution a kind of religious faith? Do you propose a world > in which expert knowledge beyond a handful of fields has no place? Without > having obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology and attained recognized mastery > of the field, how is one to distinguish between an awareness of > fundamental difficulties in the assumptions of the field, on one hand, and > one's own lack of knowledge of the experimental basis of its conclusions, and > the specific details of those conclusions, on the other? > > Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of your position. > > Eric >
